6901

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravimeter

« on: November 25, 2017, 05:17:31 PM »

If ones of the uses for this device is finding submarines

Who actually found a submarine with one?

6902

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 06:23:56 AM »

We can see Venus transiting the sun - a simple, improvised pinhole camera allows you to see Venus as a black dot in front of the sun.

Venus only is seen during its transit. Anywhere else in the sun's vicinity, it is invisible.

Google the phrase: "stars visible during 2017 eclipse" - and you'll see approximately half a million hits - mostly from the estimated 5 million people who saw it -

A Google Image search with that phrase shows no such pictures of a starry skyscape taken during the eclipse.

and some large number of people who are eclipse experts explaining what would be seen during the eclipse.  Yeah - stars and planets are quite visible during the minutes of totality of a total eclipse.   In fact, the famous first ever confirmation of Einsteins' theory of relativity came from measuring the position of a star during a total eclipse.

Who saw all the stars?

If stars were "missing" that would be expected to be visible - you could be REALLY sure that an astronomer or someone else who was familiar with the skies would have mentioned it during one of the 635 total eclipses that have happened over the past thousand years.

Please produce records that every star appeared in the sky during every eclipse.

If that had happened then the existence of the shadow object would be an accepted part of mainstream science...but it's not.

You are assuming that there are people looking for every star during the moment of the eclipse.

There appears to be no record of anyone seeing this immense, mysterious dark circle hiding the stars.

Yet again, you are just making up things up. Can you show that there are teams of people around the world looking for every star in the sky during the moment of the eclipse?

Why does the shadow object need to be huge.  Well, as anyone who has seen a lunar eclipse will tell you, you see the edge of an obviously large shadow being cast over the moon.  You can see from the evident curvature of the shadow that it's MUCH bigger than the moon.  Now, if (as you claim) the shadow object is close to the sun then it has to be larger than the sun in order to cast a fairly hard-edged "umbral" shadow that's larger than the moon.  If the shadow object was smaller, it would need to be much closer to the moon than it is to the sun (as indeed it is in RET).  A small shadow caster, close to the sun would produce a VERY soft penumbral shadow...and that's not what we see.

You are making certain assumptions about how light emanates from the sun, and that would require knowledge of the nature of the sun. If the sun projects its light outwards like a point light source then a body smaller than the sun can cast a large shadow.

And if the sun's light does not emanate like a point light source, then the shadow object needs only to be a little bigger than the sun to cast large shadows, not "a huge sphere 300 to 500 miles across".

Well, the sun, moon and shadow object have to be in an almost exact straight line in order for a lunar eclipse to happen - and if that is the case then any single planet forms a plane with those three objects lying on one edge and the planet defining the orientation of the plane.   So, yeah - they're all in the same plane - by definition. Again, I don't see the relevance of that comment.

The relevance of the comment is that if the planets are on a different plane than the sun and the Shadow Object, the shadow object will have a hard time casting a shadow on them.

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

I would like you to tell me how the sun can shine through the 100 mile tall slimmer of atmosphere around the earth and widen out the light to fill the entire 2,159 mile diameter of the moon if the sun is not a point light source in the Round Earth model.

6903

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 06:05:12 AM »

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

The shadow is direct evidence that an object was somewhere between the path of the sun and the moon. This is direct evidence of an object in RET or FET.

There are a number of conclusion which follow from this in the Flat Earth model; such as since, during the eclipse, there are no visible celestial bodies at night on a path to the sun, that celestial body must be on the day side of the earth.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

Mercury and Venus are traveling along the underside of the sun, not the sun's side.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

We have deduced that the Shadow Object is slightly off tilt with the plane of the sun, but not much is known about its distance from the sun.

6904

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 02:44:24 AM »

Oooh!   I'd hoped someone would talk about the mysterious shadow object...and it's Tom!  That's a bonus!

So let me see if I have this right.

This "thing" orbits the sun...and you're saying that it does so sufficiently closely that it's always in the daytime sky.   So you're saying that it would NEVER block out stars or planets because the only time it would get between stars/planets and us would be during daylight when we can't see the stars/planets anyway.

Is that a correct summary?

Correct.

So I have lot's more excitingly difficult questions here:

a) Why doesn't it block other objects such as Venus which is clearly visible in the daytime sky either just around dawn or just around dusk?  If Venus were mysteriously to vanish from the sky - I'm pretty sure someone would have mentioned it!

Venus is not seen when it is close to the sun, it disappears into the brightness of the sky just like the moon does and anything else.

b) Why doesn't it block out stars during a midday-ish total solar eclipse when it would DEFINITELY be above the horizon and the sky is dark enough to see stars?  There ought to be a huge circle of blotted out stars...and there aren't.

Who says that all stars are visible during a Solar Eclipse?

What makes you think that this Shadow Object would need to be a "huge"?

c) Why does it never block out the sun itself if it's orbiting around the sun?

We never see the sun from its side, for the same reason we never see the moon from its side.

d) If it's close to the sun and casts a HUGE shadow over the moon during a lunar eclipse (the shadow is MUCH larger than the moon), then this object has to be much MUCH bigger than the sun.  Not 30 miles across - but (rough estimate) between 300 and 500 miles across.   We'd be able to see something that gigantic blotting out stars LONG after sunset and LONG before dawn.

Does a giant hand puppet shadow projected onto a wall mean that a giant hand must be creating that shadow?

e) During a lunar eclipse - the shadow cast by this object doesn't completely cover the moon - it's MUCH bigger than that - so the light blocked by the shadow object would also prevent sunlight from reaching naked-eye-visible outer-planets - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn...anything that's lit by the sun that happened to be close enough to the moon during a partial lunar ecllipse.

You are assuming that the sun, moon, shadow object and planets are all on the same plane.

6905

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 02:30:18 AM »

The Wiki article asserts that this may be a new object, or it may be a known object.

Your statement was 

a body known as the Shadow Object

When a new user asked a question your answer was definitive. When someone scratches the surface of that answer, you're saying it might be known or it might be new. Flat Earth science changes fast.

I know what my statement was. The body which creates the shadow is the Shadow Object. That is definitive. Whatever casts the shadow is called the Shadow Object. What is not definitive is what the Shadow Object is.

This is not accurate. With proper instruments and filters the surface of the sun and objects transiting its surface are commonly photographed. Mercury and Venus regularly transit the surface of the sun (from our viewpoint). A Google image search will provide numerous examples. I have personally looked at sunspots through a telescope with a solar filter.

Mercury and Venus disappear immediately after transiting the sun, even with a solar filter.

But getting back to your statement... If the mystery object is a satellite of the sun that means it orbits the sun, but you say it is always on the day side of Earth. How could this be? If it orbits the sun it should sometimes be on the far side of the sun and it should be visible just before sunrise or after sunset.

It would only be visible if it is transiting the sun. If it is in the vicinity of the sun, but not transiting its surface, it is invisible.

We do not see the sun from its side, however. When the sun sets, we are not looking at the sun from its side in Flat Earth Theory, just as we never see the moon from its side. The rotation of objects in long distance perspective may be limited. See this discussion on the rotation of the moon.

6906

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of Flat Earth?

« on: November 22, 2017, 05:24:05 AM »

Youtube videos are not evidence of anything as the motives of those on both sides cannot be trusted. Where are the peer-reviewd academic papers that evidence a flat earth? Are there any reputable scientists in any field that will stand behind the claim that the earth is flat?

Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed The Earth, which ran for over 75 issues.

Do you think that sounds like an objective peer review source Tom?

Sure, what's wrong with it? A repeat of the Bedford Canal Experiment was also published in The English Mechanic, a scientific journal.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment

"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.

The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!" (1)

6907

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of Flat Earth?

« on: November 22, 2017, 05:09:25 AM »

Youtube videos are not evidence of anything as the motives of those on both sides cannot be trusted. Where are the peer-reviewd academic papers that evidence a flat earth? Are there any reputable scientists in any field that will stand behind the claim that the earth is flat?

Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed The Earth, which ran for over 75 issues.

6908

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:53:24 PM »

What empirical evidence do you have for this object?

The fact that there is a shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something to cast that shadow.

The Wiki article asserts that this may be a new object, or it may be a known object.

If is exists, it would have to periodically block our view of other objects (sun, stars, planets). How can its effects only be revealed during an eclipse?

The Shadow Object is thought to be a satellite of the sun that is always on the "day side" of the earth. We don't see any celestial bodies near the sun. Everything is washed out by the sun's light. Even when we see the moon in the daytime sky, we can only see it when it is far from the sun where daylight is not as intense.

Further question. Your wiki animations show the sun and moon having the same orbital diameters. If they orbit at the same diameter from the uni-polar center and the same height, there would be a possibility of a collision. Maybe they orbit at the same diameter but a different altitude (moon lower.)  With the moon orbiting once every ~28 days and the sun once a day, the sun would then pass over the moon once a day. Shouldn't some part of the Earth see an eclipse each day?

That animation is just for illustrative purposes and does not reflect actual movements or positions.

6909

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:29:49 PM »

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun and the observer. The Lunar Eclipse occurs when a body known as the Shadow Object passes between the Sun and the Moon.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

6910

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of Flat Earth?

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:20:27 PM »

I'm not currently a believer in the hypothesis that the earth is flat, but I am curious to understand the argument. In a quick review of the FAQ I was not swayed at all by the section titled 'What evidence do you have?'. I was especially not moved by the reference to the Bedford Level Experiment because it took place nearly 200 years ago, and has since been debunked.

It was not "debunked".

If such a simple experiment could prove the earth was flat, why has it not been replicated a dozen, or a hundred times over?

Have you checked out the water convexity experiments on Youtube?

How does the flat earth hypothesis explain the tides, seasons, or even the recent eclipse that took place across the continental United States?

That is a lot to cover there. You should narrow down your questions to a single topic.

Is the flat earth movement related at all to young earth creationist beliefs?

No.

6911

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 10:39:20 PM »

Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.

If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right?  Your rules as I recall.

Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.

6912

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 07:42:33 PM »

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

6913

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 21, 2017, 07:30:28 PM »

The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Your ignorance of science and physics is telling.  A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it.  It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.

This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.

Well, it's a bad one and not obvious.  You repeatedly said bullets fly straight lines.  How can anyone take you seriously?

I clearly said "bullet/laser" and remarked "(or a laser)" at some points. You even quoted me where I said "bullet/laser" in your above remarks. It takes only a little reading comprehension to understand what that means to the discussion.

6914

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 07:17:12 PM »

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.

When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.

That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.

That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity.

No one ever said anything about conclusive evidence.

An empirical experience only allow us to make an empirical conclusion about the world around us. When we weigh the evidence of something we can directly see against an invisible puller particle, the evidence is just heavily weighed in favor of the thing we can see and experience.

Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction,

The cavendish experiment is inconclusive.

combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity.

There is nothing wrong with a mechanism for something to be unknown.

There would be nothing wrong with you saying that the mechanism for gravity is "unknown," either, but that is not what you guys are telling us. You are telling us that bendy space/invisible puller particles  that no one has ever discovered are accelerating me to the earth.

Furthermore, even if you left it as "unknown," gravity requires an entirely new branch of physics to work, while the acceleration of objects can occur through known physics, putting UA into favor once again.

6915

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 21, 2017, 07:00:57 PM »

The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Your ignorance of science and physics is telling.  A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it.  It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.

This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.

6916

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 21, 2017, 06:21:34 PM »

Ahhh!   So now you're playing the "non-Euclidean geometry" card...I wondered how long it would be before you got THAT desperate.

I've asked you to demonstrate that the continuous rules of trigonometry and geometry apply to the real world on numerous occasions. You have yet to show that the perspective lines would actually continue approaching each other forever as Elucid predicted in his Euclidean geometry.

So you've given up with the other pathetic explanations?  No more magic perspective?

My argument has been consistent. Questioning trigonometry's application to the real world is questioning Euclidean Geometry and Euclidean Space.

Well, I'm sorry - it doesn't help.   If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.   When the sunlight peeks between the leaves of the tree - that final path of light from tree and from sun have to be exactly the same.

What are you talking about? Curved? No one said anything about curving.

Also, any geometry that distorted the position of the sun by that much would also distort it's shape to a similar degree - so the sun couldn't possibly be circular when it was distorted enough to reach the horizon.

Where do you get that the sun would be distorted?

Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete in that the perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous. That is what I have been telling you for a while now.

There has been some confusion. Let me clear some things up here:

1. Space is non-euclidean in the sense that geometry of space is discrete. Perspective lines merge to a finite point at 90 degrees and are not continuous.

2. The nature of perspective changes the ORIENTATION of bodies around you. A change of the orientation means that there is a change to where bodies are positioned around you. If you had a super powerful rifle you would need to shoot at the degree to which they appear in reality, not the degree Elucid predicted with his ideas.

3. If you could shoot a bullet at the sun on the horizon, it will hit the sun. It does not mean that the bullet "curved upwards" or whatever crazy thing you are imaging in your head.

I simplified things and said that the sun is at 90 degrees. The visible sun is always technically at some small degree above the horizon, even when it is setting. If you were to aim at the sun, your bullet would travel upwards above the horizon at a slight angle, in a straight line.

4. To bring this in line with our mechanism for sunset, and to talk more specifically about what is at exactly 90 degrees, 90 degrees is technically in line with the waves and imperfections of the earth surface. While the perspective lines are perfect, the surface of the earth is not perfect and little waves and imperfections of the earth's surface will provide a barrier where the sun and other bodies can hide behind as they merge with the perspective lines of the earth, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

If you were to shoot a bullet (or a laser) at the horizon at exactly 90 degrees, it would bring the bullet to the surface of the earth.

5. The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Under normal continuous Euclidean space it is impossible for a horizontal projectile to hit a wave below it; so it should travel forever. But the orienting nature of perspective (which is really just an allegory for how space presents itself to us) makes that wave appear in space at 90 degrees eye level, and so if you shoot at that angle that is where it will go.

The actual paths of these objects from a side view is immaterial. Your side view model is just a theoretical construct based on Euclidean space for how things *should* be positioned based on some continuous trigonometry rules. By pointing back to that model you and telling me that things are "curving" you are merely insisting that space operates according to Euclidean rules, when those continuous rules have never really been proven.

The entire scenario can be empirically described in terms of where things appear being where things are. What we see and what we experience is reality, and when we point at objects on the horizon we are really pointing at those objects, not into some void of infinity, and all of this trumps Elucid's hypothesis about a continuous universe.

6917

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 05:23:34 PM »

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Now, that's funny Tom.   Irony meter off the charts.  You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.

If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.

It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.

6918

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 03:42:03 PM »

If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?

The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.

Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

6919

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here. How do you explain this?

« on: November 20, 2017, 09:52:24 PM »

Did you try checking the bottom of the article for the source that information comes from?

literally a *youtube* video and the very wikipedia article contradicting your page. No evidence from a valid source stating reasons for the inferences.

The Fox documentary says that the report was not found. The Wikipedia page says [citation needed] next to the assertion someone put in that the report was delivered.

6920

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here. How do you explain this?

« on: November 20, 2017, 09:34:33 PM »

Maybe the wiki should use some revisions:

During the start of the Apollo missions former NASA Safety Inspector Thomas Ronald Baron participated in a Congressional Hearing where he complained that NASA was not operating a real safe space program.

He complained about NASA's fraudulent unsafe practices, low quality control, and the practice of keeping every employee in the dark about the big picture{source?}. R. E. Reyes, an engineer in KSC's Preflight Operations Branch, said Baron filed so many negative charges against NASA that, had KSC heeded them all, NASA would not have had a man on the moon until the year 2069.{source?}

Thomas was a real fear that the program could be stopped in its tracks
—Julian Scheer, Former NASA Spokesman {source?}

Baron testified before congress that the Apollo program was such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon {source?}. His claim and his opinions made him the target {source?}.

Then, ironically, Baron himself was stopped in his tracks. Exactly one week after he testified before Congress and only days before his report was set to be released Baron's car was stocked hit by a train. Baron, his wife and his step daughter were killed instantly. The incident was deemed by the police to be an accident. Baron's unpublished 500 page Congressional Report detailing the specific deficiencies of the Apollo program was never found publicly published after being delivered to Congress before his death.

One small extra bit on the end there, as Thomas himself stated his report was delivered to the head of the Congressional committee exploring this. This quite firmly plants the trail of ownership as ending with Congress as far as public record is concerned. It not being released to the public is very different than not being 'found' (whatever that might mean since it implies he had it on him at time of death).

The listed quote by Julian Scheer I as well would be very interested in seeing a source for, as a search for it only brings up the TFES Wiki page. Sounds so far like the claim recently on the other site that Colombus got into a fight with his crew over his belief the Earth is flat. Although I suppose there's always the famous quote: "The internet, like myself, can never tell a lie." - Abraham Lincoln.

Did you try checking the bottom of the article for the source that information comes from?

http://www.clavius.org/baron.html Seems a fairly decent breakdown of the issues your wiki raises about Thomas. History claims the report was indeed delivered to Congress. That it disappeared isn't necessarily evidence of foul play either. It not being strong evidence is a compelling point in favor of it not being hung onto for more normal reasons.

I know you're trying to make it seem like whistleblowing is highly dangerous here, but protections for those doing so are also much higher than in Thomas's time, not to mention many countries very likely willing to take someone in and come out with their own evidence in this scenario.

Clavius is a NASA-authored site. The authors admit that it was written by "space industry professionals".