ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 11:32:36 AM

Title: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 11:32:36 AM
I recently published an article on the aulis.com website describing what I consider to be "anomalies" with the account of how the Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Al Bean examined the Surveyor 3 lander.

I was asked by some members of the Unexplained Mysteries forum if I would join ApolloHoax and debate the issue here. I am happy to that, and will attempt to answer any questions. The article can be found here:

https://www.aulis.com/surveyor3.htm

It would be helpful if people looked at the article before commenting, as that would save me from having to explain what it is all about.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: AtomicDog on June 01, 2019, 01:07:23 PM
Not how it works. You present you argument here, and your link is for reference.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 01:48:20 PM
In that the OP was specifically invited here specifically to discuss the article in question, it doesn't seem unreasonable to read the article where it stands.  I personally won't have time to digest anything of substance until next week.

The stipulation that arguments appear here rather than elsewhere has roots in prior bad experiences.  In general, we like the claims and the rebuttal of the claims to appear in the same place.  If the claims are there and the rebuttal here, one can easily read one without the others.  And it has often been the case that claims sourced from elsewhere are brought here by people other than their authors, and the rejoinder too often then is, "You'll have to ask the author."  That obviously won't do.  But the OP has clearly identified the article as his original work and seems to be willing to argue it here in good faith.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
My argument is presented in my article. But, okay, here is a condensed version.

Photographs of Surveyor 3 clearly show it is discolored due to being covered in dust. The astronauts, however, insisted the discoloring was caused by the paint having been been baked in the Sun. Then, after half an hour examining the lander, they suddenly realized it was covered in dust. I find that hard to believe.

Also, as far as I can see, there has never been a convincing explanation for why the Surveyor 3 was covered in dust. A small amount was deposited during the Surveyor's "difficult" landing - the T.V. images sent back were blurred, and that seems to have been caused by dust deposited on the camera's mirror. Explanations for the dust shown on the Apollo 12 photographs have included "lunar fountains" and the electrostatic attraction of the lander. The most popular explanation is that dust was blown onto the Surveyor when the LM flew past prior to landing. When asked by Mission Control, Conrad and Bean had said any dust would have flown over the top of the lander.
         
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
Conrad and Bean had said any dust would have flown over the top of the lander.

I disagree that this would have been the case.  It would have hugged the ground since that's the minimal energy path.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 02:19:47 PM
Conrad and Bean had said any dust would have flown over the top of the lander.

I disagree that this would have been the case.  It would have hugged the ground since that's the minimal energy path.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 02:29:49 PM
Can you explain what you mean by that?

When a jet strikes a surface at approximately right angles, the minimal energy path of the post-impingement flow is along the surface, parallel to it.  In the case of a rocket plume in a vacuum, there is some vertical expansion moving outward because the plume still has residual static pressure.  But the principal flow is along the surface.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 02:41:51 PM
Can you explain what you mean by that?

When a jet strikes a surface at approximately right angles, the minimal energy path of the post-impingement flow is along the surface, parallel to it.  In the case of a rocket plume in a vacuum, there is some vertical expansion moving outward because the plume still has residual static pressure.  But the principal flow is along the surface.

So are you saying the the Surveyor was beneath the plume? Or with what you are describing, does that not matter?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 02:45:32 PM
I'm saying that claims that the dust would have flown over the top of the (Surveyor) lander have no basis in fluid dynamics.  If the LM plume struck the ground at roughly right angles anywhere near Surveyor, there is every expectation that the Surveyor would have been pelted with the entrained dust.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 02:56:45 PM
I'm saying that claims that the dust would have flown over the top of the (Surveyor) lander have no basis in fluid dynamics.  If the LM plume struck the ground at roughly right angles anywhere near Surveyor, there is every expectation that the Surveyor would have been pelted with the entrained dust.

I am still not sure what your answer to my question is. If the Surveyor was beyond the boundary of the plume then are we still talking about fluid mechanics? Or are we talking about a flat sheet of particles moving at very high velocity?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 03:03:05 PM
I am still not sure what your answer to my question is. If the Surveyor was beyond the boundary of the plume...

I do not represent that the Surveyor was or wasn't beyond "the boundary of the plume" in the sense of being more or less directly under the DPS.  If the plume impinged on the lunar surface anywhere near the Surveyor, at roughly a right angle, there is every expectation that the post-impingement flow would entrain dust particles, that it would remain close to the surface, and that it would not go over the top of the Surveyor as claimed.  I understand your argument to be that the DPS plume cannot be responsible for depositing dust on the Surveyor because it is claimed the dust would go over the top of the Surveyor.  That argument is not consistent with the known characteristics of fluids in these circumstances.

Quote
...then are we still talking about fluid mechanics? Or are we talking about a flat sheet of particles moving at very high velocity?

How is that different from fluid mechanics?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: AtomicDog on June 01, 2019, 03:09:05 PM
In that the OP was specifically invited here specifically to discuss the article in question, it doesn't seem unreasonable to read the article where it stands.  I personally won't have time to digest anything of substance until next week.

The stipulation that arguments appear here rather than elsewhere has roots in prior bad experiences.  In general, we like the claims and the rebuttal of the claims to appear in the same place.  If the claims are there and the rebuttal here, one can easily read one without the others.  And it has often been the case that claims sourced from elsewhere are brought here by people other than their authors, and the rejoinder too often then is, "You'll have to ask the author."  That obviously won't do.  But the OP has clearly identified the article as his original work and seems to be willing to argue it here in good faith.

You have a point. On the other hand, links can go dead over time. I've read many a thread of past hoax arguments full of dead links. Presenting the theory in the OP lessens the chance of future confusion. But since the argument has been presented, the issue is now moot.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 01, 2019, 03:18:23 PM
My argument is presented in my article. But, okay, here is a condensed version.

Photographs of Surveyor 3 clearly show it is discolored due to being covered in dust. The astronauts, however, insisted the discoloring was caused by the paint having been been baked in the Sun. Then, after half an hour examining the lander, they suddenly realized it was covered in dust. I find that hard to believe.

Why do you find it hard to believe?

The astronauts had already suggested to Houston that any dust is likely to have blown over Surveyor. They changed their mind when they examined it more carefully. The intervening time was not entirely spent looking for dust - they were examining everything about the probe and its immediate environment, not just looking through their tinted visors for dust. You also seem puzzled as to why, when landing a spacecraft, looking through windows and a visor, they can't spot fine dust entrained by the LM engine. Just because the 16mm camera didn;t pick it up, and just because they didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Quote
Also, as far as I can see, there has never been a convincing explanation for why the Surveyor 3 was covered in dust.

Did you decided this before researching the subject or after? What about the explanations offered is unconvincing?

Quote
A small amount was deposited during the Surveyor's "difficult" landing - the T.V. images sent back were blurred, and that seems to have been caused by dust deposited on the camera's mirror. Explanations for the dust shown on the Apollo 12 photographs have included "lunar fountains" and the electrostatic attraction of the lander. The most popular explanation is that dust was blown onto the Surveyor when the LM flew past prior to landing. When asked by Mission Control, Conrad and Bean had said any dust would have flown over the top of the lander.

The most popular explanation is actually that the LM blew dust off the lander rather than deposit it, that dust is likely to have come from electrostatic attraction caused by repeated heating and cooling of the surface.

Other specific points in your article:

You seem to want to cast doubt on the precision landing of Apollo 12, based on the fact that Apollo 11 landed 6km away from the intended site. Apollo 11's distance was not down to inaccuracy, but to the lack of high enough resolution photographs showing the hazards at their intended destination. Those hazards have been confirmed by later probes.

Putting the word accidentally in quotes is just a cheap shot. You imply that Bean did it on purpose. I have met him, I'm willing to bet you haven't. I know who I believe.

You claim that Mission Control had prior knowledge of dust and its distribution. That is not reflected in the question they asked. They asked about effects of the dust from landing, something they knew about having a) an understanding of the subject, b) seen the Apollo 11 16mm footage, and c) having heard the astronauts talk about dust during landing.

You claim that the astronauts were 'certain' that Surveyor 3 wouldn't be covered in dust. In fact Conrad said it would 'probably' have gone right over the top of it. Bean is sure, but they were both kind of busy you know, landing the spacecraft. They made an a priori judgement, they were wrong, just like you did and are. Technically, they weren't wrong. They said the lander wouldn't be covered in dust from the landing - it wasn't. What they didn't expect was for it to be covered in dust at all.

Your photograph of the Surveyor 1 is disingenuous. Figure 3.38, 4.7 and 4.8 in the Surveyor 3 Preliminary Report

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$c239744

clearly shows dirt deposited on the footpad by the sampler arm in the same place as photographed by Apollo 12. Surveyor 1 had no such sampler arm.

Photographs taken by later space probes confirm both the detail in Apollo photographs and human activity at the landing site. Photographs taken of Earth during the mission confirm that those images were taken during the mission timeline. These are incontrovertible facts. I'm sure you want to avoid them by narrowing your focus into a micro-detail where you feel there is room for ambiguity, but the Apollo mission did not consist of one aspect alone. The Surveyor probe is one small feature of it.


Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 03:26:50 PM
I am still not sure what your answer to my question is. If the Surveyor was beyond the boundary of the plume...

I do not represent that the Surveyor was or wasn't beyond "the boundary of the plume" in the sense of being more or less directly under the DPS.  If the plume impinged on the lunar surface anywhere near the Surveyor, at roughly a right angle, there is every expectation that the post-impingement flow would entrain dust particles, that it would remain close to the surface, and that it would not go over the top of the Surveyor as claimed.  I understand your argument to be that the DPS plume cannot be responsible for depositing dust on the Surveyor because it is claimed the dust would go over the top of the Surveyor.  That argument is not consistent with the known characteristics of fluids in these circumstances.

Quote
...then are we still talking about fluid mechanics? Or are we talking about a flat sheet of particles moving at very high velocity?

How is that different from fluid mechanics?

Firstly, let's remember that it not me who is making the claim. I am simply describing what Conrad and Bean said. More specifically, Bean said the dust would "... never go down this crater" and Conrad said the dust "... probably went right over the top of it [the Surveyor]".

You say there is "every expectation" that the dust would remain close to the surface and not go over the top of the Surveyor. The point the astronauts seem to be making is that the dust would have been travelling over the essentially level surface in a thin sheet at very high velocity, and then because the Surveyor was someway down in the crater, the dust would shoot over the top of it. So what force is involved that would make the particles "hug" the surface and travel down into the crater, rather than shoot over the edge?

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 03:38:17 PM
Firstly, let's remember that it not me who is making the claim.

It doesn't matter who made the claim.  It matters whether the claim is consistent with knowledge.

Quote
The point the astronauts seem to be making...

Well now that's you interpreting what someone else has said.  So it ceases to be their claim and starts to be yours.  What leads you to believe the expanding post-impingement flow would be flat or remain flat?  It will be largely flat, but it will expand as it radiates outward because it still has residual static pressure until it disperses sufficiently.

Quote
So what force is involved that would make the particles "hug" the surface and travel down into the crater, rather than shoot over the edge?

By "hug the surface" I don't mean follow arbitrary contours.  I apologize if that was confusing.  But if the expanding sheet encounters a depression, the vertical expansion of the sheet as it radiates will extend into the depression so long as there remains static pressure to do so.  Previously its vertical expansion was restricted by the ground.

Since we're talking about expectations in a specialized field of study, now would be a good time for you to tell us what your education, qualifications, and experience might be in the field of fluid dynamics.  That will help us understand to what degree your expectations are informed by the principles of the field.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 03:54:22 PM
More specifically, Bean said the dust would "... never go down this crater" and Conrad said the dust "... probably went right over the top of it [the Surveyor]".

Let me hasten to add a correction and apology.  I mistook the characterization of the crew's statement to refer to plume behavior on flat ground, not the specific case of Surveyor in the crater.  That was my mistake, and it probably let to some confusion.  I apologize.  There is a rational basis for thinking the sheet of deflected exhaust might not have gone into a depression.  But the actual expectations depend greatly on the precise circumstances, for example whether the plume passed close enough that the post-impingement expansion would still have sufficient static pressure.

We must also consider that the behavior of dust is not exactly the behavior of the exhaust.  The path of the dust will depend first on the mechanics of entrainment, then upon purely ballistic behavior as the gas becomes too thin to effectively entrain it further.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 03:55:09 PM
Firstly, let's remember that it not me who is making the claim.

It doesn't matter who made the claim.  It matters whether the claim is consistent with knowledge.

Quote
The point the astronauts seem to be making...

Well now that's you interpreting what someone else has said.  So it ceases to be their claim and starts to be yours.  What leads you to believe the expanding post-impingement flow would be flat or remain flat?  It will be largely flat, but it will expand as it radiates outward because it still has residual static pressure until it disperses sufficiently.

Quote
So what force is involved that would make the particles "hug" the surface and travel down into the crater, rather than shoot over the edge?

By "hug the surface" I don't mean follow arbitrary contours.  I apologize if that was confusing.  But if the expanding sheet encounters a depression, the vertical expansion of the sheet as it radiates will extend into the depression so long as there remains static pressure to do so.  Previously its vertical expansion was restricted by the ground.

Since we're talking about expectations in a specialized field of study, now would be a good time for you to tell us what your education, qualifications, and experience might be in the field of fluid dynamics.  That will help us understand to what degree your expectations are informed by the principles of the field.

No, it was the astronauts' claim. Bean said the dust would never go down the crater, and Conrad said it would probably go straight over the top of the Surveyor. Both opinions are at odds with your opinion.

Is questioning my qualifications, is this the start of the ad hominems? Well, I have a degree in physics, though fluid mechanics was in no way a specialty.

So okay, run me through what you are saying. Explain why you are sure there would remain sufficient static pressure to cause the dust to go down into the crater.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 03:59:07 PM
More specifically, Bean said the dust would "... never go down this crater" and Conrad said the dust "... probably went right over the top of it [the Surveyor]".

Let me hasten to add a correction and apology.  I mistook the characterization of the crew's statement to refer to plume behavior on flat ground, not the specific case of Surveyor in the crater.  That was my mistake, and it probably let to some confusion.  I apologize.  There is a rational basis for thinking the sheet of deflected exhaust might not have gone into a depression.  But the actual expectations depend greatly on the precise circumstances, for example whether the plume passed close enough that the post-impingement expansion would still have sufficient static pressure.

We must also consider that the behavior of dust is not exactly the behavior of the exhaust.  The path of the dust will depend first on the mechanics of entrainment, then upon purely ballistic behavior as the gas becomes too thin to effectively entrain it further.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. Which is why I asked whether - and why - you think the Surveyor was beneath the plume. At least we both now know what I am referring to.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
No, it was the astronauts' claim.

So what?

Quote
Both opinions are at odds with your opinion.

Irrelevant.  I have given the explanation for why my opinion embodies relevant physical principles.  I have no problem disagreeing with what an astronaut may have said if I believe I have a rational basis to do so.  You seem eager to have me give some vague additional authority to the source.  I have explained why I disagree with the source.  The source elucidates no rational for their opinions, so it is unclear how you want me to proceed with respect to it.

Quote
Is questioning my qualifications, is this the start of the ad hominems?

No, it is an attempt to ascertain your degree of understanding regarding the specialized fields you have invoked.  The finer points of the behavior of rocket exhaust plumes and of the entrainment of particulates are not things laymen are normally expected to know about.  This leads them to proceed from false assumptions and expectations and to drawn conclusions that may not be fully informed.  Your argument here has already started to venture into such expectations.  That is why I waited until it did so to make qualifications relevant.

Do you expect ad hominem attacks?

Quote
Well, I have a degree in physics, though fluid mechanics was in no way a specialty.

In what way, if any, was fluid dynamics the subject of adjudicated training or experience?  Since your claim here involves fluid dynamics, have you consulted with anyone who is a relevant expert to review it?

Here is the statement from your article.

Quote
Derek K. Willis, who was born in 1960, has a Certificate in Astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire UK. He began his career as a Research Associate at Northumbria University, and has since worked in private industry and as a Department of Trade and Industry Advisor. Derek K. Willis is currently a freelance Innovation Consultant. He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions.

Would you please go through that and describe in more detail what parts of it qualify you to speak with authority on the subjects you intend to discuss in this thread?  It mentions astronomy, but no degree in physics.  And it is vague on what you did for industry and government, or what activities comprise "freelance innovation consultant."

Quote
So okay, run me through what you are saying. Explain why you are sure there would remain sufficient static pressure to cause the dust to go down into the crater.

I didn't say I was sure.  You asked what force could possibly accomplish that.  The answer is that residual static pressure in the exhaust plume is possible.  Exhaust plumes in a vacuum are known to retain static pressure after exit.  They are known to exhibit the effects of static pressure for considerable distance after exit.  Did you consider static pressure in your analysis?

I also introduced the other possibility.  The question is not necessarily how exhaust got into the crater, but how dust did.  It is the dust we wish to explain.  I have explained how, as the density of the exhaust falls, it becomes too thin to further entrain dust, which will then transition to purely ballistic behavior.  Did you consider partial entrainment in your analysis?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Which is why I asked whether - and why - you think the Surveyor was beneath the plume.

By "beneath the plume" I assume you intend "plume" to be the direct flow from the exhaust nozzle, not the secondary flow after impingement.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, please explain why you think that's relevant.

Regarding whether we're on the same page about what your claim is, I regret the misunderstanding.  As I have only limited time to read and post this weekend, you are perfectly within your rights to insist that I read your full argument and respond only at that time.  You indulged other members here by summarizing your claim forthwith, and it was because I relied upon the summary that I stepped off on the wrong foot.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 01, 2019, 05:31:23 PM
Derek: From your article

"Even in an environment of 1/6g it would be reasonable to conclude that the dust blown up by the LM’s descent engine would have settled back down, coating the footpads and other structures such as struts and equipment housings."

No, it is not reasonable to conclude this when your 1/6G environment is also a vacuum. It might seem reasonable, or even intuitive to you, because you have grown up and spent all your life living on a planet with 1000 mb of atmosphere.

On the earth, in 1000 mb of atmosphere, your conclusion would be reasonable, because a cloud of dust would form with the largest particles setting almost immediately, and smaller particles remaining suspended; the smaller the particles, the longer they remain suspended.  This is why your Hawker Harrier example is correct. The downwards thrust throws dust everywhere and the turbulence it creates brings dust back towards the aircraft. I can confirm this because I saw this personally when I was attached to 233 OCU at RAF Wittering where they flew Harrier GR3s. After landing on a grass or dirt area, dust would settle on the upper surfaces and even on the tyres. For obvious reasons, the pilot would not pop the canopy until the dust had settled. Additionally there are always tiny currents in the atmosphere (even on the calmest of days, there are tiny thermal currents) and these cause some of the smallest particles to drift back towards where they came from up to a minute or more after the downward thrust has stopped.

However, no such thing happens in a vacuum; no dust cloud forms. This is because there is no atmosphere. Dust thrown up follows a ballistic arc back to the ground. The largest dust particles follow the same arc, and take the same amount of time to alight as the tiniest particles. THIS is why very little, if any, dust ends up on the landing pads of the descent stage..... because there is no atmosphere - there is no turbulence and there are no air currents to bring dust particles back towards the direction they came from.

This will also explain why they expected that the Surveyor 3 lander would not be coated with dust from the landing. The only dust that would reach the Surveyor and land on it, would be those particles of dust that were imparted with enough energy by the downthrust of the descent stage to reach the lander at the end of their ballistic arcs - anything with less energy would fall short, anything with greater energy would fly over.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 05:57:24 PM
Regarding whether we're on the same page about what your claim is, I regret the misunderstanding.  As I have only limited time to read and post this weekend, you are perfectly within your rights to insist that I read your full argument and respond only at that time.  You indulged other members here by summarizing your claim forthwith, and it was because I relied upon the summary that I stepped off on the wrong foot.
[/quote]

You are playing the ad hominem game. At universities in the UK - and I presume elsewhere - you can only be a research associate if you have at least a bachelor's degree. I therefore assumed it would be implicit that I have a degree. I am beyond the age when it really matters what my qualifications are. I only mentioned the certificate in astronomy - which I did for fun a few years ago - because it has more relevance to all things lunar than does solid state physics, which was my main area of interest when I was at university.

The reason I asked people to read my article was to avoid the situation you have created. If you had read the article you would have perhaps avoided the condescension and instead addressed the point I was making. So perhaps when you get time to read the article we can start again.

 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 06:13:56 PM
Derek: From your article

"Even in an environment of 1/6g it would be reasonable to conclude that the dust blown up by the LM’s descent engine would have settled back down, coating the footpads and other structures such as struts and equipment housings."

No, it is not reasonable to conclude this when your 1/6G environment is also a vacuum. It might seem reasonable, or even intuitive to you, because you have grown up and spent all your life living on a planet with 1000 mb of atmosphere.

On the earth, in 1000 mb of atmosphere, your conclusion would be reasonable, because a cloud of dust would form with the largest particles setting almost immediately, and smaller particles remaining suspended; the smaller the particles, the longer they remain suspended.  This is why your Hawker Harrier example is correct. The downwards thrust throws dust everywhere and the turbulence it creates brings dust back towards the aircraft. I can confirm this because I saw this personally when I was attached to 233 OCU at RAF Wittering where they flew Harrier GR3s. After landing on a grass or dirt area, dust would settle on the upper surfaces and even on the tyres. For obvious reasons, the pilot would not pop the canopy until the dust had settled. Additionally there are always tiny currents in the atmosphere (even on the calmest of days, there are tiny thermal currents) and these cause some of the smallest particles to drift back towards where they came from up to a minute or more after the downward thrust has stopped.

However, no such thing happens in a vacuum; no dust cloud forms. This is because there is no atmosphere. Dust thrown up follows a ballistic arc back to the ground. The largest dust particles follow the same arc, and take the same amount of time to alight as the tiniest particles. THIS is why very little, if any, dust ends up on the landing pads of the descent stage..... because there is no atmosphere - there is no turbulence and there are no air currents to bring dust particles back towards the direction they came from.

This will also explain why they expected that the Surveyor 3 lander would not be coated with dust from the landing. The only dust that would reach the Surveyor and land on it, would be those particles of dust that were imparted with enough energy by the downthrust of the descent stage to reach the lander at the end of their ballistic arcs - anything with less energy would fall short, anything with greater energy would fly over.

Why don't you read the rest of that section in my article? If you do you will see that I describe everything that you have described - namely that clouds of dust aren't created in the vacuum of the Moon when a spacecraft such as a Surveyor or LM lands. Hence very little or no dust settles onto the spacecraft.

I was told the people at ApolloHoax were more scientific and professional than on other forums. So far I have responded to someone who didn't read any of my article, and now to you who have read a paragraph and then no more. Back when I was at university I was always told to read an entire paper before making a comment.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 06:22:00 PM
You are playing the ad hominem game.

Nonsense.  if you are presuming to be an authority on how properly to plan and carry out space missions, such that you can declare someone else's efforts invalid for failure to meet your expectations, then the basis of that alleged authority is not at all ad hominem.  it is, in fact, the primary point of relevance because that's what gives birth to the expectations.  If the best explanation for the discrepancy between the facts and your expectations is that your expectations are incorrect or insufficiently informed, then why cannot that be the right answer?

Quote
I am beyond the age when it really matters what my qualifications are.

Nonsense.  If you presume to speak with authority on a specialized topic, ad any age, then it is always relevant to examine the foundation for that authority.  Further, you realized a statement of authority was necessary enough to attach one to your article.  Why did it matter when you wrote the article, but now it doesn't matter here?

Quote
I only mentioned the certificate in astronomy - which I did for fun a few years ago - because it has more relevance to all things lunar than does solid state physics, which
was my main area of interest when I was at university.

I'm not sure any of it is relevant to the claims you wish to make.  It's unclear how a "certificate" in astronomy conveys a suitable foundation of expertise.  Further, you mentioned you were a "research associate" in your statement of authority, but you omitted to tell the reader that it was in a field you now don't consider particularly relevant to the subject matter.  And you went on and listed other activities without giving any details.about how, if anyway, they were relevant.

Quote
If you had read the article you would have perhaps avoided the condescension and instead addressed the point I was making.

It is not condescending to ascertain whether a claimant's expectations are properly informed.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 06:29:55 PM
So far I have responded to someone who didn't read any of my article...

If that's all you've gleaned from my contribution, then you've missed the point.  I've given you several points of science that you evidently did not yet consider before drawing your conclusion.  Do you intend to address those, or merely complain about how shabbily you think you've been treated?

Quote
...and now to you who have read a paragraph and then no more.

But his comments on that paragraph are valid.  You are begging important questions that clearly derive from a layman's grasp of what to expect in the space environment.  You have, in fact, received lengthy comments from people who did read the paper, which you have ignored entirely.  When I asked what your background was in the relevant sciences, you seemed to jump at the chance to be the victim of ad hominem argumentation.  If you're here just to protest, you won't find a very receptive audience.

Quote
Back when I was at university I was always told to read an entire paper before making a comment.

And have you studied entirely the sciences relevant to the comments you make in your paper?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: apollo16uvc on June 01, 2019, 06:41:44 PM
Interesting thread, sucks it went into the classic "Are you qualified" pitfall. Who cares? Not every person on the internet has knowledge about every intricate detail of the inner workings of the universe. Adds or removes nothing from the debate, I think.

Sure it may be asked once by both parties so we know how we stand. But no need to quibble on about it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 01, 2019, 06:47:56 PM
Why don't you read the rest of that section in my article? If you do you will see that I describe everything that you have described - namely that clouds of dust aren't created in the vacuum of the Moon when a spacecraft such as a Surveyor or LM lands. Hence very little or no dust settles onto the spacecraft.
I did in fact read the whole article, but I merely commented on the first false assumption I came to, namely that what you stated was "reasonable to conclude" was in fact so. It was not.

I was told the people at ApolloHoax were more scientific and professional than on other forums. So far I have responded to someone who didn't read any of my article, and now to you who have read a paragraph and then no more. Back when I was at university I was always told to read an entire paper before making a comment.

Back when I was at university it was not customary to become uppity and defensive when asked to present your bona-fides. Before you go accusing others of "playing the ad-hominem" game you should ensure that you are not actually doing so yourself.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
You are playing the ad hominem game.

Nonsense.  if you are presuming to be an authority on how properly to plan and carry out space missions, such that you can declare someone else's efforts invalid for failure to meet your expectations, then the basis of that alleged authority is not at all ad hominem.  it is, in fact, the primary point of relevance because that's what gives birth to the expectations.  If the best explanation for the discrepancy between the facts and your expectations is that your expectations are incorrect or insufficiently informed, then why cannot that be the right answer?

Quote
I am beyond the age when it really matters what my qualifications are.

Nonsense.  If you presume to speak with authority on a specialized topic, ad any age, then it is always relevant to examine the foundation for that authority.  Further, you realized a statement of authority was necessary enough to attach one to your article.  Why did it matter when you wrote the article, but now it doesn't matter here?

Quote
I only mentioned the certificate in astronomy - which I did for fun a few years ago - because it has more relevance to all things lunar than does solid state physics, which
was my main area of interest when I was at university.

I'm not sure any of it is relevant to the claims you wish to make.  It's unclear how a "certificate" in astronomy conveys a suitable foundation of expertise.  Further, you mentioned you were a "research associate" in your statement of authority, but you omitted to tell the reader that it was in a field you now don't consider particularly relevant to the subject matter.  And you went on and listed other activities without giving any details.about how, if anyway, they were relevant.

Quote
If you had read the article you would have perhaps avoided the condescension and instead addressed the point I was making.

It is not condescending to ascertain whether a claimant's expectations are properly informed.

I was asked to give a brief biography at the end of the article. So I kept it brief.

But I tell you what, we can sort this out if you provide a paper with a bit of physics and a bit of maths explaining how when the LM flew past the Surveyor the dust was blown on. You know what I mean, provide something more meaty than "... there is every expectation that the Surveyor would have been pelted with the entrained dust."

And remember, don't throw this back at me by saying it is up to me to defend my claim. I am not making any claim. Al Bean said the dust would never go into the crater, and Pete Conrad said it would probably go right over the top of the Surveyor. If you are claiming they were wrong, then explain why.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 06:57:10 PM
Not every person on the internet has knowledge about every intricate detail of the inner workings of the universe.

Straw man.  That's not what is asked for.  When one's argument is predicated on what one expects and what one can or cannot believe, the foundation of knowledge from which those expectations and beliefs arise becomes at least relevant if not foremost.  Where a claimant bases his conclusion on his judgment, the principles of that judgment don't get a pass.  It's a variation on the first question a lawyer imagines when faced with an ipse dixit:  "How do you know that?"

Quote
Sure it may be asked once by both parties so we know how we stand. But no need to quibble on about it.

I would have been content if he had just said, "I don't have any relevant qualifications."  At least we would know that in order to refute him, we'd have to go back to first principles and offer some education.  You and many others know I have no problem explaining things to people who admit they don't know them.  But when the response to the question is immediately to complain of being persecuted, that's suspicious.  Experience has shown the wisdom of approaching a debate differently when there is reason to think the other parties are not debating in good faith.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 06:58:45 PM
Why don't you read the rest of that section in my article? If you do you will see that I describe everything that you have described - namely that clouds of dust aren't created in the vacuum of the Moon when a spacecraft such as a Surveyor or LM lands. Hence very little or no dust settles onto the spacecraft.
I did in fact read the whole article, but I merely commented on the first false assumption I came to, namely that what you stated was "reasonable to conclude" was in fact so. It was not.

I was told the people at ApolloHoax were more scientific and professional than on other forums. So far I have responded to someone who didn't read any of my article, and now to you who have read a paragraph and then no more. Back when I was at university I was always told to read an entire paper before making a comment.

Back when I was at university it was not customary to become uppity and defensive when asked to present your bona-fides. Before you go accusing others of "playing the ad-hominem" game you should ensure that you are not actually doing so yourself.

I apologize if I came across as uppity. However, I couldn't understand how you could have written what you wrote if you had read the whole article. I clearly point out that it isn't reasonable to assume a cloud of dust would be created on the Moon, so it seemed odd that you didn't mention that.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 07:02:47 PM
Not every person on the internet has knowledge about every intricate detail of the inner workings of the universe.

I would have been content if he had just said, "I don't have any relevant qualifications."  At least we would know that in order to refute him, we'd have to go back to first principles and offer some education.  You and many others know I have no problem explaining things to people who admit they don't know them.  But when the response to the question is immediately to complain of being persecuted, that's suspicious.  Experience has shown the wisdom of approaching a debate differently when there is reason to think the other parties are not debating in good faith.

I don't feel persecuted. I am perhaps feeling exasperated. But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 07:08:29 PM
I was asked to give a brief biography at the end of the article. So I kept it brief.

You could have kept it a lot briefer by omitting the stuff you now concede is irrelevant.  Do you have any appreciable education, professional experience, or other expertise that qualifies you to comment on how things behave in space?

Quote
And remember, don't throw this back at me by saying it is up to me to defend my claim. I am not making any claim.

Of course you are.  You're claiming that certain observations by the crew should be given pre-eminent authority in determining the source of dust on Surveyor 3.  Tell me why I should disregard all the things I can think of and take their word for it?

Quote
If you are claiming they were wrong, then explain why.

I did, and so did onebigmonkey.  Those are items I doubt that Conrad and Bean considered when they offered their opinions, and things I'm sure you didn't consider.  Yes, you are trying to shift the burden of proof, and I'm not going to let you.  You can't imagine how they could be wrong.  Very well, I submit that lack of imagination is directly connected to your lack of appropriate expertise.  You've been given some things to consider.  Since you're championing the cause of Conrad and Bean, tell me how they would have addressed those alternatives.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 07:11:50 PM
I was asked to give a brief biography at the end of the article. So I kept it brief.

You could have kept it a lot briefer by omitting the stuff you now concede is irrelevant.  Do you have any appreciable education, professional experience, or other expertise that qualifies you to comment on how things behave in space?

Quote
And remember, don't throw this back at me by saying it is up to me to defend my claim. I am not making any claim.

Of course you are.  You're claiming that certain observations by the crew should be given pre-eminent authority in determining the source of dust on Surveyor 3.  Tell me why I should disregard all the things I can think of and take their word for it?

Quote
If you are claiming they were wrong, then explain why.

I did, and so did onebigmonkey.  Those are items I doubt that Conrad and Bean considered when they offered their opinions, and things I'm sure you didn't consider.  Yes, you are trying to shift the burden of proof, and I'm not going to let you.  You can't imagine how they could be wrong.  Very well, I submit that lack of imagination is directly connected to your lack of appropriate expertise.  You've been given some things to consider.  Since you're championing the cause of Conrad and Bean, tell me how they would have addressed those alternatives.

So I can assume I am not going to get a real explanation from you? Just words. No physics? No maths?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 07:14:25 PM
I don't feel persecuted.

Then do you withdraw the accusation that you're being treated ad hominem?

Quote
I am perhaps feeling exasperated.

I wager it's because your rhetorical stunts aren't working here either.

Quote
But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love to levy a burden on your critics to present an exhaustively researched, properly computed physical model to refute your idle expressions of disbelief.  I'm sure you are banking on the probability that none of your critics will rise to that challenge, and that you can thereafter claim to have been unrefuted.  You're not the first, or even among the rarest claimants to try to shift the burden in that way.  It's not an especially creative way to avoid responsibility.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 07:18:09 PM
So I can assume I am not going to get a real explanation from you?

You've received several candidate explanations.  Address them.

Quote
Just words. No physics? No maths?

You're the one holding up Conrad and Bean as the sine qua non of explanations.  That's the position you have to justify.  I've given you exactly as much physics and math as they've given me.  No, you don't get to demand that the only refutation you will accept for your brief, cherry-picked statement must be a rigorous treatise.  That is the essence of shifting the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 07:19:27 PM
I don't feel persecuted.

The do you withdraw the accusation that you're being treated ad hominem?

Quote
I am perhaps feeling exasperated.

I wager it's because your rhetorical stunts aren't working here either.

Quote
But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love to levy a burden on your critics to present an exhaustively researched, properly computed physical model to refute your idle expressions of disbelief.  I'm sure you are banking on the probability that none of your critics will rise to that challenge, and that you can thereafter claim to have been unrefuted.  You're not the first, or even among the rarest claimants to try to shift the burden in that way.  It's not an especially creative way to avoid responsibility.

No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong. Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM. If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2019, 07:32:42 PM
No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong.

No, this is classic burden-of-proof shifting.  You've done nothing but express faith in the opinions of two people, and you expect your critics to write academic papers to dispose you of those beliefs.  You've posed a challenge that you hope seems reasonable on its face, but which a reasonable person would be reluctant to accept for the sheer amount of work it requires.

Tell you what.  If you want an academically rigorous refutation of your article, get it published in a mainstream science or history journal.  Then you can demand scholarly-level rebuttals.

Quote
Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM.

And I've given you examples of factors they likely did not consider when rendering that opinion.  But since we have no way of knowing what they did or did not consider, or what concepts of physics they might have had in mind, this is why we generally consider hearsay evidence to be unsatisfying.  I can't go back and quiz Conrad and Bean to know what they were thinking, or to pose my alternatives to them and see what they think about it.

But since you are advocating them, I can ask you.  Do you have any comment on the alternatives I mentioned?

Quote
If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?

Did you read the other posts?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 01, 2019, 07:48:25 PM
No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong.

No, this is classic burden-of-proof shifting.  You've done nothing but express faith in the opinions of two people, and you expect your critics to write academic papers to dispose you of those beliefs.  You've posed a challenge that you hope seems reasonable on its face, but which a reasonable person would be reluctant to accept for the sheer amount of work it requires.

Tell you what.  If you want an academically rigorous refutation of your article, get it published in a mainstream science or history journal.  Then you can demand scholarly-level rebuttals.

Quote
Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM.

And I've given you examples of factors they likely did not consider when rendering that opinion.  But since we have no way of knowing what they did or did not consider, or what concepts of physics they might have had in mind, this is why we generally consider hearsay evidence to be unsatisfying.  I can't go back and quiz Conrad and Bean to know what they were thinking, or to pose my alternatives to them and see what they think about it.

But since you are advocating them, I can ask you.  Do you have any comment on the alternatives I mentioned?

Quote
If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?

Did you read the other posts?

I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on. I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p. You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.

I said to Peter B and obviousman that I will pull the aulis article if convincing scientific arguments refuting what I have written are provided. I am happy to wait until they are forthcoming.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 01, 2019, 10:12:11 PM
I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on.
We do but that is not how it works. It is up to you to prove yourself correct.

I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p.
So you admit you can talk utter crap. Agreed.

You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.
Why should anyone make that effort? You haven't.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.
You have been given precisely as much physics and maths as you saw fit to provide.  All you have done is describe what you "believe" or "don't beieve" with nothing to back it up other than your say so. People believe in ghosts. Should we take ghosts as being real because some people believe in them? How about bigfoot? It matters not a whit what you believe. It only matters what you can demonstrate to be correct.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 01, 2019, 11:21:12 PM
What Derek indicates that it took the astronauts 30 minutes to "discover" that the Surveyor was covered in dust is not correct as I have pointed out to him several times.    From ALSJ:

Quote
133:58:32 Bean: Okay. We'll walk real slow. (Pause) Hey, you can see...Look at there where it dug those scoops. You can still see the...Boy, that's going to make some beautiful pictures on the way that's weathered since...Doesn't look like the pictures we saw of this a long time ago. That's going to be good.
[The accompanying illustration shows the locations of the Surveyor III scoop marks. The figure was taken from page 58 of the NASA report SP-284, "Analysis of Material and Photographs returned by Apollo 12" and was digitized by Marv Hein. Jon Hancock has scanned a diagram found in a Hughes Corp. house magazine which presents the pattern of scoop marks in a different format.]
[The Surveyor III scoop was designed by Caltech Professor of Engineering Ronald Scott.]
[Heavy breathing is audible as they make their way over to the Surveyor, but it probably isn't due to exertion but, rather, to them straining forward to see where they're walking. As for the scoop marks, in the days following the Surveyor landing, controllers on Earth used the Surveyor's remotely-controlled scoop to dig trenches for soil mechanics experiments and to look for layering. One of the things of interest about the Apollo 12 visit is the chance to look for any changes in the trenches since they were last examined with the Surveyor TV camera. As mentioned on page 3-36 in the Apollo 12 Mission Report, "Examination of the photographs taken at the Surveyor III site (by the Surveyor TV camera and, later, by the astronauts) suggest that the lunar surface has undergone little change in the past 2-1/2 years. The trenches excavated by the lunar material sampling device on Surveyor, as well as the waffle pattern of the Surveyor footpad imprint, appear much the same as when formed on Surveyor landing." Figure 3-25 compares a Surveyor TV image with an Apollo 12 Hasselblad image.]

134:05:59 Bean: Hey, we got a nice brown Surveyor here, Houston. Even the tanks which were...Well, (if I) raise the visor and it's not so brown, but it's tan. The glass is still on the top. Not a bit of it is fractured. 134:06:12 Conrad: Yeah.
[Al’s mention of ‘glass’ refers to the glass-covered thermal radiator on the top of the larger of two Electronics Compartments - called the Large Box - on the Surveyor. Figure 3-10 from the Final Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Operations Plan. The Large Box is on the righthand (south) side of the diagram. As indicated on pages 2 and 3 in document devoted to post-flight examination of the returned Surveyor III components, Pete and Al were asked to bring back samples of the glass from both the Large Box and the nearby Small Box ‘if feasible’. At this early stage of their work on the Surveyor, they hadn’t had a good look at the Small Box. A detail from AS12-48-7137 shows the top of the Large Box.]
In fact dust is discovered 15 minutes after they arrived at the lander

Quote
134:15:03 Bean: It's no longer a mirror.
134:15:05 Conrad: No, it's brown because it's looking at brown, isn't it?
134:15:07 Bean: No, it looks like...
134:15:08 Conrad: Maybe it's got some coating on it. Yeah. It does. Why don't you stay right there, and I'll come in and wipe it?
134:15:15 Bean: Okay. Come on in and wipe it.
134:15:17 Conrad: Look it over close.
134:15:18 Bean: (I can) see the mechanical components down inside it.
134:15:21 Conrad: Yeah. (Pause)
134:15:29 Conrad: It's just got a...
134:15:29 LM Crew: ...fine dust on it.

But this is where Derek has indicated that dust was discovered.
Quote
134:29:50 Bean: Hey! Hey, lookit there, Pete!
['Lookit' is a non-standard pronunciation of 'look at that'. Hearing it in Al's excited voice takes your editor 65 years back to his own childhood in the late 1940s and early 1950s.]
134:29:51 Conrad: What?
134:29:54 Bean: We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. Look. We rubbed into that battery, and it's good and shiny again. Let me get a shot on it.
134:30:00 Conrad: Okay, go ahead.
[Al's picture of the battery is AS12-48- 7138.]
134:30:01 Bean: I think that's what...Maybe this thing's just collecting all this red dust.

But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well...
There are a lot of other aspects that probably went into his book, but we'll cross that bridge in another post.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 02, 2019, 03:05:39 AM
But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well..

This is yet another aspect of the Apollo missions that the hoax believers fail to understand.

Astronauts on a Lunar Surface were not like a couple of cave explorers let loose in a new cave with their own schedule and unlimited time. Everything was dictated by outside influences such as launch windows, power supplies, breathing air and food supplies. They knew exactly how long each EVA's was going to be - first EVA 3 hours, 56 minutes; second EVA  3 hours, 49 minutes. These guys were on foot (no Lunar Rover until Apollo 15); everything they did was tightly and rigidly scheduled and included travel time between tasks. Additional tasks would likely only be allowed if they got ahead of schedule unless they were deemed to be scientifically important or mission critical.

I find it completely unsurprising that they did not notice the dust on Surveyor the moment they got there.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 03:48:31 AM
I am having trouble with getting the quotes to work.

However, in reply to bknight. If you look at the Surface Journal at 133:58:04 you will see this inserted note:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

134:29:54 is about half an hour after they arrived at Surveyor 3.

Yes, at about fifteen minutes after the astronauts arrived they saw the dust on the camera mirror. But as the Surface Journal clearly points out, it took half an hour before they realized the entire lander was coated in dust.

If you don't believe what is written in the Surface Journal, perhaps you ought to contact them and ask them to change it.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 04:58:15 AM
But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well..

This is yet another aspect of the Apollo missions that the hoax believers fail to understand.

Astronauts on a Lunar Surface were not like a couple of cave explorers let loose in a new cave with their own schedule and unlimited time. Everything was dictated by outside influences such as launch windows, power supplies, breathing air and food supplies. They knew exactly how long each EVA's was going to be - first EVA 3 hours, 56 minutes; second EVA  3 hours, 49 minutes. These guys were on foot (no Lunar Rover until Apollo 15); everything they did was tightly and rigidly scheduled and included travel time between tasks. Additional tasks would likely only be allowed if they got ahead of schedule unless they were deemed to be scientifically important or mission critical.

I find it completely unsurprising that they did not notice the dust on Surveyor the moment they got there.

It wasn't a case of the astronauts simply not noticing the dust on the Surveyor. As they arrived at the Surveyor they were specifically asked by Mission Control to look for any dust deposited by the LM. The astronauts responded by saying that any dust wouldn't have gone down into the crater and would have probably gone right over the top of the Surveyor. They affirm this by pointing out how the Surveyor was discolored by being baked in the Sun. In other words, the discoloring wasn't caused by dust. Only after half an hour - as is clearly pointed out in the Surface Journal - did the astronauts realize the discoloring was after all due to dust. You might not be surprised by that either. In my article I have given an alternative explanation. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 05:30:44 AM
I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on.
We do but that is not how it works. It is up to you to prove yourself correct.

I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p.
So you admit you can talk utter crap. Agreed.

You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.
Why should anyone make that effort? You haven't.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.
You have been given precisely as much physics and maths as you saw fit to provide.  All you have done is describe what you "believe" or "don't beieve" with nothing to back it up other than your say so. People believe in ghosts. Should we take ghosts as being real because some people believe in them? How about bigfoot? It matters not a whit what you believe. It only matters what you can demonstrate to be correct.

I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

No, I do not admit I talk utter c**p.

I would have thought that all you experts would have relished the opportunity to prove me wrong. It seems I am wrong about that.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gwiz on June 02, 2019, 06:30:49 AM
I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

I'm also a qualified aeronautical engineer and it took me a bit of thought to work out how the landing plume and dust would behave.  As Jay has said, the plume would become an outward moving sheet once it met the surface and would entrain dust particles.  The sheet would expand unrestrainedly upwards and attach to the surface on its lower side, driven by its internal pressure.  On the lower side, the sheet would form a boundary layer where viscous forces would slow it to zero velocity at the surface, rapidly rising with height to the unslowed velocity.  The larger a dust particle on the surface, the higher the average gas velocity impinging on it, so very small particles could bounce slowly along the surface while larger ones could gain nearly the full velocity of the sheet.  This means that as the gas expands upwards and loses pressure, you are left with dust particles moving with a range of different velocities.  High velocity ones could go almost straight on at a crater edge, slower ones would drop with distance into the crater and the slowest follow the surface until they hit something big enough to stop them.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 02, 2019, 06:34:46 AM

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.
I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 06:53:50 AM
I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

I'm also a qualified aeronautical engineer and it took me a bit of thought to work out how the landing plume and dust would behave.  As Jay has said, the plume would become an outward moving sheet once it met the surface and would entrain dust particles.  The sheet would expand unrestrainedly upwards and attach to the surface on its lower side, driven by its internal pressure.  On the lower side, the sheet would form a boundary layer where viscous forces would slow it to zero velocity at the surface, rapidly rising with height to the unslowed velocity.  The larger a dust particle on the surface, the higher the average gas velocity impinging on it, so very small particles could bounce slowly along the surface while larger ones could gain nearly the full velocity of the sheet.  This means that as the gas expands upwards and loses pressure, you are left with dust particles moving with a range of different velocities.  High velocity ones could go almost straight on at a crater edge, slower ones would drop with distance into the crater and the slowest follow the surface until they hit something big enough to stop them.

Okay, you have provided a qualitative description, which basically amounts to: the engine plume blew out particles and dust at a range of velocities. So can you now provide a quantitative description? What was the range of velocities, and what were the distances traveled beyond the edge of the crater?

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 07:02:25 AM

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.
I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2019, 07:02:39 AM
Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?

I'm in the process of reading your article and compiling my response to it in more depth, but since you're labouring this point already I'll weigh in and point out that you are falling into a classic trap of assuming the astronauts are the best authority on any and all aspects of the missions. Al Bean and Pete Conrad were experts in operating their spacecraft. That doesn't make them experts in the fluid dynamics and ballistics of dust particles entrained in rocket exhaust on the surface of the Moon. Their first thought was that the dust would have been blown over the top of Surveyor. That doesn't mean that was their expert opinion based on extensive analysis and understanding of the behvaviour of the dust. It was just their intuitive response to a comment from Capcom. It is quite possible, and not at all suspect, for them to be wrong in their initial impression.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 07:39:29 AM
Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?

I'm in the process of reading your article and compiling my response to it in more depth, but since you're labouring this point already I'll weigh in and point out that you are falling into a classic trap of assuming the astronauts are the best authority on any and all aspects of the missions. Al Bean and Pete Conrad were experts in operating their spacecraft. That doesn't make them experts in the fluid dynamics and ballistics of dust particles entrained in rocket exhaust on the surface of the Moon. Their first thought was that the dust would have been blown over the top of Surveyor. That doesn't mean that was their expert opinion based on extensive analysis and understanding of the behvaviour of the dust. It was just their intuitive response to a comment from Capcom. It is quite possible, and not at all suspect, for them to be wrong in their initial impression.

The first thoughts of the astronauts were that any dust from the LM would have flown over the Surveyor, and that the discoloring of the Surveyor was due to baked paint rather than dust.

I am happy to accept the astronauts could be wrong. In fact, they seem to be wrong about many things. For instance, Conrad first claimed to have seen dust when the LM was at an altitude of 90 meters. However, the compilers of the Surface Journal "redrafted" that to 67 meters.

And that, in fact, is my whole point. Many aspects of the official history of some of the Apollo missions seem to have been changed or "redrafted" after the events. Of course people get things wrong, but oddly enough, astronauts seem to get lots of things wrong. Again in the case of Conrad and Bean, neither men could remember how it was that they realized the Surveyor was covered in dust rather than discolored due to baked paint (i.e. when Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery case).

But I do take your point. So, it might be best if I don't comment again until anyone who is interested in providing a considered reply to my article does so. I can then take a look at them properly and respond fully. 
 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 02, 2019, 09:16:47 AM
I am having trouble with getting the quotes to work.

However, in reply to bknight. If you look at the Surface Journal at 133:58:04 you will see this inserted note:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

134:29:54 is about half an hour after they arrived at Surveyor 3.

Yes, at about fifteen minutes after the astronauts arrived they saw the dust on the camera mirror. But as the Surface Journal clearly points out, it took half an hour before they realized the entire lander was coated in dust.

If you don't believe what is written in the Surface Journal, perhaps you ought to contact them and ask them to change it.

Yes I quoted the timeline entries that pertained to dust.  So verbalization about dust on the downward facing mirror at fifteen minutes leads to the conclusion they knew the lander was covered in part and likely all by dust, but you pick the passage at 134:29:54 as your dust revelation time period.

Secondly you fail to realize/understand another point I made so I'll repeat it again: What difference does "X" minutes after they arrived at the lander for dust realization?  They were busy doing other tasks that did not include dust discovery, even though the guys at Houston requested they observe any dust, as that request was in addition to other mission tasks given to them months before. 

Thirdly you are using data provided by the Apollo program (ALSJ) to prove that the mission was faked, how strange you should do that.

Lastly:

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

You do realize that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.
I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

Which missions were faked?  Why do you believe that they were faked?  How where those missions faked?  Enquiring minds want to know.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 02, 2019, 12:04:05 PM
Well, I have absolutely no qualifications in physics of any kind, and I haven't read the article.  I do, on the other hand, have one simple question that I'd like answered, please.

What would convince you that you're wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 12:14:50 PM
I just don't seem to be able to get the hang of multiple quotes.

Anyway, this is for bknight.

In your earlier post you wrote: "What Derek indicates is that it took the astronauts 30 minutes to 'discover' that the Surveyor was covered in dust is not correct as I have pointed out to him many times."

No, that is how long the Surface Journal says it took the astronauts to "... realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust." This realization occurred when Al Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery box.

What I said is therefore correct, and is confirmed by the Surface Journal. If you believe how after seeing the dust on the camera mirror and some of its workings the astronauts also realized the whole Surveyor was covered in dust, then you ought to contact the compilers of the Surface Journal and tell them the inserted note is wrong.

In absolute terms is doesn't matter how many minutes it took to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust. What matters, as far as I am concerned, is the complete change from the astronauts' initial certainty that the discoloring was caused by baked paint to the sudden realization that the discoloring was caused by dust.

I'm not going to expand this discussion to beyond the contents of my article. I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't believe all the missions were faked.
 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 12:18:11 PM
Well, I have absolutely no qualifications in physics of any kind, and I haven't read the article.  I do, on the other hand, have one simple question that I'd like answered, please.

What would convince you that you're wrong?

A thorough refutation of all the points I make in my article. But if you haven't read my article then you won't know what those points are.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 02, 2019, 01:13:07 PM
I just don't seem to be able to get the hang of multiple quotes.

Anyway, this is for bknight.

In your earlier post you wrote: "What Derek indicates is that it took the astronauts 30 minutes to 'discover' that the Surveyor was covered in dust is not correct as I have pointed out to him many times."

No, that is how long the Surface Journal says it took the astronauts to "... realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust." This realization occurred when Al Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery box.

What I said is therefore correct, and is confirmed by the Surface Journal. If you believe how after seeing the dust on the camera mirror and some of its workings the astronauts also realized the whole Surveyor was covered in dust, then you ought to contact the compilers of the Surface Journal and tell them the inserted note is wrong.

In absolute terms is doesn't matter how many minutes it took to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust. What matters, as far as I am concerned, is the complete change from the astronauts' initial certainty that the discoloring was caused by baked paint to the sudden realization that the discoloring was caused by dust.



No I'm not wrong the dust was noticed at fifteen minutes and they both say it and filmed Pete's rubbing over the mirror.  Whether they made a secondary observation is exactly that, secondary.

Now if when it occurred is not important to you, then quit stating it is thirty minutes.


I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.
I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

I'm not going to expand this discussion to beyond the contents of my article. I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't believe all the missions were faked.

You opened dialogue in so as lawyers would say it is fair game to discuss.  Now either you present answers to those questions or I will present you beliefs from UM, your choice.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 02, 2019, 01:30:23 PM
I am having trouble with getting the quotes to work.

However, in reply to bknight. If you look at the Surface Journal at 133:58:04 you will see this inserted note:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

134:29:54 is about half an hour after they arrived at Surveyor 3.

Yes, at about fifteen minutes after the astronauts arrived they saw the dust on the camera mirror. But as the Surface Journal clearly points out, it took half an hour before they realized the entire lander was coated in dust.

If you don't believe what is written in the Surface Journal, perhaps you ought to contact them and ask them to change it.

What is there to dispute? They noticed dust. You are the one making a big deal about them not noticing it for 30 minutes, which is clearly not true. What the ALSJ points out is that they realise the brown colour is dust. Two different things.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 01:34:57 PM
You were wrong, bknight, and the Surface Journal demonstrates you were wrong. The astronauts didn't realize that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust until after 30 minutes.

I would imagine you are keen to move onto other subjects to try to deflect away from you being wrong.

You seem to be making some sort of threat. Is that really how matters are conducted on ApolloHoax? I thought that sort of behavior - along with the insults and ad hominems - was what happened on other forums.

You can present whatever you like. However, the title of this thread is "Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery". Consequently, I will be restricting my answers to questions on that theme.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
I am having trouble with getting the quotes to work.

However, in reply to bknight. If you look at the Surface Journal at 133:58:04 you will see this inserted note:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

134:29:54 is about half an hour after they arrived at Surveyor 3.

Yes, at about fifteen minutes after the astronauts arrived they saw the dust on the camera mirror. But as the Surface Journal clearly points out, it took half an hour before they realized the entire lander was coated in dust.

If you don't believe what is written in the Surface Journal, perhaps you ought to contact them and ask them to change it.

What is there to dispute? They noticed dust. You are the one making a big deal about them not noticing it for 30 minutes, which is clearly not true. What the ALSJ points out is that they realise the brown colour is dust. Two different things.

If it isn't true, then why after about thirty minutes did Al Bean say, "Hey! hey. Lookit there Pete. We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. We rubbed into that battery, and its good and shiny again."

If they already knew much earlier that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust, why would Bean excitedly describe what he has just discovered?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gwiz on June 02, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?   
While my qualitative description didn't give an upper limit to the velocities, it did give a lower one.  The dust doesn't all travel at the maximum velocity of the gas, but at a range of velocities between that and zero.
 Since the question is whether the dust was going too fast, my description provides the answer.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 02, 2019, 02:28:34 PM

If it isn't true, then why after about thirty minutes did Al Bean say, "Hey! hey. Lookit there Pete. We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. We rubbed into that battery, and its good and shiny again."

If they already knew much earlier that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust, why would Bean excitedly describe what he has just discovered?

Speculation, they may have assumed that the battery cover had changed colour due to heat but on examining it found it was covered in dust as well. All just speculation, but you are focusing on this as some major point, it is meaningless. They spotted the dust at the 15 min mark and commented on it as bknight has said.



edit:- poor use of quote feature
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 02:53:56 PM

If it isn't true, then why after about thirty minutes did Al Bean say, "Hey! hey. Lookit there Pete. We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. We rubbed into that battery, and its good and shiny again."

If they already knew much earlier that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust, why would Bean excitedly describe what he has just discovered?

Speculation, they may have assumed that the battery cover had changed colour due to heat but on examining it found it was covered in dust as well. All just speculation, but you are focusing on this as some major point, it is meaningless. They spotted the dust at the 15 min mark and commented on it as bknight has said.



edit:- poor use of quote feature

It isn't speculation. The entry into the Surface Journal says:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

If you won't accept what is written in the document sanctioned by NASA, then I have to ask myself what is the point of having this debate?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 02, 2019, 03:18:57 PM

It isn't speculation. The entry into the Surface Journal says:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

If you won't accept what is written in the document sanctioned by NASA, then I have to ask myself what is the point of having this debate?

Of course you are speculating, why are you ignoring the earlier reference to dust? I have speculated a reason the second dust comment could have been made, but I don't know and neither do you.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2019, 03:58:09 PM
Quote
NASA’s official record of the mission, the Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal,1 describes how the surface activities got off to a bad start.

One of NASA’s officially recognised records. Your terminology presents it as the one and only, which it is not.

Quote
Just minutes into the first extra-vehicular activity (EVA)

About 40 minutes in.

Quote
Al Bean “accidentally” pointed the television camera into the Sun (despite the fact that the training manual said that should not be done)

Actually the instructions for the TV panorama said ‘omit up-sun’. There is little indication, as far as I know, that astronauts were told specifically that pointing the camera at the Sun would actually cause permanent damage.

Quote
Due to this mishap there were no live TV images of the Apollo 12 astronauts on the Moon.

This is a mischaracterisation. There was 40 minutes or so of live TV before the camera was wrecked.

Quote
The three-legged probe, with an open aluminium frame, stood 3 metres tall and weighed 280 kilograms.

Had a mass of 280kg. Weight would be different on the Moon.

Quote
A few moths later

Small typo there.

Quote
•   Mission Control seemed to know beforehand that the probe was covered in dust and that the distribution wasn’t the same on each side.

They suspected it might be because a whacking great rocket powered vehicle had just landed very close to it and they thought it might have blown some dust over it, and that would naturally lead to asymmetrical coating since the dust would be coming from one place. Why is that odd?

Quote
•   The astronauts were certain Surveyor 3 couldn’t be covered in dust because it was partway down Surveyor Crater, below the level of the LM.

That was their initial assumption based on quite possibly incomplete understanding of the fluid dynamics and ballistics of lunar dust entrained in rocket exhaust. Once again, as I said before, Conrad and Bean are not the last word on how stuff behaves on the Moon just because they were there. They had to be expert in flying their spacecraft, and that’s all. If they make errors in judgement regarding the likelihood of dust being blown onto Surveyor by the LM that is not in any way suspicious. It’s just normal human behaviour.

Quote
•   The astronauts were certain the tan colouring of Surveyor 3 had been caused by the probe baking in the Sun, rather than by being covered in dust.

Since they were (incorrectly) sure the LM didn’t blow any dust over the Surveyor they went with another explanation for the difference in colour, and paint changing colour in sunlight is a well-known thing so seemed a logical explanation for what they were seeing. Also worth noting at the point they made these comments they were still some tens of metres away from Surveyor so were not examining it closely.

Quote
•   Despite what Mission Control had said about the dust, the astronauts didn’t make any attempt to see if the discolouring was caused by dust.

Why should they? They were asked one question, believed it had been answered satisfactorily, and got on with the rest of their work.

Quote
The answers to these questions add credence to claims that the Apollo missions were faked

Your answers, not the answers. All you have done is pull out some things that look odd to you, speculated as to some answers and then tried to claim they are evidence of faking the missions.

Quote
When researchers first began questioning the reality of the Apollo Space Project, one of the anomalies discussed was why there is no dust on the footpads of the LMs. Even in an environment of 1/6g it would be reasonable to conclude that the dust blown up by the LM’s descent engine would have settled back down, coating the footpads and other structures such as struts and equipment housings.

If, as you go on later to say, you know this to be erroneous, you need to present it differently. Of course it is not reasonable to conclude anything would ‘settle’ on the Moon given it has no atmosphere.

Quote
By commissioning research to investigate why Surveyor 3 was covered in dust, NASA is reinforcing its claim that the Apollo 12 astronauts really examined the probe, and is deflecting attention away from the anomalies within the official record of the mission.

When something previously unseen and possibly unexpected is observed, research tends to get commissioned on it. So NASA is in fact behaving entirely normally. If you’re going to start claiming that doing normal things is deliberate obfuscation you have some very shaky ground for argument.

Quote
That being the case, during the two and a half years Surveyor 3 was on the Moon before Apollo 12 arrived, the dust on the probe would be no more than 0.0025 (one fortieth) of a millimetre thick. Such a thin layer would have been barely visible to the astronauts, and couldn’t have accounted for the discolouring they saw on the surfaces of Surveyor 3.

Your assertion fails for lack of evidence. It does not take a thick layer to noticeably change the colour of anything, especially if it started as white. Human eyes are very good at distinguishing not white from white.

Quote
It is believed the vast majority of particles rise no more than 15 centimetres, though a few may rise to tens or even hundreds of metres. A lunar fountain can’t explain how Surveyor 3 was coated in dust. Particles rising only 15 cm could not have covered the entire probe, which is almost 3 metres tall. The amount of dust rising higher is too insignificant to have deposited the layer shown on the Apollo 12 photographs.

If you’re going to request a quantitative analysis from us, as you have in earlier posts, you need to have such analyses in your own work. Can you justify your assertion that the amount of dust rising higher than 15cm is insufficient?

Quote
It is apparent the astronauts didn’t see any dust until the LM was well below 180 feet (54 metres). In fact, an examination of the video made from the film footage of the landing shows there is no dust created until just after Bean says, “120 feet” (36 metres).

There is a big difference between what can be seen and captured on film and what is actually present. Just becdause they didn’t see any doesn’t mean there was no dust.

Quote
Pete Conrad twice said he had first seen dust from an altitude of 300 feet (90 metres). This, however, was redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier ─ one of the compilers of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ─ to 220 feet. 220 feet is exactly 67 metres ─ the very same altitude the LM flew past the Surveyor 3 probe! This seems beyond a coincidence.

The redrafting seems to be part of an ongoing attempt to hide an inconsistency within NASA’s official record.

You have read far too much into the word ‘redrafted’ there. Did you go back and look at the Apollo 12 mission report? That chart that is described as ‘redrafted’ is present there, with exactly the same scale as presented in the ALSJ. All they mean by ‘redrafted’ is that the chart was recreated from the report for the website rather than just scanned in as a low quality PDF.

Quote
The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked.

Not even slightly true. Many explanations exist, but you have already decided that inconsistency = fakery.

Quote
The consequence of this change is that the conversation between the astronauts and Mission Control is totally nonsensical.

Nonsensical to you is not the same as totally nonsensical.

Quote
It is perhaps understandable the astronauts couldn’t remember specifically what they had said over twenty years earlier, but not remembering having discovered the discolouring was caused by dust seems very odd.

Why do people always want astronauts to remember every little detail decades after the event? The examination of Surveyor 3 was a small part of the landing phase of one mission. What the source of discolouration of Surveyor 3 was is hardly the standout moment of that mission, never mind their careers or lives in general. Both of them were into their 60s by the time the ALSJ was compiled.

Quote
However, it appears this incident, which could have been fatal if the spacesuits were breached, was completely forgotten by both astronauts.

That would be odd, if it was anything like you describe. However, it was not. The concern over corrosive materials had nothing to do with damage to the spacesuit. That’s entirely your interpretation. Stuff inside a battery isn’t corrosive like the blood of the alien in Alien It could never have eaten away all the layers of the spacesuit down to the pressure garment to cause any kind of fatal damage (do you even know how many layers there were in the spacesuit and what they were made of?). The concern is more likely to be along the lines that if there is corrosive material on the suit, when they come to take it off it might get on their hands and cause some nasty chemical burns.

Quote
Of course, there was no need to produce live TV for Apollo 12 because of the accidentally damaged camera.

Once again, there is live TV, just not a lot of it.

Quote
All the Apollo 12 lunar surface photographs would have been taken in the studio long before the mission began, possibly even using stand-ins for the astronauts.

Why? Which studio? Why use stand-ins if the astronauts are available?

Quote
During the live audio transmission, the technicians at Mission Control would have been looking at images of the Surveyor 3 covered in dust. Pete Conrad and Al Bean would have been responding in a studio location looking at a Surveyor probe. This would have enabled them to go through the motions of inspecting the Surveyor and acting out the procedures asked of them by Mission Control.

This doesn’t even make sense as a scenario. If there was a studio with astronauts in it looking at a Surveyor, why not just have a closed circuit TV in Mission Control so they could see exactly what the astronauts were doing and avoid this mess entirely? You have simply created a scenario that has to be absurdly complicated to fit your explanation for what you perceive as inconsistencies.

Quote
The view of many people who are convinced that Apollo was faked is that at the outset of each mission the astronauts were launched into low-Earth orbit, and remained there until the mission was over.

A view that fails because an Apollo spacecraft in Earth orbit is naked-eye visible, and the lengthy live TV transmissions from the spacecraft could only be made at translunar distance because that’s the only way the spacecraft could stay in continuous contact for so long.

Quote
During the live Apollo 12 audio transmission “from the Moon” Pete Conrad and Al Bean were supposed to be examining a Surveyor covered in dust. Photographs in the Lunar Surface Journal show the granular nature of the dust on the lander that NASA claims is Surveyor 3. Conrad and Bean couldn’t have failed to see this dust.

Why not? I see in that photo little mound that could be dust, could be something else, but certainly don’t appear to be covering the whole surface.

Quote
Most likely, Mission Control wanted to move on because NASA’s carefully faked scene had turned into a disaster.

Or because they had a timeline that was constrained by oxygen levels and had to keep on going anyway.

Quote
There is an interesting epilogue to the mystery of Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3. In 2010 the author of one of the papers used in my research visited Alan Bean, who after retiring from NASA became an artist. Philip T. Metzger, author of Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits, wanted to hear Bean’s account of what he had seen and done on the Moon. At the end of the discussion Bean said: “I can’t allow myself to get dragged back … I have to focus on art. So Don’t … Ever ... Call … Me … Again.” Alan Bean seemed to be emphasising his desire not to speak about what had really happened.

What is the source for this claim? Without a source, this is just an unsupported assertion that Bean said something strange to someone and you somehow heard about it. Back up your statements.

Quote
Although Hughes Aircraft had manufactured the Surveyor probes, it seems odd that the Surveyor 3 components were handed back to the company for inspection.

Why is it odd to return the parts to the original manufacturer?

Quote
The Hughes Aircraft Company was a very secretive aerospace manufacturing business

Please back up your characterisation of thema as ‘very secretive’.

Quote
JPL was no doubt better suited to carrying out a forensic analysis than were Hughes Aircraft.

Why?

Quote
The Surveyor 3 components supposedly brought back from the Moon were re-investigated in 2010 by Philip Metzger and colleagues.3 The researchers concluded particles the size of small grains of sand ─ i.e. with diameters of 0.1 mm ─ impacted every part of the probe’s surface in line-of-sight of the place where the LM landed.

Your cited reference does not actually appear to say anything about the particle size. In fact if I’ve interpreted the graphs correctly about 0.1mm is the largest particle size that could be displaced that distance. Please explain where you draw the conclusion it was hit by particles about 0.1mm in diameter.

Quote
If the surfaces of the components were entirely covered in pits, it is reasonable to conclude the particles striking Surveyor 3 collectively amounted to a layer 0.1 mm thick, perhaps more. In order to have impacted Surveyor 3, this layer must have covered the entire surface of a disc extending out from the LM’s landing site and reaching to at least as far as the Surveyor 3 probe. What is the volume of this layer? It is reasonable to assume the layer would be thicker on the regions closer to the LM. However, for simplicity a layer of dust 0.1 mm thick and extending only to Surveyor 3 will be used in the calculations. The volume of a disc with a radius of 155 metres and a depth 0.1 of a millimetre is approximately 7.5 cubic metres.

The researchers claimed the material that sandblasted Surveyor 3 can be triangulated to precisely the location of the LM. This means the material must have come from immediately below the LM. If 7.5 cubic metres of material had been displaced from beneath the LM, then some sort of blast crater would have been formed. The size of this crater can be calculated. The diagonal distance between the LM’s footpads is 9 metres. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the blast-crater had a diameter of no more than 8 metres. If the blast crater is assumed to be a shallow cone or a saucer shape, the depth at the centre would have been about 0.5 of a metre.

There are a couple of assumptions there. I take particular issue with the assumption that the ‘blast crater’ should be about 8m in diameter just because the LM legs were 9m apart diagonally. What do the legs have to do with the ability of the engine to displace a volume of dust from the surface?

Quote
For instance, the photographs of Apollo 11 LM (fig 3) not only show there is no blast crater, there are no signs of the surface having been disturbed in any way whatsoever.

Actually there are indications of disturbance, and Armstrong in fact commented on the state of the ground under the LM.

Quote
Nor are there any indications of the Mylar gold foil covering the landing legs having been damaged. If particles ejected from beneath an LM are supposedly able to pit metal components at a distance of 155 metres, then the Mylar at the base of the legs and on the footpads would have been torn away.

Why? The LM engine was shut down before the pads hit the ground, as per the fight plan. As soon as that happened, no more flying dust in the area of the LM.

Quote
Without a blast crater beneath the Apollo 12 LM, there couldn’t have been enough material displaced to sandblast Surveyor 3.

Only because you have placed some arbitrary assumptions on the amount of material needed and the area over which it has to have been displaced.

Quote
The logical conclusion drawn from these findings is that the Apollo 12 mission was itself entirely fabricated.

That’s not logical at all.

Quote
Derek K. Willis, who was born in 1960, has a Certificate in Astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire UK.

An irrelevant qualification for the ‘analysis’ undertaken. Just because the Moon is involved doesn’t make astronomy the right expertise.

Quote
He began his career as a Research Associate at Northumbria University

What kind of research?

Quote
NASA scientists will have known how lunar dust would behave when disturbed by a rocket plume. Consequently they will have been able to fake this behaviour when producing the film supposedly shot from inside the LMs as they descended onto the surface of the Moon.

Non sequitur. Knowing about something isn’t the same as being able to recreate it. And since you can’t offer an explanation for how they could recreate it, we’ll disregard this statement as unsupported.

In summary, a lot of assumptions and speculation with not a lot of evidence, all based on something that seems a bit odd to you.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 04:15:20 PM
I am grateful to Jason for reading my article and for the points he has made. I will work my way through them over the coming days and provide responses.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 02, 2019, 04:19:05 PM

It isn't speculation. The entry into the Surface Journal says:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

If you won't accept what is written in the document sanctioned by NASA, then I have to ask myself what is the point of having this debate?

Of course you are speculating, why are you ignoring the earlier reference to dust? I have speculated a reason the second dust comment could have been made, but I don't know and neither do you.

I have not ignored the earlier reference to dust. That was when (after 15 minutes) the astronauts noticed the dust on the camera mirror and other parts. The second reference (after 30 minutes) was when Al Bean noticed that dust had been rubbed off the battery case.

There is no speculation in any of this.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 02, 2019, 05:08:35 PM
Non sequitur. Knowing about something isn’t the same as being able to recreate it. And since you can’t offer an explanation for how they could recreate it, we’ll disregard this statement as unsupported.

In summary, a lot of assumptions and speculation with not a lot of evidence, all based on something that seems a bit odd to you.


Frankly, the whole article comes across to me as one big "If I ran the zoo" fallacy
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on June 02, 2019, 05:22:58 PM
Non sequitur. Knowing about something isn’t the same as being able to recreate it. And since you can’t offer an explanation for how they could recreate it, we’ll disregard this statement as unsupported.

In summary, a lot of assumptions and speculation with not a lot of evidence, all based on something that seems a bit odd to you.


Frankly, the whole article comes across to me as one big "If I ran the zoo" fallacy

LOL! I agree. It's like someone accidentally wore mis-matched socks one day and now it is the basis of some conspiracy.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 02, 2019, 05:32:56 PM
I don't have to prove anything.
You have to prove everything.  You are making the claim one or more Apollo missions were faked.  There is an absolute wealth of data showing they were real.  If you believe there is an error, the burden is entirely on you to demonstrate that.

You don't have the privilege of asserting unsupported conjecture as truth.  Nobody has to "prove you wrong" until you present a case that is well supported with evidence.

I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

I'm also a qualified aeronautical engineer and it took me a bit of thought to work out how the landing plume and dust would behave.  As Jay has said, the plume would become an outward moving sheet once it met the surface and would entrain dust particles.  The sheet would expand unrestrainedly upwards and attach to the surface on its lower side, driven by its internal pressure.  On the lower side, the sheet would form a boundary layer where viscous forces would slow it to zero velocity at the surface, rapidly rising with height to the unslowed velocity.  The larger a dust particle on the surface, the higher the average gas velocity impinging on it, so very small particles could bounce slowly along the surface while larger ones could gain nearly the full velocity of the sheet.  This means that as the gas expands upwards and loses pressure, you are left with dust particles moving with a range of different velocities.  High velocity ones could go almost straight on at a crater edge, slower ones would drop with distance into the crater and the slowest follow the surface until they hit something big enough to stop them.

Okay, you have provided a qualitative description, which basically amounts to: the engine plume blew out particles and dust at a range of velocities. So can you now provide a quantitative description? What was the range of velocities, and what were the distances traveled beyond the edge of the crater?

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?   
No.  You have offered up their opinions and nothing more.  Until you provide quantitative analysis of those opinions it is entirely appropriate for people to answer you in the same format that you've offered.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 02, 2019, 06:52:05 PM
You were wrong, bknight, and the Surface Journal demonstrates you were wrong. The astronauts didn't realize that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust until after 30 minutes.

I would imagine you are keen to move onto other subjects to try to deflect away from you being wrong.

You want me to be wrong so that you can move on, not going to happen.  The dust was noticed and commented on around the fifteen minute mark from arrival.
Quote

You seem to be making some sort of threat.

Unlike you that uses incomplete thoughts such that the readers are left to fill in the missing pieces, I don't do that nor do I uses threats.  Rather I used promises.
Quote


 Is that really how matters are conducted on ApolloHoax? I thought that sort of behavior - along with the insults and ad hominems - was what happened on other forums.

Passive aggressive behavior noted.  It is very simple answer the questions on subjects that you opened
Quote



You can present whatever you like. However, the title of this thread is "Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery". Consequently, I will be restricting my answers to questions on that theme.

Well since there isn't an anomaly in A12 or Surveyor 3 what are you going to discuss?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 02, 2019, 07:11:22 PM
Jason:
Kudos for a very complete dissection of the report.   ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 02:52:01 AM
Quote
There is an interesting epilogue to the mystery of Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3. In 2010 the author of one of the papers used in my research visited Alan Bean, who after retiring from NASA became an artist. Philip T. Metzger, author of Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits, wanted to hear Bean’s account of what he had seen and done on the Moon. At the end of the discussion Bean said: “I can’t allow myself to get dragged back … I have to focus on art. So Don’t … Ever ... Call … Me … Again.” Alan Bean seemed to be emphasising his desire not to speak about what had really happened.

What is the source for this claim? Without a source, this is just an unsupported assertion that Bean said something strange to someone and you somehow heard about it. Back up your statements.

That claim comes from here:

https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/1000565682088632320?lang=en

Especially this part:

Quote
27/ We scoured the historical records of the mission for any more clues. We eventaully realized we needed to talk to Alan Bean himself to understand exactly what he saw as he walked toward S3 on the Moon and exclaimed to Houston about its brown color. So a friend set up the call.

28/ Alan was extremely nice. He had a great sense of humor and seemed to truly enjoy talking about his observations on the Moon. Of course his memories of some details had faded, but he was able to confirm the main things about what he saw, which we needed confirmed.

29/ We talked casually without any rush for about an hour. After we had finished the technical discussion he wanted to tell us about his art. He told us that he had set up a size-scaled diarama of the Apollo 12 landing site in his home, filling up an entire room.

30/ He cares about accuracy in his paintings so he takes precise measurements from the diarama to make sure all the perspective views at just right. He told us about the use of colors in his paintings. He said most people see only gray on the Moon, but he saw it full of color.

31/ His paintings show all colors in the lunar soil. (I found it interesting that he was the one who reported the color of the Surveyor spacecraft. He was indeed tuned into colors while on the Moon's surface.) He also told us about the texturing of his paintings.

32/ He uses boots and Apollo soil tools like the ones he used on the Moon to impress surface texture into the paint. He continued talking avout his art with passion for about 10 minutes. Then he wound down and finished by saying this, which I will never forget...

33/ He said he is not an engineer anymore, but an artist, and he takes his art extremely seriously. He said he has all these paintings in his head which he needed to get onto canvas before he died. He was devoted to telling the story of the Apollo program before it was too late.

34/ He knew he had limited time left in this world, and the world needs to see the Apollo missions through the eyes of an artist. He ended with, "I can't allow myself to get dragged back into engineering. I have to focus on art. So Don't...Ever...Call. Me...Again." 

So it would appear that the OP has cherry picked Bean's reported words in an attempt to make it look a little more suspicious. By focussing on his final statement he ignores all the previous ones where Bean discusses his time on the lunar surface and his recall of events there. Why is that?

Bean was no stranger to the astronaut appearance circuit, he did not refuse to talk about his time on the moon, but his focus was definitely on his art. He went to the moon, that's why he painted it a lot.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 05:24:26 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 05:55:20 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Because proving your claims is not a rule of the site, it's a standard for debate in any field. People don't walk into a court and accuse someone and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove the accusations. Scientists don't write papers and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove their conclusions. What you have is not evidence, it's a speculative trail laid out in response to something you see as anomalous.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Von_Smith on June 03, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

You can't possibly have believed that you could simply start a thread here with:  "The moon landings were faked.  Discuss." and expect to be taken seriously.

This is simple common sense and dialectic:  You are not entitled to have people believe your claims or take them seriously.  You must make your case.  From what I can tell, so far, you have not.

For example, you write:  "The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked."  Why should I believe that?  How do you know that there couldn't be other explanations?  As others here have pointed out, you seem to have overlooked some fairly obvious possible alternatives.

Even worse, you seem not to have thought things through.  If the missions were faked, why wouldn't the astronauts and mission control be on the same page from the start?  Why would they have, and voice, differing assumptions about whether they would be dust?  They would have to be following, and to have extensively *practiced*, the same script.  They would have seen the props, and the concept art for the props, and there would be no surprises except scripted ones.  It's almost like they were commenting on a situation they didn't know about beforehand, the details of which surprised them.  Proposing that the missions were fake is not only not the best explanation for this "bizarre situation", it doesn't even work very well as *an* explanation.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 06:37:00 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Your evidence is flawed, incomplete, dishonestly presented and when it is countered with factual information you ignore it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 06:42:43 AM
And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 03, 2019, 06:47:18 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Your interpretation is incorrect. You've queried this and you have been corrected. So crack on and prove your claims remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). I don't believe that you've met even a small fraction of what could be constituted as "extraordinary evidence".

In common with the majority of hoax believers you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your interlocutors. That is not how the world works. As others have said, try that in a court of law and see how you get on.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 07:13:47 AM
And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

I didn't "fly by" here. I was asked by some members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of ApolloHoax if I would join. Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 07:16:22 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Your interpretation is incorrect. You've queried this and you have been corrected. So crack on and prove your claims remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). I don't believe that you've met even a small fraction of what could be constituted as "extraordinary evidence".

In common with the majority of hoax believers you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your interlocutors. That is not how the world works. As others have said, try that in a court of law and see how you get on.

You might consider the claims that some of the Apollo missions were faked to be extraordinary, but I don't. In the past I would have, but not now.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 07:20:27 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

Because proving your claims is not a rule of the site, it's a standard for debate in any field. People don't walk into a court and accuse someone and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove the accusations. Scientists don't write papers and then demand to be proved wrong, they have to prove their conclusions. What you have is not evidence, it's a speculative trail laid out in response to something you see as anomalous.

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so. That is not to say I won't be providing my proof elsewhere.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Mag40 on June 03, 2019, 07:23:18 AM
Forgive my rather exaggerated crude diagram, but I wanted to post a refutation of the claim about the Surveyor craft being 3m tall and the entrainment being so low to the ground:-

(https://i.ibb.co/Jn0Dzd5/Untitled.png)

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1810/surveyor3_ap12c_1488.jpg
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 07:28:03 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

You can't possibly have believed that you could simply start a thread here with:  "The moon landings were faked.  Discuss." and expect to be taken seriously.

This is simple common sense and dialectic:  You are not entitled to have people believe your claims or take them seriously.  You must make your case.  From what I can tell, so far, you have not.

For example, you write:  "The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked."  Why should I believe that?  How do you know that there couldn't be other explanations?  As others here have pointed out, you seem to have overlooked some fairly obvious possible alternatives.

Even worse, you seem not to have thought things through.  If the missions were faked, why wouldn't the astronauts and mission control be on the same page from the start?  Why would they have, and voice, differing assumptions about whether they would be dust?  They would have to be following, and to have extensively *practiced*, the same script.  They would have seen the props, and the concept art for the props, and there would be no surprises except scripted ones.  It's almost like they were commenting on a situation they didn't know about beforehand, the details of which surprised them.  Proposing that the missions were fake is not only not the best explanation for this "bizarre situation", it doesn't even work very well as *an* explanation.

Like I have said, I was asked by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of this site if I would join.

As far as I am concerned I have made my case in the article. If you are not happy then use whatever means you wish to counter my claims and refute my case.

That said, in due course I will be responding to the points made by Jason.

To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: benparry on June 03, 2019, 07:38:43 AM
Derek. I haven't read your article as I probably won't understand it. I have read Jays answers and again for the most part I don't understand them. However I can see they go into some depth.

However as has been stated the moon landings are a historical fact. All of them.

I know you claim here that you believe some of them to be but not all.

However the entire scientific community have no issues with these missions. The are happy with every aspect of them as far as I know.

In this thread you have brought up an aspect of one of the missions and asked a question regarding it and you have been given several answers from several people which you have either disregarded, ignored or don't agree with.

If you have disregarded or ignored them clearly this is wrong.

However if you don't agree with them then you are not just disagreeing with 3 or 4 people here you are disagreeing with the mainstream science which is both accepted worldwide and is the source of the answers here. Jay and various others draw their answers from this mainstream science as it is this that they are experts in.

In summary, regarding all of the above, clearly it is down to you to explain in full your position as to why you disagree with their answers / claims as it is you who is going against the mainstream.

Just like flat earth people for example have to prove the earth is flat. It is not down to everybody else to prove it is round.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: benparry on June 03, 2019, 07:40:46 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.

You can't possibly have believed that you could simply start a thread here with:  "The moon landings were faked.  Discuss." and expect to be taken seriously.

This is simple common sense and dialectic:  You are not entitled to have people believe your claims or take them seriously.  You must make your case.  From what I can tell, so far, you have not.

For example, you write:  "The entirety of this bizarre situation can only be explained if the Apollo 12 mission was faked."  Why should I believe that?  How do you know that there couldn't be other explanations?  As others here have pointed out, you seem to have overlooked some fairly obvious possible alternatives.

Even worse, you seem not to have thought things through.  If the missions were faked, why wouldn't the astronauts and mission control be on the same page from the start?  Why would they have, and voice, differing assumptions about whether they would be dust?  They would have to be following, and to have extensively *practiced*, the same script.  They would have seen the props, and the concept art for the props, and there would be no surprises except scripted ones.  It's almost like they were commenting on a situation they didn't know about beforehand, the details of which surprised them.  Proposing that the missions were fake is not only not the best explanation for this "bizarre situation", it doesn't even work very well as *an* explanation.

Like I have said, I was asked by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of this site if I would join.

As far as I am concerned I have made my case in the article. If you are not happy then use whatever means you wish to counter my claims and refute my case.

That said, in due course I will be responding to the points made by Jason.

To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

Which missions are you now saying are fake. I thought above you said men walked on the moon ??
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 07:42:32 AM
To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

This is a standard claim that also fails for reasons of practicality. Just from the Apollo 12 case you have 3 astronauts who must know, plus the stand-ins you suggest were used in the advance photographs, plus anyone and everyone who worked in the soundstage, plus those at mission control who had the script you claim they worked to. That's already a lot of people who know it was faked. How have they all kept silent?

But what of the companies who built the spacecraft? How many of them know it was faked? If you don't tell a bunch of engineers you have asked to build something that it doesn't have to work, they build working hardware, so why fake it? If Apollo 14, 15 and 16 were genuine then the hardware must have worked. Why was it not used on the other missions?

It is not sufficient to handwave 'a few' people know it was faked. You have to demonstrate you have understood who would need to be in on the fake, who would definitely spot it, and how all these people have been kept silent.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 07:44:03 AM
Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so.

It really depends how seriously you want us to take you and your arguments. If you have arrived at them rationally it should be no trouble for you to defend them when asked. A huffy 'well I don't have to' doesn't engender any respect or encourage us to take your claims seriously.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 03, 2019, 07:44:23 AM


You might consider the claims that some of the Apollo missions were faked to be extraordinary, but I don't. In the past I would have, but not now.

Its a fringe belief pushed by those with poor understanding or those with a vested interest in selling books/talks.  You don't consider it an extraordinary claim because you are part of that fringe.

You are also trying to disprove tens of thousands of pieces of documented and supported evidence with a couple of cherry-picked quotations. That in itself makes the claim extraordinary.

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so.
You are if you really want to learn where your interpretations are in error. It is clear that you don't so I can see that you rapidly will be given the equivalent of a pat on the head and a "that must be nice for you" approach.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 07:44:54 AM
And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

I didn't "fly by" here. I was asked by some members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of ApolloHoax if I would join.

You seem to have a problem with precision in the use of language. I didn't say that you were 'flying by here'. I said you shared a common trait with many who have. It is to your credit that you have come here and are prepared to discuss the subject.

Quote
Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. [My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine.

This despite the many articles on the site to which you contribute claiming the opposite of that? Including, by inference, you. On your article on Apollo 17 you say this:

Quote
Either all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel, or the same Rover was used for the photo shoots for all three missions.

Not sure how you can square a claim that Apollo 16 and 17 used the same rover as Apollo 15 when you are happy that Apollo 15's rover went to the moon. Did they bring it back? Unless, of course, Henderson's claims are complete BS and you haven't really thought that through.

I've examined all of the Apollo missions in great detail and can find no reason to dispute the reality of any of them. I have a long list of irrelevant qualifications and experience. Where does that leave us?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 07:51:16 AM
Derek. I haven't read your article as I probably won't understand it. I have read Jays answers and again for the most part I don't understand them. However I can see they go into some depth.

However as has been stated the moon landings are a historical fact. All of them.

I know you claim here that you believe some of them to be but not all.

However the entire scientific community have no issues with these missions. The are happy with every aspect of them as far as I know.

In this thread you have brought up an aspect of one of the missions and asked a question regarding it and you have been given several answers from several people which you have either disregarded, ignored or don't agree with.

If you have disregarded or ignored them clearly this is wrong.

However if you don't agree with them then you are not just disagreeing with 3 or 4 people here you are disagreeing with the mainstream science which is both accepted worldwide and is the source of the answers here. Jay and various others draw their answers from this mainstream science as it is this that they are experts in.

In summary, regarding all of the above, clearly it is down to you to explain in full your position as to why you disagree with their answers / claims as it is you who is going against the mainstream.

Just like flat earth people for example have to prove the earth is flat. It is not down to everybody else to prove it is round.

My point is, I don't have to prove anything on this site. As I have mentioned above, I was asked to join this site by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members here. I did so on the basis that I would provide the claims in the form of my article, and that I would attempt to answer questions.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 03, 2019, 07:55:18 AM

My point is, I don't have to prove anything on this site. As I have mentioned above, I was asked to join this site by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members here. I did so on the basis that I would provide the claims in the form of my article, and that I would attempt to answer questions.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
 

There's not much point in you continuing here then, is there?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: benparry on June 03, 2019, 07:55:37 AM
Derek. I haven't read your article as I probably won't understand it. I have read Jays answers and again for the most part I don't understand them. However I can see they go into some depth.

However as has been stated the moon landings are a historical fact. All of them.

I know you claim here that you believe some of them to be but not all.

However the entire scientific community have no issues with these missions. The are happy with every aspect of them as far as I know.

In this thread you have brought up an aspect of one of the missions and asked a question regarding it and you have been given several answers from several people which you have either disregarded, ignored or don't agree with.

If you have disregarded or ignored them clearly this is wrong.

However if you don't agree with them then you are not just disagreeing with 3 or 4 people here you are disagreeing with the mainstream science which is both accepted worldwide and is the source of the answers here. Jay and various others draw their answers from this mainstream science as it is this that they are experts in.

In summary, regarding all of the above, clearly it is down to you to explain in full your position as to why you disagree with their answers / claims as it is you who is going against the mainstream.

Just like flat earth people for example have to prove the earth is flat. It is not down to everybody else to prove it is round.

My point is, I don't have to prove anything on this site. As I have mentioned above, I was asked to join this site by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members here. I did so on the basis that I would provide the claims in the form of my article, and that I would attempt to answer questions.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
 

My point is you do if you wish everybody else to engage in a debate with you. If you take a quick look around at some of the other threads here in the hoax section you will see quite a few where people have started with a quick 'Its fake because of this' and then when given answers have simply either left or argued until they were blue in the face, and then left.

If your happy with your version of things that's fine it just doesn't agree with the mainstream. Also don't be surprised when nobody goes to any lengths to provide extra info.

However I have 1 question for you. Why did you post here and please don't say because you were asked to. You could have said no. Did you want a refutation to your claims ??
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 03, 2019, 08:03:37 AM
In your article you show two images of the surveyor pad, one showing a clean Pad taken by surveyor Fig 2 and fig 2a taken by Al Bean and insinuate that this added to the mystery. You totally ignore the fact that the surveyor image was taken prior to it digging a trench in the soil and the fact that the pad in question was the one next to the soil sampling arm. In fact the dust is mentioned in the alsj and you fail to mention that fact. "AS12-48-7111 (OF300) ( 280k or 1285k )
Close-up of the upslope footpad and the multiple imprints it made during the landing. Note the pile of dirt on the footpad. Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that the pile was put there by JPL engineer Floyd Roberson using the scoop. Scoop marks can be seen beyond the footpad."
Any particular reason for the omission?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:04:30 AM
And while I'm here, you claim to hold the position of "I don't think they were all faked, just this one". This is a fairly standard line from conspiracy theorists why fly by here. It usually turns out that this is just a variation of the JAQ-ing off meme and they are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Looking at aulis, you also have an article saying you think Apollo 17 was faked, and mention in passing other people's disbelief in Apollo 13 without saying "but I think it was genuine".

So, which missions do you think were genuine? Why?

I didn't "fly by" here. I was asked by some members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of ApolloHoax if I would join.

You seem to have a problem with precision in the use of language. I didn't say that you were 'flying by here'. I said you shared a common trait with many who have. It is to your credit that you have come here and are prepared to discuss the subject.

Quote
Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. [My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine.

This despite the many articles on the site to which you contribute claiming the opposite of that? Including, by inference, you. On your article on Apollo 17 you say this:

Quote
Either all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel, or the same Rover was used for the photo shoots for all three missions.

Not sure how you can square a claim that Apollo 16 and 17 used the same rover as Apollo 15 when you are happy that Apollo 15's rover went to the moon. Did they bring it back? Unless, of course, Henderson's claims are complete BS and you haven't really thought that through.

I've examined all of the Apollo missions in great detail and can find no reason to dispute the reality of any of them. I have a long list of irrelevant qualifications and experience. Where does that leave us?

Perhaps none of your qualifications are in journalism? The usual rule is that whatever appears beneath the author's name is editorial input. The section about the oil leak falls into that category, and so doesn't necessarily represent my views.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:12:57 AM
In your article you show two images of the surveyor pad, one showing a clean Pad taken by surveyor Fig 2 and fig 2a taken by Al Bean and insinuate that this added to the mystery. You totally ignore the fact that the surveyor image was taken prior to it digging a trench in the soil and the fact that the pad in question was the one next to the soil sampling arm. In fact the dust is mentioned in the alsj and you fail to mention that fact. "AS12-48-7111 (OF300) ( 280k or 1285k )
Close-up of the upslope footpad and the multiple imprints it made during the landing. Note the pile of dirt on the footpad. Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that the pile was put there by JPL engineer Floyd Roberson using the scoop. Scoop marks can be seen beyond the footpad."
Any particular reason for the omission?

In the text I say: "This dust is shown even more clearly on a close up of one of the probe's legs and a footpad."

I know the clump of soil on the footpad was deposited by the scoop. It is the dust on the leg struts and, for instance, the part of the pad behind the struts that I am referring to.

So are you suggesting the dust that extends all the way up the leg struts was deposited by the scoop?

Edit: My inclusion of the photograph of Surveyor One's clean pad was to demonstrate how very little dust was created due to the landing.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 08:16:17 AM
The "About the Author" portion of your article mentions this:
"He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions."

I did a bit of a search for it but nothing coming up. Is it waiting to be published?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:23:22 AM
The "About the Author" portion of your article mentions this:
"He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions."

I did a bit of a search for it but nothing coming up. Is it waiting to be published?

Yes, the book is not yet published. But it will be soon.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 08:26:21 AM
In your article you show two images of the surveyor pad, one showing a clean Pad taken by surveyor Fig 2 and fig 2a taken by Al Bean and insinuate that this added to the mystery. You totally ignore the fact that the surveyor image was taken prior to it digging a trench in the soil and the fact that the pad in question was the one next to the soil sampling arm. In fact the dust is mentioned in the alsj and you fail to mention that fact. "AS12-48-7111 (OF300) ( 280k or 1285k )
Close-up of the upslope footpad and the multiple imprints it made during the landing. Note the pile of dirt on the footpad. Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that the pile was put there by JPL engineer Floyd Roberson using the scoop. Scoop marks can be seen beyond the footpad."
Any particular reason for the omission?

In the text I say: "This dust is shown even more clearly on a close up of one of the probe's legs and a footpad."

I know the clump of soil on the footpad was deposited by the scoop.

Then why don't you mention that in your text? Why is the image you show of Surveyor 1?

Quote
It is the dust on the leg struts and, for instance, the part of the pad behind the struts that I am referring to.

Then you need to be more precise about your claims.

Quote
So are you suggesting the dust that extends all the way up the leg struts was deposited by the scoop?   

....and you need to stop putting words into people's mouths. That is not the claim being made.

You will notice in the Apollo image that the imprint of the probe's first landing is no longer visible, and there is a lot of disturbance around it, as well as astronaut footprints. What is more probable to you:  a) much of the dust on the probe's footpad is deposited by astronauts as they work around it, or b) a whistleblower put an extra layer of dust on there as a clue to people like you?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 08:27:25 AM
Perhaps none of your qualifications are in journalism? The usual rule is that whatever appears beneath the author's name is editorial input. The section about the oil leak falls into that category, and so doesn't necessarily represent my views.

Does it or doesn't it?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 03, 2019, 08:28:47 AM

In the text I say: "This dust is shown even more clearly on a close up of one of the probe's legs and a footpad."

I know the clump of soil on the footpad was deposited by the scoop. It is the dust on the leg struts and, for instance, the part of the pad behind the struts that I am referring to.

So are you suggesting the dust that extends all the way up the leg struts was deposited by the scoop?

Edit: My inclusion of the photograph of Surveyor One's clean pad was to demonstrate how very little dust was created due to the landing.   

I'm not suggesting anything I am just asking why you omitted to mention that in the article.

edit: Cheers OBM, great minds and all that.  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 03, 2019, 08:30:07 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.
It is a fact that your article presents a claim that is contrary to the accepted paradigm and all of the evidence that supports that paradigm.

It is a fact that your claim is supported by a number of speculative items.  A script and sound stage, for example, that are simply assumed to exist in your article.  You provide no evidence for either of these things beyond their necessity to bolster your claim.

It is a fact that you use the speculations of 2 astronauts outside the main area of their expertise who used no calculations or real numbers to arrive at their conclusion as evidence against the people who compiled the data and used math to find a different answer.  You offer no explanation for why you elevate their perspective over all others.

It is a fact that many astronauts talked about the difficulty they had in assessing distance on the moon.  You offer no explanation for why Pete Conrad couldn't have simply been mistaken when he judged the dust to be forming at 300 feet.  He was a little busy trying to land a very unusual craft in very unusual circumstances for only the second time in human history. 

It is a fact that you said, twice I believe, that the only explanation for what you have identified as anomalies is the mission was faked.  There is no indication that you have eliminated any of the other possible explanations.

It is a fact that another possible explanation is that your understanding and expectations are flawed, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that you have considered and worked to eliminate that possibility.

Not all facts are math and physics, and it is entirely appropriate to point out where your claim is lacking enough substance to warrant a more thorough look.   

No one is attacking you personally or even attacking the principle of hoax belief.  It is simply being pointed out that your conclusions are completely unsupported by the small amounts of evidence you offer. 

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so. That is not to say I won't be providing my proof elsewhere.
Conversely, no one is obligated to have the discussion on your terms.  You can't offer a poorly supported series of speculations and then demand that they be proven wrong mathematically.  It is enough to point out there is no evidence for your speculations.  If you want more, you have to provide more.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
What is your objection to providing more evidence here?  I've read your article, as have a number of people who have responded to you.  I don't see much more than speculation and don't agree that you've made your case or that the article speaks for itself.  Why don't you consider it part of productive discussion for people to ask you to back up the things that don't stand on their own?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 08:48:33 AM
Here's footpad 2 from 2 different photographs - one near the start of their work around it and one from later on.

(https://i.imgur.com/2BVbzDu.jpg)

Can you really not tell that there has been material added to it by that work?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:50:34 AM
In your article you show two images of the surveyor pad, one showing a clean Pad taken by surveyor Fig 2 and fig 2a taken by Al Bean and insinuate that this added to the mystery. You totally ignore the fact that the surveyor image was taken prior to it digging a trench in the soil and the fact that the pad in question was the one next to the soil sampling arm. In fact the dust is mentioned in the alsj and you fail to mention that fact. "AS12-48-7111 (OF300) ( 280k or 1285k )
Close-up of the upslope footpad and the multiple imprints it made during the landing. Note the pile of dirt on the footpad. Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that the pile was put there by JPL engineer Floyd Roberson using the scoop. Scoop marks can be seen beyond the footpad."
Any particular reason for the omission?

In the text I say: "This dust is shown even more clearly on a close up of one of the probe's legs and a footpad."

I know the clump of soil on the footpad was deposited by the scoop.

Then why don't you mention that in your text? Why is the image you show of Surveyor 1?

Quote
It is the dust on the leg struts and, for instance, the part of the pad behind the struts that I am referring to.

Then you need to be more precise about your claims.

Quote
So are you suggesting the dust that extends all the way up the leg struts was deposited by the scoop?   

....and you need to stop putting words into people's mouths. That is not the claim being made.

You will notice in the Apollo image that the imprint of the probe's first landing is no longer visible, and there is a lot of disturbance around it, as well as astronaut footprints. What is more probable to you:  a) much of the dust on the probe's footpad is deposited by astronauts as they work around it, or b) a whistleblower put an extra layer of dust on there as a clue to people like you?

I was happy my text was clear enough.

I explained in the edit to my earlier post why I included the photo of the Surveyor 1 pad.

I was asking you a question, not putting words into anyone's mouth.

In the scenario I suggest, both answers could be possible. If the photographs of the astronauts and the Surveyor were taken in a studio, then the dust on the pads could have been kicked up, or put there by a whistle-blower.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:53:51 AM
Here's footpad 2 from 2 different photographs - one near the start of their work around it and one from later on.

(https://i.imgur.com/2BVbzDu.jpg)

Can you really not tell that there has been material added to it by that work?

Perhaps if the second image was of the same quality as the first I could offer an opinion.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 08:56:33 AM
I will come back to these questions later. I can see that I am getting mixed up with who said what. When the rate of questions is slower I can look more carefully at them.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 09:05:48 AM
I am repeatedly being told - for instance by ApolloEnthusiast - that I have to "prove everything".

Here is what is written on the homepage of ApolloHoax:

"The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo missions were faked."

My interpretation is that (a) I present my claims, and (b) people use factual information to counter those claims. I don't see where it says I have to prove my claims beforehand.

That said, I have provided the evidence within my article that led me to make my claims.
It is a fact that your article presents a claim that is contrary to the accepted paradigm and all of the evidence that supports that paradigm.

It is a fact that your claim is supported by a number of speculative items.  A script and sound stage, for example, that are simply assumed to exist in your article.  You provide no evidence for either of these things beyond their necessity to bolster your claim.

It is a fact that you use the speculations of 2 astronauts outside the main area of their expertise who used no calculations or real numbers to arrive at their conclusion as evidence against the people who compiled the data and used math to find a different answer.  You offer no explanation for why you elevate their perspective over all others.

It is a fact that many astronauts talked about the difficulty they had in assessing distance on the moon.  You offer no explanation for why Pete Conrad couldn't have simply been mistaken when he judged the dust to be forming at 300 feet.  He was a little busy trying to land a very unusual craft in very unusual circumstances for only the second time in human history. 

It is a fact that you said, twice I believe, that the only explanation for what you have identified as anomalies is the mission was faked.  There is no indication that you have eliminated any of the other possible explanations.

It is a fact that another possible explanation is that your understanding and expectations are flawed, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that you have considered and worked to eliminate that possibility.

Not all facts are math and physics, and it is entirely appropriate to point out where your claim is lacking enough substance to warrant a more thorough look.   

No one is attacking you personally or even attacking the principle of hoax belief.  It is simply being pointed out that your conclusions are completely unsupported by the small amounts of evidence you offer. 

Well if it is not a rule to prove my claims on the site, I am under no obligation to do so. That is not to say I won't be providing my proof elsewhere.
Conversely, no one is obligated to have the discussion on your terms.  You can't offer a poorly supported series of speculations and then demand that they be proven wrong mathematically.  It is enough to point out there is no evidence for your speculations.  If you want more, you have to provide more.

Of course you are correct, when claims are made evidence of some sort needs to be provided. I am not, however, going to provide that evidence here. If people aren't happy with that then I will happily bow out.
What is your objection to providing more evidence here?  I've read your article, as have a number of people who have responded to you.  I don't see much more than speculation and don't agree that you've made your case or that the article speaks for itself.  Why don't you consider it part of productive discussion for people to ask you to back up the things that don't stand on their own?

I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 09:15:20 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.


Well, lets see some verifiable proof for that claim.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 09:15:42 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.

And the evidence for this claim is...?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 03, 2019, 09:17:54 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 09:33:35 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here? I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2019, 09:38:01 AM
It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 09:48:10 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

Quote
I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

Quote
I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

Quote
I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2019, 09:48:46 AM
But let's not disappear off down this rabbit hole. You asked for a response to your article from someone who has read it. You have been given it. Now respond to that.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 09:53:51 AM

I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

No, I do not admit I talk utter c**p.

I would have thought that all you experts would have relished the opportunity to prove me wrong. It seems I am wrong about that.

Rot. We don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct.

And to illustrate how utterly vacuous your argument really is, here is a transcript from Apollo 8

089:32:50 Mattingly: Apollo 8, Houston. [No answer.]
089:33:38 Mattingly: Apollo 8, Houston.
089:34:16 Lovell: Houston, Apollo 8, over.
089:34:19 Mattingly: Hello, Apollo 8. Loud and clear.
089:34:25 Lovell: Roger. Please be informed there is a Santa Claus.
089:34:31 Mattingly: That's affirmative. You're the best ones to know.


From which we can only conclude that Santa Claus is real by your (lack of) logic. Right?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 09:56:06 AM
It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.

I know nothing whatsoever about film-making. I have, though, watched some of the videos explaining why recreating the low gravity and vacuum on the Moon is impossible. The problem is, everyone is looking in the wrong direction - so to speak - when explaining why it is impossible. I was astounded to discover how simple it actually is. It's more like a conjuring trick - you know, like when someone floats in the air and appears to defy gravity.

But like I said, this is the point where I will be dismissed as being full of c**p. So, I am in no way surprised by your response.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 09:57:54 AM
But let's not disappear off down this rabbit hole. You asked for a response to your article from someone who has read it. You have been given it. Now respond to that.

I am working on my responses. Like I said earlier I will do that in the coming days because you made a lot of points that need to be addressed.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: benparry on June 03, 2019, 10:04:06 AM
It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.

I know nothing whatsoever about film-making. I have, though, watched some of the videos explaining why recreating the low gravity and vacuum on the Moon is impossible. The problem is, everyone is looking in the wrong direction - so to speak - when explaining why it is impossible. I was astounded to discover how simple it actually is. It's more like a conjuring trick - you know, like when someone floats in the air and appears to defy gravity.

But like I said, this is the point where I will be dismissed as being full of c**p. So, I am in no way surprised by your response.

I'm no expert but I believe you are mixing up what gravity affects. I believe the difficulty lies both in simulating the lack of gravity compared to earth and the lack of air entirely but i'm sure many of the experts here will put me right on that one. They wont spend a long time doing it. Why. Because a. I haven't demanded it and b. because I haven't provided a strong enough case to warrant it !!!!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 10:18:54 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

Quote
I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

Quote
I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

Quote
I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?

It matters very much if someone convincingly points out if there are flaws in my articles. Why? Because that would prove Conrad and Bean really were on the Moon examining Surveyor 3. In that case, the photographs and other evidence I have seen must be fakes. Where is the problem?

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: benparry on June 03, 2019, 10:30:14 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

Quote
I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

Quote
I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

Quote
I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?

It matters very much if someone convincingly points out if there are flaws in my articles. Why? Because that would prove Conrad and Bean really were on the Moon examining Surveyor 3. In that case, the photographs and other evidence I have seen must be fakes. Where is the problem?

The problem is (and i'm sure Jason is already typing this) that evidence already exists in multiple forms. The only thing currently which doesn't exist is your willingness to prove your assertions. If you could do that that would clean up the issue surely !!!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 03, 2019, 10:44:46 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here? I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Even without seeing the photographs, I would want to know how you ascertained that the photographs are authentic, and how you ascertained that they prove it was faked?

There were a number of facilities that were used for Apollo training, many of which would have had astronauts in actual or simulated Apollo gear preparing for their missions.  Photographs of these training events could certainly be misinterpreted by those who are unfamiliar with them, or misrepresented by those who care more about their agenda than the truth, as evidence for faking the missions. 

It would be helpful to know what steps you took to eliminate perfectly reasonable, non-hoax explanations for what you saw in the photos before deciding they definitively prove the mission was faked.

That said, I understand that you are under a barrage of responses and will, from here back off, and give you time to address everything that's come up so far.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 11:01:38 AM
I will address one point here. The "secret studio" was inside the 30,000 square meter hangar at Hughes Airport in Los Angeles. The hangar was later used to film scenes from Titanic, End of Days, and other movies.
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

You're full of crap. Of course you have. I mean, you said so right?

Quote
I have seen the photographs.

uh-huh.

Quote
But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

No, I'd expect him to present them to a contributor to a crank website, or maybe sell it to the highest bidder. One of those things.

Quote
I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

You have an over-excited imagination.

Quote
I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Yes, there is. You can put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 11:07:44 AM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm


But not the footnotes. They were someone else's apparently. He may or may not believe those.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 03, 2019, 11:37:08 AM
Derek:
In spite of you saying you would not answer my questions instead sticking to the dust on the S3 lander and A12, you continue to let your hoax beliefs spill out to the audience.
So again which Apollo missions were faked.  Why were they faked?  How were those missions faked.  Where were those missions faked?  Ah I see you have answered that one, the big hangar at San Diego.  ::)

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 12:11:28 PM
In the scenario I suggest, both answers could be possible. If the photographs of the astronauts and the Surveyor were taken in a studio, then the dust on the pads could have been kicked up, or put there by a whistle-blower.

Which reminds me of the often expressed opinion by hoax believers that a similar, Manhattan Project compartmentalization style security system, was employed for the Apollo project that kept only the ones in the need to know fully aware of what was going on. Quite the contrast between a top secret military project that kept even vice president Truman out of the loop vs a project like Apollo that was as publicly open as possible. Yet despite all the USA's attempts to keep the A-bomb project under wraps Russia still managed to get key information from people in the right places to provide them enough info that they developed their own bomb by Aug 1949, much sooner then the USA expected. It even looked a lot like the "Fat Man" one used on Nagasaki. You seriously expect us to believe that in the past 50 years since the landings were supposedly staged, nobody has come forward with insider information or definitive proof? Yes, according to you, the big grand reveal is supposed to happen for the 50th anniversary. Sorry, but as others have mentioned, this just defies credibility and is counter to basic human behavior.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: AtomicDog on June 03, 2019, 12:19:12 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm


But not the footnotes. They were someone else's apparently. He may or may not believe those.

The rover fender in the Smithsonian photo is rotated 90° from the one in AS17-137-20979. You can tell by the small piece of tape sticking out from under the vertical tape stripe near where the vertical and horizontal tape stripes cross.
And since the far side of the fender cannot been seen clearly in either photo, the tape edge is a clear indicator that it is the same fender.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 12:50:14 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 03, 2019, 01:05:46 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17.
"If I don't understand it", or "If it looks odd", or "If I can't explain it" then it is fake.  But don't forget "If I ran the zoo".
Works every time, just like the OP "anomalies".  Those don't exist either except in the minds of our current hoaxer.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 01:38:23 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17.
"If I don't understand it", or "If it looks odd", or "If I can't explain it" then it is fake.  But don't forget "If I ran the zoo".
Works every time, just like the OP "anomalies".  Those don't exist either except in the minds of our current hoaxer.

I'm not sure what to make of him. He wrote a short story about a Chinese Lunar EVA that went wrong that seems interesting despite it only getting limited mixed reviews plus he claims that AP 14, AP 15 & AP 16 are legit. Yet as you say, thinks that supposed anomalies that he can't explain away justify the conclusion that AP 11, AP 12 & AP 17 are fake. Pretty strange behavior.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 01:55:36 PM
Is questioning my qualifications, is this the start of the ad hominems? Well, I have a degree in physics, though fluid mechanics was in no way a specialty.
By and large, such qualifications are taken at face value here.

But when you start to claim on foot of such so-called expertise that 1+1= a telletubbie, We would all be insane to just accept it at that point. And that is the point you have reached.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17.
"If I don't understand it", or "If it looks odd", or "If I can't explain it" then it is fake.  But don't forget "If I ran the zoo".
Works every time, just like the OP "anomalies".  Those don't exist either except in the minds of our current hoaxer.

I'm not sure what to make of him. He wrote a short story about a Chinese Lunar EVA that went wrong that seems interesting despite it only getting limited mixed reviews plus he claims that AP 14, AP 15 & AP 16 are legit. Yet as you say, thinks that supposed anomalies that he can't explain away justify the conclusion that AP 11, AP 12 & AP 17 are fake. Pretty strange behavior.

His stating that A14-16 are genuine was pretty much with the caveat "but only because I haven't found anything wrong with them yet". I'm pretty sure he'll be doing his best to find some insignificant micro-detail on which to hang a flimsy premise. His book isn't called "Faking some of Apollo".
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 03, 2019, 03:01:30 PM
Well, it's "next week."  As promised, I will refrain from further specific comment on the main thread topic until I've read Derek's article with sufficient care and study.  Late last week one of my clients had something unexpected come up so I've had some unplanned additions to the normal workload.  Hopefully we can wrap that up this week and free my time up for a focused examination.

However, this I can address briefly without needing to refer to the article or any specific claim.

You might consider the claims that some of the Apollo missions were faked to be extraordinary, but I don't.

But is your personal judgment the appropriate standard for that determination?  The maxim, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," speaks to the very nature of proof.  And the process of proof is an exercise whereby one party attempts to convince another of something that he doesn't already believe.  Therefore the receiving party's standard of proof is not irrelevant.

If Tom undertakes to prove something to Dick, he does so with the presumption that Dick doesn't already believe it.  If Dick already does, then it doesn't matter whether Tom could have mustered a whole regiment of facts in his favor and marshaled them with unassailable logic; people rarely belabor the reasons why they agree.  But if Tom must convince Dick, then the basis of Dick's current belief and the standard Dick proposes for conviction otherwise are operative conditions.  It doesn't matter whether Tom thinks his claim is not extraordinary if Dick thinks it is, if Dick can give good reasons for considering it extraordinary, and if Tom has agreed to attempt to convince Dick.  Tom doesn't get to insist Dick lower his standard.  He doesn't get to reverse the burden of proof, saddling Dick with having to overcome a hidden premise that his present beliefs are ill-founded. 

The degree to which a proposition is extraordinary is the degree to which it is implausible on its face.  And if you're trying to convince somebody, it is the degree to which those people find a proposition implausible on its face that you have to deal with.  Your argument may eventually follow the path of showing why their skepticism is irrational, based on unsound logic or a poor comprehension of the facts.  But that's still something you have to show by your affirmative dissection of that rationale.  If you insist that your own personal thermostat is what should set the expectations of the argument for them, that's a rhetorical non-starter.  If you want to convince me that your argument has merit, you must address what I consider to be extraordinary, and you must be prepared to tangle with my standard of proof.

Off the top of my head I can name aerospace engineering, astrodynamics, control systems, civil engineering, astrophysics, geology, and planetary science as the foremost sciences that are intimately familiar with the Apollo record and accept the Apollo missions unanimously as authentic history and technology.  Much subsequent science in these fields has been predicated on it, not simply idly accepting it but delving deeply into it.

Now in any scientific endeavor -- any exercise involving people, for that matter -- you will always have isolated incidents of mismanagement, misappropriate, misfeasance, concealment, even outright fraud.  Professional and academic science considers accusations of scientific malfeasance to be extraordinary, and to require extraordinary proof.  This is because it happens so infrequently, as opposed to innocent errors, normal scientific uncertainty, and so forth.  My point is that science is far from perfect or infallible, but accusations of outright fraud are still considered extraordinary enough to impose a prodigious burden of proof on the accuser.

The degree of malfeasance you're proposing is colossal.  You're accusing the major practitioners of several giant industries -- including principals such as Max Faget, with long and illustrious prior accomplishments -- of wholesale fraud, in connection with public officials, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and immense impact on the scientific and engineering communities.  And you're accusing the follow-on sciences either of being complicit in the fraud, or of failing in due diligence.

How can that possibly not constitute an extraordinary claim in the eyes of the people you're trying to convince?

Quote
In the past I would have, but not now.

What would you give as the reason for having relaxed your standard?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 04:28:03 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17.
"If I don't understand it", or "If it looks odd", or "If I can't explain it" then it is fake.  But don't forget "If I ran the zoo".
Works every time, just like the OP "anomalies".  Those don't exist either except in the minds of our current hoaxer.

I'm not sure what to make of him. He wrote a short story about a Chinese Lunar EVA that went wrong that seems interesting despite it only getting limited mixed reviews plus he claims that AP 14, AP 15 & AP 16 are legit. Yet as you say, thinks that supposed anomalies that he can't explain away justify the conclusion that AP 11, AP 12 & AP 17 are fake. Pretty strange behavior.

His stating that A14-16 are genuine was pretty much with the caveat "but only because I haven't found anything wrong with them yet". I'm pretty sure he'll be doing his best to find some insignificant micro-detail on which to hang a flimsy premise. His book isn't called "Faking some of Apollo".

Good point. I had a look at this Scott Henderson's link that he refers to regarding the LR's all having the same wheel grease leak. Good grief. This guy is just as bad as Hunchedbacked with what he see's hidden in plain site that supposedly is automobiles covered up to look like boulders.


Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 03, 2019, 04:39:47 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

Just had a look at that. I'm not so familiar with the AP 15 & AP 16 LR fender issues but I'm assuming they weren't enough of a problem to require spending valuable time attempting to fix them. If that's not the case, you would think he would have said so in the article instead of merely pointing out how suspicious it was that they only fixed the one used for AP 17.
"If I don't understand it", or "If it looks odd", or "If I can't explain it" then it is fake.  But don't forget "If I ran the zoo".
Works every time, just like the OP "anomalies".  Those don't exist either except in the minds of our current hoaxer.

I'm not sure what to make of him. He wrote a short story about a Chinese Lunar EVA that went wrong that seems interesting despite it only getting limited mixed reviews plus he claims that AP 14, AP 15 & AP 16 are legit. Yet as you say, thinks that supposed anomalies that he can't explain away justify the conclusion that AP 11, AP 12 & AP 17 are fake. Pretty strange behavior.

His stating that A14-16 are genuine was pretty much with the caveat "but only because I haven't found anything wrong with them yet". I'm pretty sure he'll be doing his best to find some insignificant micro-detail on which to hang a flimsy premise. His book isn't called "Faking some of Apollo".

Good point. I had a look at this Scott Henderson's link that he refers to regarding the LR's all having the same wheel grease leak. Good grief. This guy is just as bad as Hunchedbacked with what he see's hidden in plain site that supposedly is automobiles covered up to look like boulders.
What was his conclusion of the wheel leaks?  Did all three suffer the same/similar issue?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 03, 2019, 04:48:18 PM

What was his conclusion of the wheel leaks?  Did all three suffer the same/similar issue?

No. More like the same LR was used for all 3 missions so yeah, like you said, no doubt that's enough to knock AP-15 & AP-16 into the fake category.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 03, 2019, 04:50:22 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

I presume that this is the same guy?
http://conspiracywiki.com/author/conspiracy/

If so, then a bad case* of crank magnetism. We've nearly got the full house of crank "theories".....NWO, European federal super-state, the Bilderburg Group, HAARP mind-control...we're just missing some lizard eyeball-licking. ::)



*Is there any other kind?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 03, 2019, 05:33:11 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

I presume that this is the same guy?
http://conspiracywiki.com/author/conspiracy/

If so, then a bad case* of crank magnetism. We've nearly got the full house of crank "theories".....NWO, European federal super-state, the Bilderburg Group, HAARP mind-control...we're just missing some lizard eyeball-licking. ::)



*Is there any other kind?

Your presumption is wrong. The blog you linked to has nothing whatsoever to do with me. A member of Unexplained Mysteries had exactly the same reaction as you, which was how my attention was drawn to the blog. It seems the blog appeared last year, sometime after I had published my first article. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the blogger has the same name as me, or perhaps it is an attempt to discredit me. Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps it is related to the emails I received from NASA in response to emails I had never sent. Or to some of the other strange things that have happened since I began to question the orthodox account of Apollo. Again, your guess is as good as mine.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 03, 2019, 05:43:58 PM
Right, so the truth comes out. Derek is just a run-o-the-mill hoaxtard after all. Well, colour me surprised!

Even if it was possible to build a big-arse vacuum chamber; big enough to house a couple of square km of lunar landscape; big enough so that the inverse square law would not be detectable when the scene is lit, it would still be impossible fake the lunar EVA on earth because of two things

1. The 1/6th gravity.
Even now, it is still impossible to fake low-gravity environments such as the Lunar and Martian surface without extensive and expensive CGI (which had not even been invested yet in 1969). This why movie makers either utterly fail to get it right (Apollo 18, Moon, Apollo 13) or they do not even attempt to do so (The Martian, 2001).

2. The video technology did not exist in 1969
I could launch into a long treatise on how storing 2½ hours of uninterrupted LIVE video for later playback could not even remotely be done in any way that fakery would not be spotted by anyone with a basic understanding of cinematography, but I won't. Instead, I will leave that to an actual expert in cinematography, Mr S.G Collins...



 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 03, 2019, 06:40:56 PM

Your presumption is wrong. The blog you linked to has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

That's fair enough. Thanks for the correction.

I wouldn't be concerned about someone trying to discredit you....you appear to be doing a more than adequate job by yourself. ;)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 07:26:12 PM
Lest anyone forget, this is the very same Derek K. Willis who came up with the Apollo 17 "fender mystery".

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

I presume that this is the same guy?
http://conspiracywiki.com/author/conspiracy/

If so, then a bad case* of crank magnetism. We've nearly got the full house of crank "theories".....NWO, European federal super-state, the Bilderburg Group, HAARP mind-control...we're just missing some lizard eyeball-licking. ::)



*Is there any other kind?

Your presumption is wrong. The blog you linked to has nothing whatsoever to do with me. A member of Unexplained Mysteries had exactly the same reaction as you, which was how my attention was drawn to the blog. It seems the blog appeared last year, sometime after I had published my first article. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the blogger has the same name as me, or perhaps it is an attempt to discredit me. Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps it is related to the emails I received from NASA in response to emails I had never sent. Or to some of the other strange things that have happened since I began to question the orthodox account of Apollo. Again, your guess is as good as mine.
But your guess is not the equal of informed scientific conclusions. And it never will be.

ETA: Got anything to say about the transcripts I gave you? Is Santa real?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 07:49:16 PM
So I wandered over to UM to see what Derek was posting there.

WT actual F?

Derek insists that his interlocutors MUST provide numbers, maths and physics while he has no such counter obligation.

So right back on you Derek. Where are YOUR numbers, physics and maths?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 03, 2019, 08:28:10 PM
Derek insists that his interlocutors MUST provide numbers, maths and physics while he has no such counter obligation.

Fairly common ploy.  The claimant tries to suggest that the only rebuttals that are dispositive of his claim are those that critics are either unqualified to produce or unwilling to take an extreme effort to produce.  This doesn't have to be scientific knowledge.  The "reasonable" (but impractical) rebuttal can also, for example, require distant travel or considerable expense.  Common inducements include, as we've seen here, appeals to flattery:  "I heard you guys were really smart and professional."  One can also attempt less directed but equally persuasive options, e.g., "How can you be so sure of your objection unless you've done the required work?"

Obviously when the claimant provides no substance on its own, this amounts to reversing the burden of proof.  It advances the hidden premise that any objection a critic has is presumed to be ill-founded.  It's a close cousin of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy to suggest that only one of several possible refutations is allowed.  If, hypothetically, a claimant simultaneously commits an error of inference and also supplies a speculative premise, either one is fatal to his claim.  He doesn't get to escape that by demanding an exhaustive refutation of the premise when the claim fails much more easily and straightforwardly by a faulty inferential structure.  Further, on the off-chance that a critic supplies a detailed technical proof, such proofs often provide enough crevices and toeholds for a persistent claimant to keep up the demand, handwavingly insisting that more and more rigor be supplied regardless of its ability to affect the outcome.  That's why the simplest rebuttals are also the best rebuttals, regardless of what the claimant prefers.  Finally, it's hard to imagine what someone is supposed to do with a detailed scientific treatise in fields he has already said he isn't an expert in.  If the core problem is that the claimant doesn't understand fluid dynamics, providing an exhaustively considered analysis in fluid dynamics won't fix that.  Demanding explanations one can't actually use rather tips the hand to show it's just a rhetorical ploy instead of a genuine request.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 08:29:00 PM
Alright Derek. I just endured reading one of your threads on UM end to end. Either you are lying to them or you are lying to us. Which is it? And it could be both. But it can't be neither. Your statements there and here are irreconcilable.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 03, 2019, 09:07:18 PM
Derek insists that his interlocutors MUST provide numbers, maths and physics while he has no such counter obligation.

Fairly common ploy.
I know that. You know that. All of us know that. But the cranks somehow think we have never before encountered such a tactic and that it is somehow novel. Why is that?

To paraphrase McCoy, "Dammit Jay, I am an engineer not a gullible fool."

Derek seems to be operating on the basis that the only person who is not fooled is him because he is somehow exceptional and immune to being fooled.

Anyway, in the spirit of investigation, I went to UM to see what exactly he was on about. He is either lying to us or he is lying to them. Possibly both.

Credibility is not a boomerang. If you chuck it away, it ain't coming back.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 03, 2019, 09:28:40 PM
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you chuck it away, it ain't coming back.

Unashamedly stolen for future use!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 04, 2019, 01:27:54 AM
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you chuck it away, it ain't coming back.

Unashamedly stolen for future use!
Feel free. I unashamedly swiped it from somebody else years ago.

ETA: I am not sure, but it might well have been Jay. I don't recall.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 02:53:07 AM
Have we dealt with the completely false claim yet that Conrad's "300 feet" claim was revised by the ALSJ? I confess to not having read every reply.

Other people have pointed out I know that the redrafting relates to the diagram used on that page, but the figure that was quoted is nothing to do with when Conrad saw dust but rather when he stopped forward motion. In other words this text:

Quote
As soon as I got the vehicle stopped in horizontal velocity at 300 feet (redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier: The Apollo 12 Mission Report indicates that he stopped almost all of his forward motion at about 220 feet), we picked up a tremendous amount of dust ─ much more than I had expected.

is not the same as this:

Quote
Pete Conrad twice said he had first seen dust from an altitude of 300 feet (90 metres). This, however, was redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier ─ one of the compilers of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ─ to 220 feet.

Derek's interpretation of the text is therefore completely incorrect.

Conrad was wrong in recalling that he stopped forward motion at 300', as can be seen from the 16mm footage. That is what was corrected by the ALSJ, not his statement about when he saw dust. Those statements are in the technical debrief, not the mission report.

Conrad recalled seeing dust when he stopped forward motion, so as he was mistaken about when that happened he is also mistaken about when he saw dust.

Neither of these things preclude there actually being dust before he saw it or before the 16mm footage captures it at 120'.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 03:33:32 AM
Alright Derek. I just endured reading one of your threads on UM end to end. Either you are lying to them or you are lying to us. Which is it? And it could be both. But it can't be neither. Your statements there and here are irreconcilable.

Which thread are you referring to?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 04, 2019, 05:55:53 AM
Quote
As soon as I got the vehicle stopped in horizontal velocity at 300 feet (redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier: The Apollo 12 Mission Report indicates that he stopped almost all of his forward motion at about 220 feet), we picked up a tremendous amount of dust ─ much more than I had expected.

is not the same as this:

Quote
Pete Conrad twice said he had first seen dust from an altitude of 300 feet (90 metres). This, however, was redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier ─ one of the compilers of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal ─ to 220 feet.

Derek's interpretation of the text is therefore completely incorrect.

Conrad was wrong in recalling that he stopped forward motion at 300', as can be seen from the 16mm footage. That is what was corrected by the ALSJ, not his statement about when he saw dust. Those statements are in the technical debrief, not the mission report.

Conrad recalled seeing dust when he stopped forward motion, so as he was mistaken about when that happened he is also mistaken about when he saw dust.

Neither of these things preclude there actually being dust before he saw it or before the 16mm footage captures it at 120'.


Right, so in actual fact, the sequence goes something like this

1. Pete Conrad said he had first seen dust from an altitude of 300 feet when the LM stopped forward motion.

2. Thomas Schwagmeier redrafted this because the 16mm film showed that the LM actually stopped forward motion at 220 feet.

3. Derek K. Willis reinterpreted all this because those facts didn't fit the false narrative he wanted to push.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 04, 2019, 06:16:07 AM
2. Thomas Schwagmeier redrafted this because the 16mm film showed that the LM actually stopped forward motion at 220 feet.

I don't even think that's what the 'redrafted' meant at all. Schwagmeier didn't redraft any statement, he redrafted the chart of altitude and forward velocity that was published in the report to better present it in the ALSJ. The problem is Derek is taking 'redrafted' to mean 'changed'. Nothing is changed. Conrad's statement about 300 feet is intact, the chart showing the forward velocity stopping at 220 feet is intact. The 'redrafting' refers only to the fact that Schwagmeier re-drew the chart in a software package rather than adding the PDF scan of the original. If you look at the chart on the ALSJ and the one in the mission report, you can see they are identical in terms of what they show.

3. Derek K. Willis reinterpreted all this because those facts didn't fit the false narrative he wanted to push.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Von_Smith on June 04, 2019, 06:30:47 AM

Like I have said, I was asked by members of Unexplained Mysteries who are also members of this site if I would join.

As far as I am concerned I have made my case in the article. If you are not happy then use whatever means you wish to counter my claims and refute my case.

You obviously have a different notion than I do of what it means to make a case.  You have not given me one good reason to believe your claim that Apollo 12 was faked, as opposed to being real.

In particular, as I pointed out, your proposal does not, in fact, make sense of the evidence it purports to explain.  See below.

Quote
To answer your question regarding the astronauts and Mission Control not being on the same page. Very few people - including most of the people at Mission Control - knew the missions were faked.

This doesn't answer my concern.  You mention that the astronauts were surprised by the amount of dust they found on Surveyor, whereas mission control had expected it.  That's backwards from what one would expect for a fake:  it is the astronauts who should have been in the know.  It was they, after all, who had read the script and seen the props ahead of time.  Nothing would have surprised them, because they would have rehearsed everything to a tee before the mission started, including their reports of how much dust they found on Surveyor.  And your hypothesis needs the astronauts' expectation to be genuine, because otherwise there's no relevant discrepancy.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 06:56:45 AM
I have another query.

Derek makes a lot of mathematical leaps about how much material should have been removed by the descent engine based on a particle size of 0.1mm of material found embedded in the surveyor panels Metzger et al. examined.

Unless I'm missing something I can't see a reference to the size of material embedded in the Surveyor, rather, they used compositional analysis to determine the origin of embedded material.

Notwithstanding the gross oversimplification and assumptions made by the OP in his article, from whence did the 0.1mm figure arrive?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Mag40 on June 04, 2019, 07:54:23 AM
You mention that the astronauts were surprised by the amount of dust they found on Surveyor, whereas mission control had expected it.  That's backwards from what one would expect for a fake:  it is the astronauts who should have been in the know.  It was they, after all, who had read the script and seen the props ahead of time.  Nothing would have surprised them, because they would have rehearsed everything to a tee before the mission started, including their reports of how much dust they found on Surveyor.  And your hypothesis needs the astronauts' expectation to be genuine, because otherwise there's no relevant discrepancy.

To put that in the perspective that forum members have stated so many times. The scenario of the missions being faked requires NASA to be incompetent in ways that contradict the argument being presented. They need to be competent enough to be able to fabricate an astonishing amount of inter-connected evidence that has consistency good enough to fool experts, whilst at the same time be woefully inept at basics that make no sense. As quoted above: The astronauts must be in the need to know. They had to have been reading a script. The scene had to have been set as photographed and recorded. So what possible crazy reason would NASA script the astronauts supposedly getting it wrong?

Please don't say the words whistle blower, my brain will explode.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 04, 2019, 08:11:45 AM
It matters very much if someone convincingly points out if there are flaws in my articles. Why? Because that would prove Conrad and Bean really were on the Moon examining Surveyor 3. In that case, the photographs and other evidence I have seen must be fakes. Where is the problem?
The problem is you presenting the idea of these photographs as evidence of a hoax without proving conclusively, to yourself at the barest minimum, that they are authentic. 

If there is still a possibility that they could be fraudulent or misunderstood, as you imply above, then you haven't done nearly enough work to include them as part of an argument for their inclusion as evidence.

What reasonable person would accept that kind of evidence as factual enough to pass on to other people without first validating and authenticating it?  Do you make a habit of accepting fringe ideas at face value?  Your willingness to do so is, for me personally, the biggest blow to your credibility so far. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 09:01:30 AM
Quote
On 5/352019 at 9:01 AM. Derek Willis said:
I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.
In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.
I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.
A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.
I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.
https://www.aulis.com/surveyo
https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect.  It is difficult to pin Derek down as to his beliefs, because he keeps adding his fallback on most of the ideas he presented with "if "John" is correct"
However after a lot of prodding the fantasy that "John" has in part(Derek may not have show all what he "saw") the following are what "John" told/showed Derek:
Quote
All Apollo missions to the Moon were faked prior to A13 and then A17 was faked, because Harrison didn't realize Gene had returned a lost fender of the LRV.
You(Derek) believe that the Surveyor lander was covered with dust from its landing/bouncing events, but there is too much dust on it.
The AGNC did not have the capability to navigate Moon landings prior to A13.
Apollo communications were processed through satellites under the control/supervision of the CIA.
Derek doesn't believe Larry Baysinger could not eves drop on the A11 EVA. 
The CSM during the faked Moon missions detached from the SIVB approximately one minute after the start of the TLI ignition into a "high" Earth orbit.  The CSM remained in that orbit until reentry was initiated.  What was the presumed apogee of this orbit?
The LM was modified by people under the supervision of Howard Hughes(or his managers) that included a robotic arm to gather samples, store them in a returnable sample container similar to a Corona capsule(no Fake Moon rocks).
And my questions to Derek:
Quote
If I missed any, please enumerate.
Now what I asked some time ago and bears repeating, with some new questions.
How do you reconcile the differences in your beliefs with the LRO images of artifacts around the LM approximately 75-100 feet from the LM.  Trails leading from the artifacts and further out to craters surrounding the LM, including the Surveyor 3 lander.
How was the liftoff of A17's ascent staged(captured) by the LRV TV camera if the mission was faked?
How were artifacts from the Surveyor 3 lander returned, analyzed and displayed at the Smithsonian? 
Where were images from A11-A12 taken?  How did NASA simulate the atmosphere, Sun and Lunar surface in those images?
Where did the A8 and A10 images taken if not in transit to the Moon and orbit of the Moon?  How where cloud patterns made identical to weather satellite images?
How were data observations made on ALSEP devices from A11-A12 captured and transmitted back to the Earth?

There could have been many questions that I missed as this was a five minute thought post.  Derek have you done the calculations proving that the separation of the CSM/S-IVB would not be a collision issue?
So Derek what do you believe?

PS  I have done the calculations of the seperation.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 09:15:59 AM
I have suggested that Derek has been taken(duped) in by what "John" showed him.  IMO "John" will ultimately have nothing of substance. We shall see in the fulness of time.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 04, 2019, 09:41:40 AM
Lets not forget one very, very important point in this whole discussion. Mr Willis is about to publish a book about his beliefs. I am assuming that he will be hoping to pick up a few quid here and there for his efforts. Therefore he has a financial interest here in promulgating his daft beliefs.


The "About the Author" portion of your article mentions this:
"He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions."

I did a bit of a search for it but nothing coming up. Is it waiting to be published?

Yes, the book is not yet published. But it will be soon.

As Upton Sinclair put it “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 09:48:43 AM
Quote
In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records.

"Hi, my name's Howard Hughes, if you check company records you'll see my name in there."

Foolproof...
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ineluki on June 04, 2019, 09:49:12 AM
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect. 

Any predictions for July?
- "John" will have been killed and his great material confiscated by NASA&Co
- "John" will have been bribed the MIC
- "John" will have been brainwashed by the MiB
- "John's" material will be some old, long debunked nonsense
- Derek will slink away
- Derek will flounce
- Derek will commit Suicide by Mod
- "John" will really provide something convincing
- Nibiru will finally arrive
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 09:51:50 AM
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect. 

Any predictions for July?
- "John" will have been killed and his great material confiscated by NASA&Co
- "John" will have been bribed the MIC
- "John" will have been brainwashed by the MiB
- "John's" material will be some old, long debunked nonsense
- Derek will slink away
- Derek will flounce
- Derek will commit Suicide by Mod
- "John" will really provide something convincing
- Nibiru will finally arrive
Obviously since NASA wants to control the "fact" that they pulled off the greatest hoax of all time, I vote for the first.  ::)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 04, 2019, 10:56:15 AM
  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect.

Didnt we have another self-publishing author that was adamant that Buzz Aldrin would also blow the lid on the hoax? His source was a ghost, if I recall correctly. Probably about as real as "John" ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 04, 2019, 11:01:56 AM
"Some reason not properly explained" sounds about right for all of this.

Derek.  You admit you've no experience in film but have handwaved that surely it is possible to fake the gravity.  By wiring the astronauts.  Have you taken into account that literally everything, to the very dust particles, shows the 1/6 gravity?  Can you wire it all?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Allan F on June 04, 2019, 11:34:54 AM
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect. 

Any predictions for July?
- "John" will have been killed and his great material confiscated by NASA&Co
- "John" will have been bribed the MIC
- "John" will have been brainwashed by the MiB
- "John's" material will be some old, long debunked nonsense
- Derek will slink away
- Derek will flounce
- Derek will commit Suicide by Mod
- "John" will really provide something convincing
- Nibiru will finally arrive

"John" will turn out to be a totally fictional figure.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 11:46:08 AM
I will give Derek the benefit of doubt concerning meeting discussing Apollo with "John", but I don't believe that "John" has anything of substance, so we shall see in a month and a half.
Meanwhile Derek, please answer my questions.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 12:06:25 PM
Quote
On 5/352019 at 9:01 AM. Derek Willis said:
I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.
In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.
I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.
A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.
I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.
https://www.aulis.com/surveyo
https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect.  It is difficult to pin Derek down as to his beliefs, because he keeps adding his fallback on most of the ideas he presented with "if "John" is correct"
However after a lot of prodding the fantasy that "John" has in part(Derek may not have show all what he "saw") the following are what "John" told/showed Derek:
Quote
All Apollo missions to the Moon were faked prior to A13 and then A17 was faked, because Harrison didn't realize Gene had returned a lost fender of the LRV.
You(Derek) believe that the Surveyor lander was covered with dust from its landing/bouncing events, but there is too much dust on it.
The AGNC did not have the capability to navigate Moon landings prior to A13.
Apollo communications were processed through satellites under the control/supervision of the CIA.
Derek doesn't believe Larry Baysinger could not eves drop on the A11 EVA. 
The CSM during the faked Moon missions detached from the SIVB approximately one minute after the start of the TLI ignition into a "high" Earth orbit.  The CSM remained in that orbit until reentry was initiated.  What was the presumed apogee of this orbit?
The LM was modified by people under the supervision of Howard Hughes(or his managers) that included a robotic arm to gather samples, store them in a returnable sample container similar to a Corona capsule(no Fake Moon rocks).
And my questions to Derek:
Quote
If I missed any, please enumerate.
Now what I asked some time ago and bears repeating, with some new questions.
How do you reconcile the differences in your beliefs with the LRO images of artifacts around the LM approximately 75-100 feet from the LM.  Trails leading from the artifacts and further out to craters surrounding the LM, including the Surveyor 3 lander.
How was the liftoff of A17's ascent staged(captured) by the LRV TV camera if the mission was faked?
How were artifacts from the Surveyor 3 lander returned, analyzed and displayed at the Smithsonian? 
Where were images from A11-A12 taken?  How did NASA simulate the atmosphere, Sun and Lunar surface in those images?
Where did the A8 and A10 images taken if not in transit to the Moon and orbit of the Moon?  How where cloud patterns made identical to weather satellite images?
How were data observations made on ALSEP devices from A11-A12 captured and transmitted back to the Earth?

There could have been many questions that I missed as this was a five minute thought post.  Derek have you done the calculations proving that the separation of the CSM/S-IVB would not be a collision issue?
So Derek what do you believe?

PS  I have done the calculations of the seperation.

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg. Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant. Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 12:11:52 PM
"Some reason not properly explained" sounds about right for all of this.

Derek.  You admit you've no experience in film but have handwaved that surely it is possible to fake the gravity.  By wiring the astronauts.  Have you taken into account that literally everything, to the very dust particles, shows the 1/6 gravity?  Can you wire it all?

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 12:14:20 PM
Quote
In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records.

"Hi, my name's Howard Hughes, if you check company records you'll see my name in there."

Foolproof...

I don't think Howard Hughes ever worked for Hughes Aircraft. Until 1953 he owned it. After that his Medical Institute owned it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 12:17:39 PM
Lets not forget one very, very important point in this whole discussion. Mr Willis is about to publish a book about his beliefs. I am assuming that he will be hoping to pick up a few quid here and there for his efforts. Therefore he has a financial interest here in promulgating his daft beliefs.


The "About the Author" portion of your article mentions this:
"He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions."

I did a bit of a search for it but nothing coming up. Is it waiting to be published?

Yes, the book is not yet published. But it will be soon.

As Upton Sinclair put it “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

As I pointed out on Unexplained Mysteries some time back, I have no intention of making any profit from the book. If there is any income beyond the cost of production and marketing, then I will donate it to charity.

Of course, I am sure no one will believe that.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 12:22:53 PM
Lets not forget one very, very important point in this whole discussion. Mr Willis is about to publish a book about his beliefs. I am assuming that he will be hoping to pick up a few quid here and there for his efforts. Therefore he has a financial interest here in promulgating his daft beliefs.


The "About the Author" portion of your article mentions this:
"He has recently written Faking Apollo, a book which examines some of the anomalies associated with the Apollo missions."

I did a bit of a search for it but nothing coming up. Is it waiting to be published?

Yes, the book is not yet published. But it will be soon.

As Upton Sinclair put it “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

As I pointed out on Unexplained Mysteries some time back, I have no intention of making any profit from the book. If there is any income beyond the cost of production and marketing, then I will donate it to charity.

Of course, I am sure no one will believe that.

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Zakalwe on June 04, 2019, 12:31:11 PM

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01L9HP0C0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0#customerReviews
Very probably.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 04, 2019, 12:57:16 PM

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.
And do you think that this indicates that the calculations are solid or that you are crap at maths?

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg.
Then you would lose that bet. We don't need to assume anything about the mass of the CM. Not when we have the actual numbers at our fingertips.

Did you account for the fact that the CM mass is not a constant?

Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant.
Which would require all of the ground crews to be in on it. And their support teams. And their suppliers. And their support crews. And their accounts department. And so forth. You are fast approaching the inevitable conclusion of this train of thought if such it can be described. Everyone is in on it except you.

I believe it was Ryan Mackey who formulated the Expansion Hypothesis of Conspiracy Theories whereby as the hoax claims continue, the required number of co-conspirators grows exponentially.

Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.   
Actually, two things were added to the S-!VB. Forethought and planning. Most here are familiar with the steps taken to avoid collision. But you are not. Why?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 01:08:50 PM

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01L9HP0C0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0#customerReviews
Very probably.

Well, it really is bizarre. The more I am criticized and insulted on the forums, the more people are emailing me and pre-ordering my book. Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked. Consequently, a lot of people want to know how it was done.

So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me. Doing so can only add to the interest in my book.

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 04, 2019, 01:12:55 PM
And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

To what extent would you say attracting attention to yourself motivates you to write?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 04, 2019, 01:36:35 PM
Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked.

I assume you mean this report.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/moon-landing-celebrates-47th-anniversary-8446862

From the same sample:

Are such people the intended audience for your book?  Who is the intended audience for it?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 01:51:14 PM
So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me.

Thanks. We will.

Quote
And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

Like the one in your first post?

Now, where did you get the figure of 0.1mm as the particle size embedded in the returned Surveyor parts examined by Metzger et al.?

Why do you claim that there are no photographs showing disturbance underneath lunar module engine bells?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 04, 2019, 02:03:52 PM
"Some reason not properly explained" sounds about right for all of this.

Derek.  You admit you've no experience in film but have handwaved that surely it is possible to fake the gravity.  By wiring the astronauts.  Have you taken into account that literally everything, to the very dust particles, shows the 1/6 gravity?  Can you wire it all?

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!
As you are not the magician and it's not your trick, you should have no trouble explaining the secret of how every observable object, right down to the dust, in hours of video footage is apparently in a 1/6g vacuum. 

Most people believe the secret is that they were filmed on the Moon, where the biggest challenge involved is actually travelling to the Moon to shoot video.  If you believe that's not what happened, please don't hesitate to expose how they were able to shoot the scenes on Earth. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 02:04:52 PM
Quote
On 5/352019 at 9:01 AM. Derek Willis said:
I am old enough to have been around during Project Apollo and I have never doubted the reality of the missions to land men on the Moon. However, I now find myself in what I can only describe as a paradox.
In recent months I have been talking with a man from the Chicago area who worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in California during the 1960's and 70's. I have been able to confirm this from company records. I am not going to give his real name, so instead I will call him "John Kelly". During our conversations John claimed Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12 and 17 were faked. He described how Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to land men on the Moon, but the mission went wrong when the oxygen tank exploded inside the Service Module. Consequently, Apollo 14 was the first mission to land men on the Moon. If that is true, then Alan Shepard - who was America's first man in space - was the first man on the Moon. According to John, Apollo 15 and 16 were also genuine, but for some reason not properly explained, Apollo 17 was faked.
I recently wrote two articles based on what John described to me. These articles were published on the aulis.com website. The articles describe two of the many anomalies that appear to exist within the official NASA record of the Apollo missions. The first relates to the dust on the Surveyor 3 probe examined during the Apollo 12 mission, and the second relates to the fenders on the Apollo 17 rover.
A few months ago I started a thread on the Surveyor 3 dust to see what feedback there was from UM members. I am providing links to the articles because I would like to hear views from people either side of the Apollo "hoax" debate. I should point out that I didn't receive any payment for writing the articles, and nor will I be receiving any payments if people view the articles. I hope this satisfies anyone who may suggest this is some sort of click bait money making scam.
I can't explain the anomalies within the articles, or the other anomalies described to me by John Kelly. I am not at all happy with having to write how these anomalies can only be explained if the missions were faked. So perhaps someone can look at the articles and find plausible alternative explanations.
https://www.aulis.com/surveyo
https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect.  It is difficult to pin Derek down as to his beliefs, because he keeps adding his fallback on most of the ideas he presented with "if "John" is correct"
However after a lot of prodding the fantasy that "John" has in part(Derek may not have show all what he "saw") the following are what "John" told/showed Derek:
Quote
All Apollo missions to the Moon were faked prior to A13 and then A17 was faked, because Harrison didn't realize Gene had returned a lost fender of the LRV.
You(Derek) believe that the Surveyor lander was covered with dust from its landing/bouncing events, but there is too much dust on it.
The AGNC did not have the capability to navigate Moon landings prior to A13.
Apollo communications were processed through satellites under the control/supervision of the CIA.
Derek doesn't believe Larry Baysinger could not eves drop on the A11 EVA. 
The CSM during the faked Moon missions detached from the SIVB approximately one minute after the start of the TLI ignition into a "high" Earth orbit.  The CSM remained in that orbit until reentry was initiated.  What was the presumed apogee of this orbit?
The LM was modified by people under the supervision of Howard Hughes(or his managers) that included a robotic arm to gather samples, store them in a returnable sample container similar to a Corona capsule(no Fake Moon rocks).
And my questions to Derek:
Quote
If I missed any, please enumerate.
Now what I asked some time ago and bears repeating, with some new questions.
How do you reconcile the differences in your beliefs with the LRO images of artifacts around the LM approximately 75-100 feet from the LM.  Trails leading from the artifacts and further out to craters surrounding the LM, including the Surveyor 3 lander.
How was the liftoff of A17's ascent staged(captured) by the LRV TV camera if the mission was faked?
How were artifacts from the Surveyor 3 lander returned, analyzed and displayed at the Smithsonian? 
Where were images from A11-A12 taken?  How did NASA simulate the atmosphere, Sun and Lunar surface in those images?
Where did the A8 and A10 images taken if not in transit to the Moon and orbit of the Moon?  How where cloud patterns made identical to weather satellite images?
How were data observations made on ALSEP devices from A11-A12 captured and transmitted back to the Earth?

There could have been many questions that I missed as this was a five minute thought post.  Derek have you done the calculations proving that the separation of the CSM/S-IVB would not be a collision issue?
So Derek what do you believe?

PS  I have done the calculations of the seperation.

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg. Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant. Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.

No that is not what I used for the CSM, but you already know the correct number so list it.  And you were shown the calculations?  Who did them and is he qualified to perform them? And something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB?  Your fantasy grows every time you post something.  So post the calculations for all to see and comment on.

ETA: added the "d" in and.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 02:26:24 PM

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.
And do you think that this indicates that the calculations are solid or that you are crap at maths?

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg.
Then you would lose that bet. We don't need to assume anything about the mass of the CM. Not when we have the actual numbers at our fingertips.

Did you account for the fact that the CM mass is not a constant?

Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant.
Which would require all of the ground crews to be in on it. And their support teams. And their suppliers. And their support crews. And their accounts department. And so forth. You are fast approaching the inevitable conclusion of this train of thought if such it can be described. Everyone is in on it except you.

I believe it was Ryan Mackey who formulated the Expansion Hypothesis of Conspiracy Theories whereby as the hoax claims continue, the required number of co-conspirators grows exponentially.

Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.   
Actually, two things were added to the S-!VB. Forethought and planning. Most here are familiar with the steps taken to avoid collision. But you are not. Why?

Don't forget those people that added the "something" to the S-IVB to make the acceleration lower.  Plus the people in flight dynamics who would notice that the vehicle was not accelerating at the proposed rate.  And then the guys who printed the final copy of the mission report where they list all the velocities and accelerations.  8)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 02:47:53 PM
And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

To what extent would you say attracting attention to yourself motivates you to write?

I have never sought to attract attention to myself. As for my writing, I mentioned one of my articles on this forum, and then someone else mentioned the other one. Similarly, someone else was first to mention my book on the wider subject. Ditto my efforts in the world of fiction.

If someone has something to say, then surely they should write about it (or use some other medium). I am sure some people enjoy the attention, but it is not something that motivates me. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked.

I assume you mean this report.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/moon-landing-celebrates-47th-anniversary-8446862

From the same sample:
  • 5% believe dragons are real
  • 30% believe in ghosts
  • 12% believe witches and wizards are real
  • 8% believe in fairies
  • 64% don't believe dinosaurs were real

Are such people the intended audience for your book?  Who is the intended audience for it?

Not that actual report, but a a similar report based on the survey.

It is astounding what some people believe.

Well, if some of the people who form the audience for the book also, for example, believe in dragons, there is not much I can do about it.

The audience for the book are people who are not convinced they are being told the truth about Apollo.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 02:55:44 PM
"Some reason not properly explained" sounds about right for all of this.

Derek.  You admit you've no experience in film but have handwaved that surely it is possible to fake the gravity.  By wiring the astronauts.  Have you taken into account that literally everything, to the very dust particles, shows the 1/6 gravity?  Can you wire it all?

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!
As you are not the magician and it's not your trick, you should have no trouble explaining the secret of how every observable object, right down to the dust, in hours of video footage is apparently in a 1/6g vacuum. 

Most people believe the secret is that they were filmed on the Moon, where the biggest challenge involved is actually travelling to the Moon to shoot video.  If you believe that's not what happened, please don't hesitate to expose how they were able to shoot the scenes on Earth.

Yes, but magicians only tell people they trust how their tricks work. I am sure the magician will be making his big reveal soon enough.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 04, 2019, 02:59:45 PM
You do know that it's trivially easy to tell how a lot of magic tricks are performed, right?  "Well, they're just not telling us!" is not anything like evidence.  "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because it was faked" is circular reasoning.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 03:11:02 PM

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.
And do you think that this indicates that the calculations are solid or that you are crap at maths?

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg.
Then you would lose that bet. We don't need to assume anything about the mass of the CM. Not when we have the actual numbers at our fingertips.

Did you account for the fact that the CM mass is not a constant?

Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant.
Which would require all of the ground crews to be in on it. And their support teams. And their suppliers. And their support crews. And their accounts department. And so forth. You are fast approaching the inevitable conclusion of this train of thought if such it can be described. Everyone is in on it except you.

I believe it was Ryan Mackey who formulated the Expansion Hypothesis of Conspiracy Theories whereby as the hoax claims continue, the required number of co-conspirators grows exponentially.

Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.   
Actually, two things were added to the S-!VB. Forethought and planning. Most here are familiar with the steps taken to avoid collision. But you are not. Why?

Don't forget those people that added the "something" to the S-IVB to make the acceleration lower.  Plus the people in flight dynamics who would notice that the vehicle was not accelerating at the proposed rate.  And then the guys who printed the final copy of the mission report where they list all the velocities and accelerations.  8)

As every political and military leader knows, controlling the flow of information is what matters. So, for instance, if a flight technician is receiving data demonstrating that the rocket is performing within expected parameters, why would he/she expect that data to be anything other than real?

A very current example of that principle is the D-Day Landings. The decoy troops were not told they were decoy troops, and so behaved exactly as if they were going to make a landing. Consequently, the Germans who were intercepting information were also fooled.

I think it was Genghis Khan who said something along the lines that deceit is how battles are won. But to deceive an enemy you have deceive most of your own men. (Or it might have been Alexander, or someone, who said it.)

I got a bit off topic there. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 04, 2019, 03:21:07 PM
You do know that it's trivially easy to tell how a lot of magic tricks are performed, right?  "Well, they're just not telling us!" is not anything like evidence.  "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because it was faked" is circular reasoning.

Of course it is easy to tell how a lot magic tricks are performed. But as I am sure you will know, the real trick is always the misdirection. The "misdirection" regarding how the "Moon movies" were faked was as astoundingly simple as the "trick" itself. But like I mentioned earlier, everyone is always looking for something ridiculously complicated.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 03:22:56 PM

Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.
And do you think that this indicates that the calculations are solid or that you are crap at maths?

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg.
Then you would lose that bet. We don't need to assume anything about the mass of the CM. Not when we have the actual numbers at our fingertips.

Did you account for the fact that the CM mass is not a constant?

Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant.
Which would require all of the ground crews to be in on it. And their support teams. And their suppliers. And their support crews. And their accounts department. And so forth. You are fast approaching the inevitable conclusion of this train of thought if such it can be described. Everyone is in on it except you.

I believe it was Ryan Mackey who formulated the Expansion Hypothesis of Conspiracy Theories whereby as the hoax claims continue, the required number of co-conspirators grows exponentially.

Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again.   
Actually, two things were added to the S-!VB. Forethought and planning. Most here are familiar with the steps taken to avoid collision. But you are not. Why?

Don't forget those people that added the "something" to the S-IVB to make the acceleration lower.  Plus the people in flight dynamics who would notice that the vehicle was not accelerating at the proposed rate.  And then the guys who printed the final copy of the mission report where they list all the velocities and accelerations.  8)

As every political and military leader knows, controlling the flow of information is what matters. So, for instance, if a flight technician is receiving data demonstrating that the rocket is performing within expected parameters, why would he/she expect that data to be anything other than real?

A very current example of that principle is the D-Day Landings. The decoy troops were not told they were decoy troops, and so behaved exactly as if they were going to make a landing. Consequently, the Germans who were intercepting information were also fooled.

I think it was Genghis Khan who said something along the lines that deceit is how battles are won. But to deceive an enemy you have deceive most of your own men. (Or it might have been Alexander, or someone, who said it.)

I got a bit off topic there.

The problem with your "logic" is that the flight controllers would not be receiving the data that they expected.  The flight dynamics were computed long before and those graphs/data points would be known.  Too slow and you don't make it to the Moon.  This is really simple and you fell for "John's" fantasy hook line, sinker and boat.  No calculations yet?  No measurements yet?  No one is believing you with your "just trust me" attitude.  Let me ask another question, how do you estimate the amount of dirt/dust/regolith is on the S3 lander from a two dimensional image?  Because you indicate it is too much.  You need a dose of reality IMO.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2019, 03:27:28 PM
You do know that it's trivially easy to tell how a lot of magic tricks are performed, right?  "Well, they're just not telling us!" is not anything like evidence.  "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because it was faked" is circular reasoning.

Of course it is easy to tell how a lot magic tricks are performed. But as I am sure you will know, the real trick is always the misdirection. The "misdirection" regarding how the "Moon movies" were faked was as astoundingly simple as the "trick" itself. But like I mentioned earlier, everyone is always looking for something ridiculously complicated.

As I asked earlier, how do they simulate 1/6 g and a near vacuum in your hanger?  Barring the videos of A15 & A16, A17 had hours of video that could only be produced in that environment.  You can't wave your hand over all this and make it real, just a fantasy from another hoaxer, pass this on to "John", please.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 04, 2019, 03:39:58 PM
You seem to be having trouble answering questions. I'll try and clarify my point using words from your article:

Quote
The Surveyor 3 components supposedly brought back from the Moon were re-investigated in 2010 by Philip Metzger and colleagues.3 The researchers concluded particles the size of small grains of sand ─ i.e. with diameters of 0.1 mm ─ impacted every part of the probe’s surface in line-of-sight of the place where the LM landed.

Nowhere is the word 'sand' or the value '0.1' mentioned in either the paper you linked to, or the academic publication of it:

https://physics.ucf.edu/~yfernandez/psjc/fall14/177-nov21/20120000029.pdf

Where did you get your value from? It's kind of important because you rely on it a lot.

Quote
Scans made using an electron microscope showed how ─ apart from a few “shadows” ─ every piece of metal examined was entirely covered in pits caused by the particles. Most of these particles bounced off after forming the pits. Some, though, became embedded in the metal and were later chemically analysed.

If the surfaces of the components were entirely covered in pits, it is reasonable to conclude the particles striking Surveyor 3 collectively amounted to a layer 0.1 mm thick, perhaps more.

This is a complete crock. It doesn't matter how many pits there were, it does not equate to a complete covering. What density of pitting was there? What was their distribution? Even if there was a reference to sand (and sand has a very specific particle size range, the value you are looking falls into the category of very fine sand), you can't assume a complete covering of depth x when only a portion of an object's surface has been hit by particles of size x. It's like saying a house is flooded to a depth of a foot because a single bucket got filled.

With that in mind...

Quote
In order to have impacted Surveyor 3, this layer must have covered the entire surface of a disc extending out from the LM’s landing site and reaching to at least as far as the Surveyor 3 probe.

Erm...no. In order to have impacted Surveyor a particle needed to be entrained by the exhaust plume with enough energy and directional momentum to reach Surveyor. You are assuming a completely uniform covering of a layer that can be, and was, entrained by that plume and was capable of travelling that far. Not all particles would have got that far, not all of them were aimed at Surveyor, some would have gone much further.

Quote
What is the volume of this layer? It is reasonable to assume the layer would be thicker on the regions closer to the LM.
However, for simplicity a layer of dust 0.1 mm thick and extending only to Surveyor 3 will be used in the calculations. The volume of a disc with a radius of 155 metres and a depth 0.1 of a millimetre is approximately 7.5 cubic metres.

First you say that more material would be removed near the LM and then you extend the area of denudation all the way to Surveyor? Why the inconsistency? Is it so that you can massively inflate the amount of material you think was moved? Like this...

Quote
The researchers claimed the material that sandblasted Surveyor 3 can be triangulated to precisely the location of the LM. This means the material must have come from immediately below the LM. If 7.5 cubic metres of material had been displaced from beneath the LM, then some sort of blast crater would have been formed.

The value of 7.5 cubic metres is entirely based on a number you appear to plucked out of thin air.

Quote
The size of this crater can be calculated. The diagonal distance between the LM’s footpads is 9 metres. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the blast-crater had a diameter of no more than 8 metres. If the blast crater is assumed to be a shallow cone or a saucer shape, the depth at the centre would have been about 0.5 of a metre.

You've produced a value pretty much out of thin air assuming material to be removed over a 155 metre radius and then use that number to suggest there ought to be a big hole under the LM engine?

It's nonsense based on imaginary numbers. You do a similar thing in your Apollo 17 article, where you concede at first that the antenna is pointing the right angle to aim at Earth, then introduce all sorts of artificial caveats to suggest (with no good reason) that the dish could be pointing 5 or more degrees lower, and draw the conclusion from your mental gymnastics that this was the case despite the fact that we have live TV broadcasts from that rover that contain information only possible if the rover was on the moon.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on June 04, 2019, 03:41:14 PM
You do know that it's trivially easy to tell how a lot of magic tricks are performed, right?  "Well, they're just not telling us!" is not anything like evidence.  "I don't know how they faked it, but they must have, because it was faked" is circular reasoning.

Of course it is easy to tell how a lot magic tricks are performed. But as I am sure you will know, the real trick is always the misdirection. The "misdirection" regarding how the "Moon movies" were faked was as astoundingly simple as the "trick" itself. But like I mentioned earlier, everyone is always looking for something ridiculously complicated.
Stop expounding on how easy it is and explain how it was done.  If it was so simple then you should have no trouble going into very specific details.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 04, 2019, 03:44:19 PM
Derek, how much of your time is being spent arguing here and how much is being spent actually addressing the response you initially requested, which was a rebuttal to your article? Early on in this thread you said you were not going to address anything other than a full response to your article. Please don't think that 'misdirection' is going to work here. I presented you with what you asked for. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 04, 2019, 04:09:57 PM
Not that actual report, but a a similar report based on the survey.

Very well, we can sidestep the question of its having appeared in a tabloid, among other places, and the suggestion of credibility that engenders.  We can focus on the survey itself.

Quote
It is astounding what some people believe.

Yes, that's rather my point.  You give a statistic that says a slim majority of people question the authenticity of Apollo.  Without context, the reader is likely to conclude it to be the opinion of ordinary rational people.  Thus it should in some way suggest the objective degree of credibility in the Apollo record.  But when the other views held by the same group are revealed, it doesn't bode well for believing that group fairly represents a rational, informed view.

Quote
Well, if some of the people who form the audience for the book also, for example, believe in dragons, there is not much I can do about it.

The question I'm concerned about is whether you would want to do anything about it.  The hypothesis I'm toying with is that you are aiming your book at a certain very eager, yet not especially critical, audience.  Maybe it works to your advantage to cater to people who aren't good at questioning improbable claims.

Quote
The audience for the book are people who are not convinced they are being told the truth about Apollo.

And apparently for people who aren't convinced they're being told the truth about dinosaurs, dragons, and Hogwarts either.  Do you expect your book to be widely read by scientists, engineers, historians, journalists?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 04, 2019, 04:27:46 PM
Ditto [...] fiction.

Fair enough.  The post I answered seemed to do very little except hope for recognition.  If you consider it an answer to points brought up by others, it's a good enough answer for such a tangential question.

As to the question of money, which others have raised but I have not, I regret it is something we have to address.  Not all who have embarked on publishing claims of fraud have had as altruistic motives as you.  The late Ralph René bitterly lamented that the original Aulis hosts David Percy and Mary Bennett had stolen his paying customers.  And Bennett and Percy themselves refused to address questions unless they were sure you had purchased both their book Dark Moon and Percy's accompanying four-hour video.  (Nowadays they don't address critics at all.)  Bart Sibrel charges exorbitant "appearance fees."  And the public tax filings of the company he formed to distribute his hoax videos pulled in $120,000 in yearly revenue at its peak.  Someone close to him told me his hoax claims let him live a lifestyle he would otherwise be quite unable to afford.  So when someone announces he plans to receive money for his efforts attacking the history of space exploration, these are unpleasant questions we have to ask.  Your colleagues don't share your virtue.

Quote
If someone has something to say, then surely they should write about it (or use some other medium).

Except that the used-book stores and garage sales are full of unread self-/vanity-published books written by people who clearly thought they had something to say but didn't rightly appreciate whether anyone cared to listen.  In working my way through your article -- which I promise I am doing -- it seems that the things you have to say don't often correspond well with what information is available to be said.  Instead your choice of what to say seems quite selective.  Are you working with a real publisher who can provide professional editors and professional fact-checkers?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Allan F on June 04, 2019, 06:56:23 PM

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!

Have you heard about Penn and Teller? They are magicians, and they ROUTINELY show and tell how they do their routines.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 04, 2019, 07:36:36 PM

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!

Have you heard about Penn and Teller? They are magicians, and they ROUTINELY show and tell how they do their routines.
Of course not. I am a magician and the son of a magician. I know Derek has not the foggiest clue.

But when one thinks about it, I am also an accredited engineer, so I know he is flailing in that arena as well.

Meh.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: AtomicDog on June 04, 2019, 09:07:08 PM
How come no magician has ever seen through the Apollo fakery and ratted them out?
Or are they in on it too?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 05, 2019, 12:37:28 AM
Which would require all of the ground crews to be in on it. And their support teams. And their suppliers. And their support crews. And their accounts department. And so forth.

And the foreign nationals manning the tracking stations.

The Madrid Apollo Station in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain, tracked Apollo 11. A large majority of the people working at this station were not employees of NASA, but of Spain's Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial. Not only would they have to be on NASA's hoax payroll, anyone with half a brain working there, even if they were not directly involved, could look outside and see the dish was tracking across the sky at a rate of a few degrees per second rather than pointing at the moon and slowly tracking it.

And then there is is Jodrell Bank, all British scientists and engineers, not NASA people. They used the big dish as a radar and literally followed Eagle across the lunar surface, even seeing the point at which Armstrong took control and started manually flying it over the boulder field. They were also able to pick up the transmissions back from Eagle - and that means the astronauts must have been on board, because their dish was pointed at the moon.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 04:45:42 AM

By mentioning a conjuring trick involving someone floating in the air I have obviously sent you off in the wrong direction. I had randomly picked that trick as an example of how magicians make the impossible seem possible. Hence, I can see why you think I was hinting that the astronauts were wired. I should have picked a different trick, like sawing someone in half, or whatever. My point is, most tricks are ridiculously easy when you know how. Ditto how the "Moon movies" were done. But no magician is going to let you into the secret!

Have you heard about Penn and Teller? They are magicians, and they ROUTINELY show and tell how they do their routines.

Yes, I have seen Penn and Teller many times on T.V. If Wiki is to be believed, the tricks they "reveal" are usually designed solely for that purpose.

I have seen other magicians also reveal how tricks are done. I was once at a live cabaret show where the magician did a fairly standard card trick. He then asked the audience if anyone would like to see close-up how it was done. Everybody put their hand up so he went over to a table. He asked a lady to look very closely at his hands. So she lent forward and focused on what he was doing. His hands were right in front of her face. He ran through the trick again, and then demonstrated how one of the cards was actually folded in half. When he was finished he said, "So now you see how it is done." She said, "Yes, I do." Then when she looked up, she screamed. The magician's head had turned into horse's head. Of course, the rest of the audience had seen his assistant come up behind him and place the fake horse's head over his. But the lady didn't see anything because she was so focused on his misdirection of showing her how the card trick was done.

My point about referring to magic tricks is that misdirection - which takes many forms - is the most powerful method there is to deceive people.

But I think I have had enough of talking about magic tricks. I am not a magician, but I have been shown how perhaps the greatest trick of the twentieth century was pulled off. But of course, that in itself may be misdirection, and I am the one being fooled ...
   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 04:53:40 AM
Ditto [...] fiction.

Fair enough.  The post I answered seemed to do very little except hope for recognition.  If you consider it an answer to points brought up by others, it's a good enough answer for such a tangential question.

As to the question of money, which others have raised but I have not, I regret it is something we have to address.  Not all who have embarked on publishing claims of fraud have had as altruistic motives as you.  The late Ralph René bitterly lamented that the original Aulis hosts David Percy and Mary Bennett had stolen his paying customers.  And Bennett and Percy themselves refused to address questions unless they were sure you had purchased both their book Dark Moon and Percy's accompanying four-hour video.  (Nowadays they don't address critics at all.)  Bart Sibrel charges exorbitant "appearance fees."  And the public tax filings of the company he formed to distribute his hoax videos pulled in $120,000 in yearly revenue at its peak.  Someone close to him told me his hoax claims let him live a lifestyle he would otherwise be quite unable to afford.  So when someone announces he plans to receive money for his efforts attacking the history of space exploration, these are unpleasant questions we have to ask.  Your colleagues don't share your virtue.

Quote
If someone has something to say, then surely they should write about it (or use some other medium).

Except that the used-book stores and garage sales are full of unread self-/vanity-published books written by people who clearly thought they had something to say but didn't rightly appreciate whether anyone cared to listen.  In working my way through your article -- which I promise I am doing -- it seems that the things you have to say don't often correspond well with what information is available to be said.  Instead your choice of what to say seems quite selective.  Are you working with a real publisher who can provide professional editors and professional fact-checkers?

I am not responsible for what other people do. If anyone truly believes the Apollo missions were faked and wants to devote his/her life to exposing what went on, then I see nothing wrong in deriving an income from that.

I laughed so much at your last sentence I wonder if it was meant to be ironically humorous. Imagine if I went to a fact-checker and asked him/her to gather all the facts they can on Apollo 11. The first "fact" would be that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon.     
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 05:22:26 AM
Derek, how much of your time is being spent arguing here and how much is being spent actually addressing the response you initially requested, which was a rebuttal to your article? Early on in this thread you said you were not going to address anything other than a full response to your article. Please don't think that 'misdirection' is going to work here. I presented you with what you asked for. Deal with it.

You are right. I did say I would focus on Surveyor 3, and I have again allowed myself to be drawn into wider issues. Many of the questions I am being asked now are variations on the same questions I was asked on Unexplained Mysteries. So if anyone wants to trawl through that thread they may well find my responses. For instance, I explained how the dish antenna were most certainly pointed at the Moon, and were sending to and receiving transmissions from the Moon.

I will focus on my responses to the points you made. So please note, if anyone asks me any questions not related to Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3, I won't be answering them. And any questions related to Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3 may well be answered when I respond to the points you made.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on June 05, 2019, 06:46:11 AM
Many of the questions I am being asked now are variations on the same questions I was asked on Unexplained Mysteries. So if anyone wants to trawl through that thread they may well find my responses. For instance, I explained how the dish antenna were most certainly pointed at the Moon, and were sending to and receiving transmissions from the Moon.

IIRC, you didn't answer that particular question. You said something like it was obvious and we should understand... but - IIRC - you didn't answer how it could be done.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 09:23:01 AM
I am not responsible for what other people do.

I didn't say you were.  Knowing how some people are, and being responsible for them being that way, are indeed two different things.  But knowing how some people are might give you ideas.

Quote
If anyone truly believes the Apollo missions were faked and wants to devote his/her life to exposing what went on, then I see nothing wrong in deriving an income from that.

I thought you were giving the profits to charity.  Let's keep hypothesizing.  If you wanted to be a published author, and you've already written and self-published a couple of books that didn't do as well as you'd hoped, you might come up with a new strategy.  Knowing that there are gullible people out there who have already fallen for many a titillating tale might give you the idea that you can write a book that doesn't quite tell the story everyone else has told.  You might even purposely fashion it as a dog whistle for the conspiracy crowd.  But of course in order to tell a different story, you have to embellish some aspects of it and leave other aspects out altogether.  For example, you might not choose to tell the reader that there are perfectly good reasons why Apollo 12 made a pinpoint landing.  You might let him keep thinking it's suspicious, because that's the story you know he wants to hear.

Consider your predecessor David Percy back in the 1990s.  He decided that making a living as a photographer and making videos about mind-mapping and such wasn't the life he wanted.  He wrote an article for the Fortean Times arguing that certain things in Apollo photographs couldn't possibly have been the result of real photography on the Moon.  The response raised the roof.  Clearly he was onto something.  It didn't matter that a considerable number of the letters to Fortean Times described how Percy didn't know what he was talking about.  What mattered were the encouraging letters.  From that came the book and the video, whose proceeds pay to run the web site you've published your own little pilot article on.  Oh, Percy knows full well his claims are rubbish in a scientific and photographic sense.  We know this because it took him a while to realize that someone in his position can't bluff his way past most criticism.  He let slip a few things.  And so, eventually, do all such authors.

I do have a moral problem with telling lies and expecting to get paid for it.  And so do most of the people you're talking to here.  Call us paranoid, but the hypothesis I outlined above seems to be the one that governs most of your colleagues, and makes a whole lot more sense that the competing hypothesis of you being a conscientious, persistent seeker after truth.  I don't think you truly believe Apollo was faked.  I haven't yet met a professional conspiracy theorist who did.  And I think you just want to make the rounds of skeptics, demanding exhaustive rebuttals no one cares to write, so you can conjure up the illusion that your claims emerged from criticism intact.

Quote
I laughed so much at your last sentence I wonder if it was meant to be ironically humorous.

If you laughed at it, then you've never actually worked for a real publisher.  Yes, they employ professional editors who typically go through two or three drafts of each chapter with you.  They would have the kinds of discussions you're having here with us (and presumably elsewhere).  And yes, if they're going to publish a book that flatly accuses prominent people of fraud, they will definitely want to make sure the claims are at least somewhat defensible in court.  They don't care whether they agree with what you say or not.  They just don't want to get sued.  How do I know that?  Because I've been contracted by publishers to do exactly that kind of work for other authors.  And if you think fact-checkers just casually Google for verification, you have no idea what fact-checking actually entails.

Consider your audience here carefully and ponder whether it's wise to be laughing at the notion of other people checking your work for accuracy.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2019, 09:45:36 AM
Derek:
You have ignored most of my questions So I will bump them up for you.If I missed any, please enumerate.
Now what I asked some time ago and bears repeating, with some new questions.
How do you reconcile the differences in your beliefs with the LRO images of artifacts around the LM approximately 75-100 feet from the LM(given that your "modified" LM with robotic sampler arm would have to unload, place and assemble this distance away). 
How do you reconcile Trails leading from the artifacts and further out to craters surrounding the LM, including the Surveyor 3 lander(you forgot to include in your narrative about robots that walked 20 years before they were developed on the Earth).
How were artifacts from the Surveyor 3 lander returned, analyzed and displayed at the Smithsonian?
How were the pits on the sides facing the LM created in these artifacts? 
Where were images from A11-A12 taken?  How did NASA simulate the atmosphere, Sun and Lunar surface in those images?
How were data observations made on ALSEP devices from A11-A12 captured and transmitted back to the Earth?
Where are the collision calculations between the CSM S-IVB separation, you know I asked two weeks ago on UM and you finally came up with this lame excuse after that amount of time.
Quote
Well, I checked the calculations I had been shown and I couldn't find anything wrong with them.

I'm willing to bet that your calculations assumed the mass of the CSM totaled about 30,000 kg. Bear in mind, if the CSM wasn't going to the Moon and back, there wouldn't be need for anything like the full load of propellant. Also, something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB. After all, you don't want it smashing into the back of the CSM. When you have worked out what was added, do your calculations again. 
Again post these calculations if you have the ability to calculate them.
How do you estimate there is too much dust on the LM from two dimensional images?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 05, 2019, 10:23:45 AM
If you don't know how they faked it, isn't it possible that they didn't and that you're just wrong?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2019, 10:28:37 AM
This is the first information concerning where Derek allegedly "saw" some/all of the material that "John" has in his position.  This material is to be presented to the media on July 20th "is going to blow the lid off the Apollo hoax" or words to that effect. 

Any predictions for July?
- "John" will have been killed and his great material confiscated by NASA&Co
- "John" will have been bribed the MIC
- "John" will have been brainwashed by the MiB
- "John's" material will be some old, long debunked nonsense
- Derek will slink away
- Derek will flounce
- Derek will commit Suicide by Mod
- "John" will really provide something convincing
- Nibiru will finally arrive

I thought of one more: "John" didn't show all the good stuff, saving for a better opportunity.  ::)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 10:46:10 AM
Jay, I am trying not to allow myself to be drawn back in for a while. However, I feel I have to respond to your post.

When I said I see nothing wrong in deriving an income from selling products related to the Moon landings being hoaxed, I was referring to the people you mentioned. What they do is up to themselves. In a similar vein, I do not believe in God, but I have no trouble with people being paid for preaching to people who do believe in God.

I do have a contract with a publisher. I took up writing relatively late. My first fictional effort - a short story called "Yellow Beach" written in 2016 - was selected for publication in the Hemingway Foundation's annual "Hemingway Shorts" collection. That resulted in a number of agents contacting me, and ultimately a publishing contract to write three novels. The first of the novels will be published late-next year. So yes, I know only too well about editors, fact-checkers, and "sensitivity" readers.

Prior to signing the contract I had self-published my novella "Ocean of Storms" and my collection of short stories. I did that for fun and also to learn how the Amazon publishing platform works. I had no expectations whatsoever regarding how successful those books would be. Quite frankly, I had almost forgotten about them.

Writing "Faking Apollo" was not part of any strategy, and certainly not the one you hypothesize. I had no intention of talking with my agent or publisher regarding the book. My intention always was to self-publish.

I decided I didn't want to derive any profit from what I am doing because there is a complex moral issue involved. As I have indicated clearly, I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: VQ on June 05, 2019, 12:06:38 PM
...I have been shown how perhaps the greatest trick of the twentieth century was pulled off...

No, you haven't shown how anything was done in your theory.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 05, 2019, 12:17:34 PM
Quote from: Derek K Willis link=topic=1642.msg50950#msg50950
But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

And that is why we are here. The truth needs to be defended from those who would seek to promote a lie. If we are to take your version of events st face value, you have been sold a lie and are using the auspices of the aulis website (which I for one consider to be a fundamentally dishonest outfit) to promote that lie.

While you have taken the word of some random stranger as gospel many of the individuals whose integrity and honesty you besmirch are personal acquaintances of members here. The science and engineering involved is their profession. People have put a lot of time, effort and money into defending historical fact against a tide of ill-informed ignorance.

You arrived claiming to seek comments on your article and when given them, or when asked difficult questions, have used cheap misdirection to avoid providing answers. That's not the action of someone defending truth, that's someone avoiding their responsibilities.

If you arrive here and asked for comments here, produce the answers here. Don't tell people to look somewhere else. No-one here will be buying your book - you aren't losing sales by revealing your secrets.

There is only one version of the truth. Yours isn't it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 05, 2019, 01:23:32 PM
I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

You already did an article about AP-17 and you've already come to the conclusion that it to was most probably faked as per what you posted back on June 3:

"Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine."

So the later missions took place successfully. why did they probably fake AP-17(your conclusion)? Jack Schmitt is a pretty dedicated geologist. I think that if he was told AP-17 had a 75% chance of not returning he would have still been all for it. What inconsistencies have you found in any of his performance leading up to being selected as an astronaut and eventually being selected for AP-17 plus his subsequent training and participation in the last Apollo moon landing mission justifies your claim that he is lying about it all? Pretty disgusting behavior by you imho to claim you are only seeking the truth, denigrating people who put their lives at risk for a greater cause, when it's pretty apparent you've come up with some pet theories, much like many hoax promoters, and are simply too full of yourself to admit that your pet theories are flawed.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 01:56:40 PM
Jay, I am trying not to allow myself to be drawn back in for a while.

Yes, you have the response from Jason to address.  He was kind enough to provide the comprehensive rebuttal you demanded.  I'm not so kind.  I'll be doing mine in installments, and the first one drops later today.  See, it occurred to me as I was trying to block out time in my week that a comprehensive, thorough response is what you asked for but expected probably not to actually happen.  You expected it to be such an onerous task (and, truly according to my calendar, it will be) that few if any would take you up on it.  And then you could say, "None of the skeptics I consulted could give me a well-built answer to the challenges I raise in my article."  Your inattention to Jason's response suggests it actually wasn't as important to you as you let on earlier.

In order to earn such devotion and dedication from your critics, you need to prove you're worthy of it.  That includes promptly addressing the comprehensive response you already got, especially after being so "uppity" about it not being immediately forthcoming upon your arrival.  But it also includes convincing your critics that you're serious about getting the facts right.  That's what it takes if your book or article is intended to be a serious contribution to the history of science and exploration.  If all you're doing is writing the typical poorly-researched, poorly-argued hit piece that caters to a sympathetic audience, then a detailed rebuttal isn't worth anyone's time.  You'll just ignore it or pooh-pooh it away on a pretext.

You're being auditioned.

Quote
I was referring to the people you mentioned.

I mentioned them because you did.  In talking about who might be interested in your book, you called out 52% of Britons who doubt Apollo was real.  Based on their other expressed opinions, we propose that the sample in that poll are actually probably significantly more gullible as a group than the average Briton.  Those people seem to be your target audience.  You didn't answer my question whether you expected your book to fare well among professional scientists, journalists, historians, engineers, and people who -- by virtue of their previous work -- might be quite familiar with the source material and not quite as eager to take your claims at face value.  Do you plan for your book to survive the critical scrutiny you could expect from them?  Do you think your article does?

Quote
In a similar vein, I do not believe in God, but I have no trouble with people being paid for preaching to people who do believe in God.

Sure, I have time for that tangent.  I personally know the clergy of the large Episcopalian church across the street from me.  They often call me to fix and tune their organ, and they invite me to delightful garden parties in the church courtyard.  They don't care that I'm an atheist, and I don't care that they get paid to preach God, because what they preach mostly is pseudo-ethical platitudes with vague, handwaving allusions to the Bible.  They admit happily they aren't sure what God is, or exists in the forms they worship.  Or at all.  Everyone involved in that exercise knows there aren't any verifiable facts about God.  I don't really see any deception there.

But I grew up in America's Bible Belt.  There you see more of the charismatic preachers, the "prosperity gospel" hucksters, and televangelists.  They follow a much different strategy and, as such, attract a much different congregation.  It's more about hype, and the people who participate are the type to be more invigorated by hype.  None of these preachers know much about theology or comparative religion, or feel the need to.  It's not hard to see the ulterior motives and the fleecing of the flock, so to speak.  Yes, for them it's often about the money.  But sometimes it's just about having an adoring congregation who looks up to them.  If you want the preacher analogy to work in your favor, you need to prove you're a real science history minister, not just a pseudo-science televangelist.

And of course the history of Apollo is not theology, not an improvised compromise from ancient superstition or cultural and social patterns.  Unlike preaching God for money, preaching science (or the history of science) for money is connected to actual, verifiable facts.  That changes the moral calculus a fair bit.  It's one thing to preach and write for money about things everyone knows can't be known for sure.  It's another thing to preach and write for money about things that can be known, but which the author chooses to ignore or misinterpret because they don't fit the story he wants to tell.  We can know things about Apollo, and about the sciences and technology that apply to it.  The moral foundation of your argument will depend in large measure on your mastery of it, such that you can represent it accurately and fairly to an audience you've asked to trust you.

Quote
So yes, I know only too well about editors, fact-checkers, and "sensitivity" readers.

Oh, really?  So then carefully parse out why you just got done laughing about the notion of fact-checking your Apollo book.

Fiction isn't routinely fact-checked, for the obvious reason that it's fiction.  Fiction is allowed to play fast and loose with facts, even historical ones.  Amadeus, for example, gets almost everything factually wrong about Mozart and Salieri, but still makes for a smashing play.  Why would anyone try to fact-check a collection of fictional short stories?  What would be the point?  Was Ocean of Storms fact-checked?  I read some reviews on Goodreads.  Your book got mixed reviews there, but that's not my point.  Among the bad reviews, there was a common thread:  the criticism that you didn't do your homework, and therefore got the science and technology wrong.  Apparently your errors were egregious enough to be a distraction.  So I have a hard time believing Ocean of Storms was competently fact-checked, and in the larger sense, that you have any meaningful experience with professional fact-checking.

Also, if prominent criticism of your novel focuses on your ignorance of the technical issues involved in exploring the Moon, then why should any reader trust that you are competent to investigate a real-life mission and to defensibly arrive at a provocative conclusion about it?  As Gillianren notes, isn't it more parsimonious to conclude that you're just wrong?

Quote
Writing "Faking Apollo" was not part of any strategy, and certainly not the one you hypothesize.

I don't believe you.  Prove it.

Quote
My intention always was to self-publish.

So let's summarize.  This is to be your first published non-fiction book.  As a published author, you know how publishers work, and ostensibly why.  Your near-future science fiction is -- according to other purported authors in the field -- riddled with technical errors and inaccuracies.  But you don't seem to be planning to employ editors and fact-checkers that reputable publishers would use.  In fact, you dismiss the the prospect as somehow ludicrous.  You seem to be aiming your book at people who are already predisposed to believe what it claims.  How does the most parsimonious interpretation of those facts point to you being a serious author on the subject?  How does it not point more rationally to you trying to paste a pseudo-scientific veneer on a well-known conspiracy theory?

This is why I don't believe you.  I require you to prove that you're a serious author before I commit hours of my time to trying to correct your errors.

Quote
I decided I didn't want to derive any profit from what I am doing because there is a complex moral issue involved.

But you're waffling.  One the one hand you're saying there's no moral issue with selling people something you know they want to hear, regardless of its truthfulness.  But then on the other hand you tell us you plan to give your profit to charity because personal enrichment from such a book is morally fraught.  Well, is it fraught or not?  You've given me arguments on both sides of the issue, and I'm not going to agree to be your fact-checker until I have a better idea of what you see as your moral obligations here.

Here's a less complex moral question.  Do you have a moral obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Private authors such as Kluger, Burroughs, Chaikin, Murray, and Cox (to name some illustrious few) have all expended many years of effort researching the details of Apollo 12 and other missions from primary sources.  Their preparation is evident in their writing.  Yet they seem to have missed a fair amount of what you deem suspicious about Apollo 12.  Is your suspicion based on a more whole truth than theirs?  An honest truth, without embellishment, insinuation, or speculation masquerading as fact?

Quote
The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

And you're not the first to suggest this.  To people well acquainted with the source material -- which you evidently are not -- that claim fails for a fairly obvious reason.  Can you guess what it is?  Further, you already dismissed Apollo 17 as fake, and accept the other J-missions only because you say you haven't yet found anything you can point to as fake.  The facts of your behavior and statements don't mesh with what you're telling us your data are.

Quote
On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person".

Well, for starters you're calling Al Bean a liar.  I single him out because I've met him.  Have you?  Since you seem to like tap-dancing through complex moral issues, explain how you can publicly accuse him of a prominent lie and not realize that equates to a value judgment of him and his character.  If your claim is true, several people still living today would be guilty of some fairly serious Federal felonies.  Can you explain how you can accuse people of felonies without saying they fit the definition of a felon?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2019, 03:08:18 PM
And I would think that aeronautical engineers who have been jet jockeys fro 20+ years after graduating from universities might forget the nuances of fluid dynamics not practiced/used during those 20 years.  So yes they may have speculated(remember my post on UM) that the dust went over the S3 lander, That speculation was wrong as examination of the parts returned proved.You haven't addressed my questions and I would like a solid answer not hand waving an magician treatise.

But certainly address Jason's spot on analysis of your paper.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 03:20:17 PM
Jay, I didn't join ApolloHoax to talk about my works of fiction. However, the rule seems to be that if someone brings up a subject then it is fair game to discuss. Someone linked to my book "Ocean of Storms", and now you have discussed the book so I feel it okay to ask a question.

Can you please direct me to the reviews on Goodreads which, as you say, point out I didn't do my homework and got the science and technology so wrong the errors became a distraction? I haven't looked at Goodreads in a couple of years and I am having difficulty finding the reviews.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 03:45:59 PM
Jay, I didn't join ApolloHoax to talk about my works of fiction.

I consider them relevant principally because you claim that having published them gives you experience with the editing and fact-checking process of professional writing.  It's still unclear what your attitude on fact-checking is, and whether you plan to do it for your non-fiction Apollo book.

Quote
Can you please direct me to the reviews on Goodreads which, as you say, point out I didn't do my homework...

Well, here's where I eat some crow.

Here's your book, which tells the story of near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32878654-ocean-of-storms

Now here's the other book called Ocean of Storms that deals with near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38724898-ocean-of-storms

The reviews I described were for the other book, not yours.  I apologize for my carelessness and I withdraw the accusation that your fiction has been said to be inadequately researched.

I do, however, press the expectation that you will tell us what you're doing to assure us that your non-fiction will be properly researched and vetted.  And I asked you several other questions that don't have to do with your fiction.  If you're not here to discuss your fiction, and you accept my apology for inadvertently maligning yours, will you kindly favor me with those answers?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 03:47:01 PM
I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

You already did an article about AP-17 and you've already come to the conclusion that it to was most probably faked as per what you posted back on June 3:

"Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine."

So the later missions took place successfully. why did they probably fake AP-17(your conclusion)? Jack Schmitt is a pretty dedicated geologist. I think that if he was told AP-17 had a 75% chance of not returning he would have still been all for it. What inconsistencies have you found in any of his performance leading up to being selected as an astronaut and eventually being selected for AP-17 plus his subsequent training and participation in the last Apollo moon landing mission justifies your claim that he is lying about it all? Pretty disgusting behavior by you imho to claim you are only seeking the truth, denigrating people who put their lives at risk for a greater cause, when it's pretty apparent you've come up with some pet theories, much like many hoax promoters, and are simply too full of yourself to admit that your pet theories are flawed.

As I have pointed out - perhaps not here, but on UM - Apollo 17 is, to me at least, a mystery. There would be no reasons for "faking" the mission on grounds of safety because the three prior missions were successful. There are rumors among the conspiracy theory community that there is a reason why the mission wasn't as the history books say. But that reason seems to me to be so outlandish I am not going to repeat it here.   
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Derek K Willis on June 05, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
Jay, I didn't join ApolloHoax to talk about my works of fiction.

I consider them relevant principally because you claim that having published them gives you experience with the editing and fact-checking process of professional writing.  It's still unclear what your attitude on fact-checking is, and whether you plan to do it for your non-fiction Apollo book.

Quote
Can you please direct me to the reviews on Goodreads which, as you say, point out I didn't do my homework...

Well, here's where I eat some crow.

Here's your book, which tells the story of near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32878654-ocean-of-storms

Now here's the other book called Ocean of Storms that deals with near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38724898-ocean-of-storms

The reviews I described were for the other book, not yours.  I apologize for my carelessness and I withdraw the accusation that your fiction has been said to be inadequately researched.

I do, however, press the expectation that you will tell us what you're doing to assure us that your non-fiction will be properly researched and vetted.  And I asked you several other questions that don't have to do with your fiction.  If you're not here to discuss your fiction, and you accept my apology for inadvertently maligning yours, will you kindly favor me with those answers?

No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net. I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement.

So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled. 

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: mako88sb on June 05, 2019, 04:09:08 PM
I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

You already did an article about AP-17 and you've already come to the conclusion that it to was most probably faked as per what you posted back on June 3:

"Apollos 14, 15, and 16 were genuine. My reason for believing they were genuine is that I can find no reasons to suggest they were anything other than genuine."

So the later missions took place successfully. why did they probably fake AP-17(your conclusion)? Jack Schmitt is a pretty dedicated geologist. I think that if he was told AP-17 had a 75% chance of not returning he would have still been all for it. What inconsistencies have you found in any of his performance leading up to being selected as an astronaut and eventually being selected for AP-17 plus his subsequent training and participation in the last Apollo moon landing mission justifies your claim that he is lying about it all? Pretty disgusting behavior by you imho to claim you are only seeking the truth, denigrating people who put their lives at risk for a greater cause, when it's pretty apparent you've come up with some pet theories, much like many hoax promoters, and are simply too full of yourself to admit that your pet theories are flawed.

As I have pointed out - perhaps not here, but on UM - Apollo 17 is, to me at least, a mystery. There would be no reasons for "faking" the mission on grounds of safety because the three prior missions were successful. There are rumors among the conspiracy theory community that there is a reason why the mission wasn't as the history books say. But that reason seems to me to be so outlandish I am not going to repeat it here.

So how about this last bit from your AP-17 article:

"Interestingly, the Rover used on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 had an oil leak from the left rear wheel (observed by Scott Henderson) that resulted in the left rear wheel hub of each mission becoming very oily and therefore caked in dirt and dust. Either all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel, or the same Rover was used for the photo shoots for all three missions."

Seems to me you're more inclined to believe the latter conclusion about the same LR being used for all 3 J-missions vs the "...all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel,". If that is so, it would seem to be another anomaly that would call into question the legitimacy of the AP-15 & AP-16 missions, based upon your 2 articles about the Apollo missions. Or do you think it likely that the left rear wheel on all 3 LR's had the same problem?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2019, 04:11:34 PM
No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

You really must think this forum has far greater reach than it does. Check the stats at the bottom of the forum page. A few hundred members only. Apparently you had to be told of this place's existence before even being aware of it or coming here. Not exactly a huge dent in your audience, is it? Among the readership here the damage to your reputation has been done by your own actions, and no-one considered you a credible author anyway. Earlier on you said that the more you were ridiculed and attacked here the better the interest in your work, so which is it?

Quote
I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

Let me save you the trouble. Honest mistake admitted to and apologised for on the same forum and on the same page within a few hours. No case to answer. End of story.

Quote
In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net.

How convenient. Asked for response to an article, got it, now using other flimsy excuse to claim a reason for not responding.

Quote
I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement.

There isn't a situation. All that is required is for you to respond to my post challenging your article as you claimed you wanted.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2019, 04:20:22 PM
In deed Jason, convenient that he doesn't have to answer all those questions that he has no answer.  A stealth flounce just occurred.  But since thee weren't any anomalies in A12 or S3 to discuss it was almost guaranteed.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

And being married to a lawyer, I can tell you what their answer will be.  A retraction of an error with substantial evidence of its being innocent (i.e., two very similar books), immediately and conspicuously published, is dispositive disproof of malice.  Since you aspire to be a public figure, actual malice is an essential element to the tort.  In some jurisdictions in the United States, before you can claim defamation, you must ask for and be denied a retraction.  In this case a full and frank retraction was provided to you unconditionally without demand.  Your refusal to accept it estops many causes of action.  And should I prevail in court, your prior refusal could very well entitle me to recover my legal fees from you.

Further, the transcript of your activity here -- which I'm sure you'll provide unedited and in full to your publisher -- will contain the following

Well, it really is bizarre. The more I am criticized and insulted on the forums, the more people are emailing me and pre-ordering my book.

So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me. Doing so can only add to the interest in my book.

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

This suggests you don't actually believe you're being defamed on this and other forums, and that you in fact welcome such activity as would tend to discredit, defame, or malign you.  Absent actual malice, you can't recover punitive damages.  The only thing you can recover for now is actual monetary loss.  But since by your own admission, you believe the adverse attention improves your sales (both fiction and non-fiction), you just estopped that claim as well.

There's also a bit in here somewhere about you not caring whether you get attention or not, but I can't be arsed presently to look for it.  Be sure to show that to your publisher.

Quote
So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled.

Give me the name and number of your publishing company's legal department.  I'll phone them myself and we can get this settled today.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 04:42:34 PM
As I mentioned before, I will not be providing a comprehensive rebuttal to Mr Willis’ article.  He hasn’t yet convinced me it will be worth my time to produce one.  So we’ll start with the introduction to his article, which contains some isolated claims, and see how well he fares.  If he impresses me with his handling of my rebuttal, we’ll proceed.
 
Quote
The astronauts who descended onto the lunar surface ─ Charles “Pete” Conrad and Alan Bean ─ had been tasked with making a precision landing. Just four months earlier the Apollo 11 LM Eagle had landed six kilometres off target. Conrad and Bean brought their LM down at a distance of only 155 metres from Surveyor 3.

You don’t provide any line of reasoning.  You draw a contrast here, but to what point?  The reader is presumably meant to imagine that the Apollo 12’s feat seems suspiciously adept in light of its forerunner.  But it’s intellectually dishonest to walk right up to your point and then not say it.  Previous Aulis authors did that a lot.  They “let the reader draw the conclusion,” and by that sketchy rhetoric they absolve themselves of having to defend the only conclusion the reader was supposed to draw, but which they disclaim ever having made themselves.  That’s where an editor would have helped you write honestly.  We’ll proceed as if you stated the conclusion you evidently wished the reader to draw.

It’s easy to suggest something seems suspicious if you just leave out the explanation of how it was done, which is what you did.  And it’s lazy to make your fact-checkers have to compensate for your disinterest in the whole story, which is what we now have to do.  My sources are the flight plans, mission reports, and crew technical debriefings for Apollos 11 and 12, and the supporting documents they reference.  These would be considered primary sources in researching what Apollo procedure was and how effective it was determined to be.

Apollo 11 was not tasked with making a precise landing.  It’s a bit misleading to say they landed 6 km “off-target.”  They landed that far from the center of a target ellipse measuring 20 by 5.5 km.  Apollo 11’s objective was to make a safe landing -- anywhere on the lunar surface -- and then return to Earth.  Everything past that was a secondary objective.  A landing anywhere within the target ellipse would satisfy a secondary mission objective: to show that they had reasonable model of what lunar navigation entailed, if not yet all the fine quantitative details.

It’s also important to realize that the different mission objectives informed which of several possible alternatives the flight controllers opted for on the fly in each case, which then affects the outcome.  To imply that Eagle didn’t make a pinpoint landing because it couldn’t omits this important principle.

A well-known feature of the Moon is its lumpy gravitational field.  A pure Keplerian approach to orbital mechanics isn’t accurate enough to specify precisely how objects orbit the Moon.  A more generalized solution involves harmonic equations.  Under contract from NASA, Boeing produced a 13-term spherical-harmonics model to describe the potential energy in lunar orbit.  The model having so many degrees of freedom, using it to predict an accurate picture of the spacecraft’s orbit around the Moon was possible only after repeated observation.  Ground trackers measured the Doppler shift in the ship’s radio frequency as it moved away from Earth going around to the far side, and toward Earth as it emerged again.  The error between the model’s predicted velocity state and the measured velocity state was used to alter the parameters of the model and refine the prediction.  That’s a straightforward curve-fitting problem -- straightforward in the sense that no mathematical chicanery is involved.  Less straightforward in the realization that it takes a 1960s mainframe an appreciable amount of time to get the fit to converge.

From its circular parking orbit around the Moon, the lunar module went into a pre-descent orbit, with a pericynthion (PC) just a few kilometers above the lunar surface.  Since PC had to be on the near side, where the landing site is, the retrograde LM DPS burn to achieve it happened on the far side, at the corresponding apocynthion, where ground observation is impossible.  Mission Control couldn’t watch the LM do this burn, or measure its speed and position from Earth.  Thus the LM emerged from behind the Moon in a different orbit, not the one painstakingly curve-fit to the Boeing R2 gravity model over several revolutions.

But not to worry.  The new orbit can be acceptably derived from the precisely-determined one by integrating the effects of the DOI (descent orbit insertion) burn, as recorded in the LM’s guidance system.  Every maneuver produces residuals, and these are also recorded in the guidance system and were trimmed with the LM’s RCS to achieve as near to zero a measured error as possible for the overall maneuver.  With that mathematical idea of the LM’s new orbit computed, a landing trajectory can then be fashioned to connect the desired landing site with the orbital model.  The result is the point along the computed orbit near PC where the actual powered descent had to start.

But what if the computed orbit is not the actual orbit?  As Eagle appeared from the right side of the Moon, it transmitted its trimmed DOI residuals so that the ground computers could add the appropriate kinetic energy to the orbit.  Then as it rounded the face of the Moon to start its descent, ground observers began to note that its Doppler-measured velocity was about 4 meters per second faster than the residual-corrected R2 model predicted.  You need several Doppler measurements taken over a few minutes to determine the orbital path that’s producing them.  A method for doing this is in Bate’s Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.  This error ultimately meant the spacecraft’s state vector, which was being deduced by the computer from the model orbit, believed it was more than 5,000 meters behind where Eagle actually was in its orbit.  And since the model -- not the actual position -- is what schedules the PDI burn (powered-descent initiation), the burn would come too late and the ship would land long.  And the crew confirmed this too, because their expected landmarks were passing under the ship sooner than the orbital model predicted.

Now nominally this can be fixed.  The LM’s computer has only a simplified mostly-Keplerian orbital model.  It was always part of the plan that the state vector would be updated in lunar orbit periodically from the ground, based on fitting the Doppler data to the R2 gravity model.  That’s what happened with the CSM during the many orbits that preceded the landing attempt.  The effect of the update is to correct the errors that arose out of the AGC simplification.  In general, throughout an Apollo mission, all the simple AGC models would work in the short term, and the more accurate ground-based measurements and more sophisticated mathematical models run on the bigger computers would periodically recalibrate the onboard computer.

And it was certainly part of the mission plan that the orbit extrapolated from the DOI burn and its residuals was likely to be off by a certain amount from the empirical Doppler measurements.  The onboard accelerometers are only so accurate.  A last-minute update of the state vector was possible between DOI and PDI.  But since Apollo 11 had no accuracy constraint on its landing, this was deemed unwarranted for this mission.  Landing 5 km long was considered okay, and not worth the invocation of a guidance contingency.  Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.

So what was done differently on Apollo 12?

First, Apollo 12 went into a higher inclination orbit around the Moon.  The R2 model is more accurate with inclinations farther away from zero, because there’s more variation in the latitude parameter.  You can fit data more confidently to a more sharply inflected curve.  Apollo 11’s orbital inclination was constrained by the free-return translunar trajectory.  Apollo 12 used the hybrid translunar trajectory.

And the gravity potential model was revised to the so-called L1 model, which extended the R2 model with an added term to improve its accuracy.  The motivation to do this was purely an engineering concern.  Intrepid didn’t attempt to trim its residuals from DOI using the RCS.  While the guidance system is very accurate in measuring accelerations in three dimensions while under powerful SPS propulsion, The accelerometers are less accurate in the lower range, such as that produced by RCS translations.  This is due in part to the mechanical limitations of pendulous accelerometers, but also to the granular error inherent to the measurement.

If your car speedometer reads off speeds in increments of one kilometer per hour, it’s easier to regulate your speed to arrive somewhere on time at speeds of, say, 50 km/h.  The difference between 50 and 51 km/h is proportionally small.  It won’t result in much error.  But if you need to go at exactly 1.5 km/h, the difference between 1 and 2 km/h is dramatic.  If your readout is 1, you don’t know if your actual speed is 1.1 km/h or 1.9 km/h.  And the error could result in you arriving almost twice as early or twice as late.

With this principle in mind, mission analysts concluded the trim that Eagle attempted might have actually given them a worse reckoning of the ultimate residuals that were integrated into Apollo 11’s R2.  The untrimmed residuals were determined to have a greater precision, even if their magnitude was larger.  So second, part of the role played by the new term in L1 was to integrate the untrimmed residuals from DOI directly.

Third, and onward, are the many things Apollo 12 didn’t do that Apollo 11 had done that affected the LM descent orbit in ways the guidance system couldn’t measure, record, or compensate for.  Let’s look at this in more detail.

The Apollo guidance computer can operate in accelerated-flight mode, in which burns by the SPS, DPS, APS, or even in some cases the RCS (in translation) are integrated through the accelerometers into the state vector by a computer routine called the Servicer.  Or it can operate in orbital mode, in which the state vector is maintained by the Encke method of conic integration, referring to Keplerian orbital mechanics.  This relies on orbital elements deduced from previous maneuvers or transmitted from the ground.  No attempt was made to integrate these flight modes, as it would have exceeded the capacity of the AGC.  Encke-based dead reckoning ignores the accelerometers.  Servicer-based dead reckoning ignores the orbital model.  Both modes are open-loop control logic.  That means the spacecraft has no way of actually knowing whether it’s actually on the deduced path.  That information has to come from the ground.

Now fourth -- an uncoupled RCS burn is one in which balanced pairs or sets of jets are not used, and in fact only one jet may be used.  I described this to the astonishment of our previous hoax claimant, Jr Knowing.  In uncoupled RCS attitude burns, the desired rotation is accompanied by undesired translations.  There were plenty of those on the far side before and after DOI.  In docked flight, and just after undocking, certain RCS jets have to be inhibited in order to protect the delicate high-gain antennas of the companion spacecraft.  Eagle also performed hot-fire RCS tests, a post-undocking separation maneuver, and lots of stationkeeping activity while Michael Collins in Columbia checked out the exterior of the ship.  What’s important to know is that none of this activity was being integrated into the state vector because the AGC necessarily was in conic-integration mode.  Those maneuvers certainly affected the orbit, but they would not have been captured in the only guidance data the LM sent back to the ground -- the DOI residuals.

All these sources of error were known during and after Apollo 11’s flight.  They just weren’t important to deal with under the Apollo 11 mission objectives.  Apollo 12 adjusted the flight plan to eliminate the sources of error that could be, and deal with those that remained.

The Apollo 12 undocking occurred with the stack oriented along the orbital radius, instead of along the orbital path.  Again, this wouldn’t have registered in the computer because the accelerometers were being ignored.  This different orientation for the separation minimized the dispersion that the R2/L1 gravity model would be sensitive to.  And there was no separation maneuver from the LM.  The separation was accomplished entirely using the SM RCS.  No LM stationkeeping, no RCS tests.

Apollo 12 also had the advantage of a landing site farther west.  This means the LM would be in view of the Doppler measurements for a longer period before PDI.  Not only could the ground trackers accumulate more data to measure the descent orbit, but they had more time to formulate and upload a new state vector.  When the crew reported their DOI residuals and the L1 model was updated and fit to the Doppler data, a very accurate state vector resulted and was sent back to Intrepid.

Finally, Intrepid’s crew had an easier time of it.  Armstrong and Aldrin were distracted for long enough dealing with the AGC program alarms that by the time they looked back out of the window, they weren’t sure where they were.  Armstrong could have easily pointed Eagle to the originally designated landing site, if only he could locate it on the ground in time.  He couldn’t.  Instead he just chose not to land on the pile of rocks he was headed for.  The lunar terrain around Surveyor Crater was much more distinctive, and Commander Conrad didn’t have a computer problem to deal with.  He could easily recognize the intended landing site and easily point the LPD to it.

This is a very detailed explanation of what was different about the engineering and procedures used in Apollo 12 that allowed it to meet an objective that was not set for Apollo 11.  Properly researched and understood, there’s no reason for suspicion.  You, the author, are not necessarily responsible for reproducing this detail for your reader.  But you are responsible for knowing it, and for writing whatever summary of it you want to make in terms that accommodate it.  Your insinuation that Apollo 12’s landing was suspiciously accurate after Apollo 11 is either unaware of the solution or deliberately ignoring it.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 05:31:15 PM
Among the readership here the damage to your reputation has been done by your own actions, and no-one considered you a credible author anyway.

That's what it will come down to for the publisher.  The publisher has contracted with Mr Willis to write fiction.  But Mr Willis has decided to self-publish simultaneously a non-fiction book that takes a highly contestable stand on a controversial subject, and arguably defames various Apollo participants.  A reputable publisher might reasonably consider that to be the primary concern with regard to the author's reputation and the future sales of books he is obliged to write for them.  The publisher might well disagree with Mr Willis' opinion that his actions to promote his own work -- that has nothing to do with them -- is improving their business.  It's doubtful they want to expend their resources cleaning up the mess he has made by sailing all over the Internet stirring up a hornet's nest.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 05, 2019, 10:22:14 PM
I haven't read this until now.  I didn't want it to taint my own answer.  With Mr Willis' uppity departure and unlikely return, I feel some comment is appropriate.

One of NASA’s officially recognised records.

Actually the property of Eric Jones and licensed to NASA for distribution.  A very good source, but not an official source.  NASA is not answerable for its content, which is largely crowd-sourced.  Certainly not a primary source.

Quote
Actually the instructions for the TV panorama said ‘omit up-sun’. There is little indication, as far as I know, that astronauts were told specifically that pointing the camera at the Sun would actually cause permanent damage.

Nor did they have an actual camera for training.  The first time Bean saw the camera was when he was on the Moon.  There is no single "training manual" for an Apollo EVA, nor did Derek cite which of several possible documents he meant.  The instruction in question for a specific procedure.  There is no expectation that it should have been generalized to all cases.  There was no warning of irreparable damage.  The Apollo 12 mission report squarely blames training and planning for the TV mishap.

Quote
If, as you go on later to say, you know this to be erroneous, you need to present it differently.

This is why I hope he gets an editor.

Quote
It does not take a thick layer to noticeably change the colour of anything, especially if it started as white. Human eyes are very good at distinguishing not white from white.

Especially when the not-white is basaltic regolith, roughly the shade of aged asphalt.

Quote
Can you justify your assertion that the amount of dust rising higher than 15cm is insufficient?

Or can he provide any actual model?  "It is believed" doesn't absolve him of having to provide some substance.  One of the first questions you ask in law is, "How do you know that?"  The question is designed to uncover such begged question is this.

Quote
Just becdause they didn’t see any doesn’t mean there was no dust.

I'm guessing Derek has never worn a space helmet.  I have.  I'm not surprised at what the astronauts didn't see.

Quote
Nonsensical to you is not the same as totally nonsensical.

This is exactly the kind of judgment that has probative value only when made from a position of experience and adjudicated knowledge.  "I don't understand, therefore fraud," is never a convincing argument.

Quote
Both of them were into their 60s by the time the ALSJ was compiled.

This is why it matters to correctly characterize one's sources.  If the reader is made to believe that "inconsistency" exists between "official" NASA sources, then one might suspect something.  The ALSJ is not the sine qua non of Apollo history.  This is why I expressed my concern that Derek's offering was going to be a poorly-researched hit piece based on nothing but some casual Googling.  It's okay to say, "This was my primary source."  But when one says "This is NASA's official source," and then draws conclusions based on about what is missing from it or inconsistent in it, then one has lied.

Quote
The concern over corrosive materials had nothing to do with damage to the spacesuit.

The outer layer of the space suit is Beta cloth.  Beta cloth is glass, and almost entirely impervious to chemical erosion.

Quote
Why is it odd to return the parts to the original manufacturer?

Indeed, most of NASA's space equipment is actually designed and built by contractors.  The contractors are the experts in the details of how their product operates.  NASA keeps its contractors on the hook to provide quality control and to analyze failures or other curious conditions.  This is normal and expected.  This is why it's helpful for someone actually to have some experience in the industries he proposes to criticize before drawing erroneous conclusions about how they operate.  The first time Derek became "uppity" was when he was questioned on exactly that sort of expertise and experience.  This sort of ignorant layman's interpretation of events is exactly why we don't accept judgment from unqualified individuals.

Quote
"Mylar gold foil..."

No such thing.  There was aluminized Mylar and aluminized Kapton.  Describing it as a "foil" and suggesting that blown dust would damage it is pretty hilarious.  Mylar is tough enough in film form that I can hang from it and support my own body weight.  Not quite the same as paint.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 05, 2019, 10:26:42 PM
Ten maybe fifteen stars, Jay  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on June 05, 2019, 10:45:25 PM
And he never did answer why "I'm wrong" is not the more logical conclusion to his problems with the mission.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 06, 2019, 12:38:05 AM

No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

You damaged your reputation the second you published a badly researched article on a crank website. You damaged it even more every time you avoided answering direct questions and refused to acknowledge the criticisms of your article that you claimed to be seeking. It went down the toilet when you spat your dummy out and ran away.

While you're on the phone to your lawyers  get them to check the legal position in calling people frauds and liars.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: VQ on June 06, 2019, 02:08:09 AM
The outer layer of the space suit is Beta cloth.  Beta cloth is glass, and almost entirely impervious to chemical erosion.

Avoid fluorine, I would imagine.  ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: VQ on June 06, 2019, 02:09:35 AM
So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 06, 2019, 02:36:44 AM
There was aluminized Mylar and aluminized Kapton.  Describing it as a "foil" and suggesting that blown dust would damage it is pretty hilarious.  Mylar is tough enough in film form that I can hang from it and support my own body weight.  Not quite the same as paint.

Another funny thing there is that he doesn't recognise the contradiction between citing the Chinese landers with the lack of dust on their footpads as an explanation as to why there wouldn't necessarily be any on lunar module ones, and the the fact that the Chinese landers also have a protective foil covering that remains similarly unshredded by the dust entrained by the engine (and also don't have a blast crater beneath them).
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: ineluki on June 06, 2019, 04:51:11 AM

Any predictions for July?
- Derek will flounce

Didn't take until July... 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on June 06, 2019, 06:55:47 AM
My issue is when Derek raised fluid dynamics and the astronauts being engineers, and they should have known something. Yes, that is correct that they were engineers but again we need some context.

The Apollo 12 astronauts did their engineering degrees in the early 1950s. They then became test pilots. They then entered NASA and began training for their missions... in the late 1960s.

Al Bean had said how there was so much to absorb in an Apollo mission that when he went to various functions, he would never remember anyone's name in case it pushed some vital piece of information out of his head.

I've been an air traffic controller, an aircraft navigator, a ship driver and more. At one time I could recite rules, procedures, statistics, etc, off the top of my head.... but when I didn't use a facet of information I had learnt for a few years I became rusty and even forgot it. Sure, I know the basics but some of the detail has gone. I still know my 1-in-60 rule but don't ask me about procedural separation standards. I can still navigate a ship or aircraft but if I have to shoot some stars, I am going to need a refresher.

What is to say the same did not happen to those astronauts?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 06, 2019, 08:00:48 AM
Derek came here with the expectation that he could make his claim, and then it would up to us to disprove it. He does not seem to understand this is not how things work in forums such as this one, that is, forums that are not echo-chambers for conspiracy theorists and cranks pushing pseudo scientific claims.

Once it became clear that to him that he was not going to get his way here, he jumped on the opportunity afforded to him by Jay's error to display his poutrage, and subsequently flounced.....

He further thinks that we haven't seen these sorts of antic before.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 06, 2019, 08:31:10 AM
My issue is when Derek raised fluid dynamics and the astronauts being engineers, and they should have known something. Yes, that is correct that they were engineers but again we need some context.

The Apollo 12 astronauts did their engineering degrees in the early 1950s. They then became test pilots. They then entered NASA and began training for their missions... in the late 1960s.

Al Bean had said how there was so much to absorb in an Apollo mission that when he went to various functions, he would never remember anyone's name in case it pushed some vital piece of information out of his head.

I've been an air traffic controller, an aircraft navigator, a ship driver and more. At one time I could recite rules, procedures, statistics, etc, off the top of my head.... but when I didn't use a facet of information I had learnt for a few years I became rusty and even forgot it. Sure, I know the basics but some of the detail has gone. I still know my 1-in-60 rule but don't ask me about procedural separation standards. I can still navigate a ship or aircraft but if I have to shoot some stars, I am going to need a refresher.

What is to say the same did not happen to those astronauts?

I've seen many Apollo astronauts speak about their experiences and have been staggered by the wealth of technical knowledge and detail they retain about their spacecraft. Getting the correct order of events and remembering minor details on the other hand...
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 06, 2019, 01:09:37 PM
I've seen many Apollo astronauts speak about their experiences and have been staggered by the wealth of technical knowledge and detail they retain about their spacecraft. Getting the correct order of events and remembering minor details on the other hand...

Weird, isn't it? You'd almost think they had all the technical detail about their spacecraft and its operation repeatedly drummed into them through years of training, while memories of events that only happened once are strangely not so coherent...
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 06, 2019, 01:16:53 PM
I've seen many Apollo astronauts speak about their experiences and have been staggered by the wealth of technical knowledge and detail they retain about their spacecraft. Getting the correct order of events and remembering minor details on the other hand...

Weird, isn't it? You'd almost think they had all the technical detail about their spacecraft and its operation repeatedly drummed into them through years of training, while memories of events that only happened once are strangely not so coherent...
I think that is because the training is repetitive and memory "referral" is easy to attain while a one time event may not be as easy, given that they were continually distracted by new and exciting observations.  A new world bombarded their sensory receptors.  One aspect that Derek seems to overlook is his fantasy land of hoax.  Alan had asked for the cuff pads of timeline instructions(with the addition of the Playboy pics thanks to the back up crew) so that they would not forget to do the multitude of task they trained many months.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 06, 2019, 01:25:12 PM
One of NASA’s officially recognised records.

Actually the property of Eric Jones and licensed to NASA for distribution.  A very good source, but not an official source.  NASA is not answerable for its content, which is largely crowd-sourced.  Certainly not a primary source.

Thank you for the clarification. I fell into the trap of assuming it was a NASA source because it was on the NASA website, but of course that's the same kind of fallacious thinking made by many hoax believers who assume everything was done by NASA.

Quote
Quote
It does not take a thick layer to noticeably change the colour of anything, especially if it started as white. Human eyes are very good at distinguishing not white from white.

Especially when the not-white is basaltic regolith, roughly the shade of aged asphalt.

Example from my own experience: I used to work with a transparent piezoelectric film with a coating of indium tin oxide. That coating was 40 nanometres thick (that's forty millionths of a millimetre, 0.00004mm) and it was easy to distinguish between coated and uncoated film. Further, when we experimented with different thicknesses up to 200nm (0.0002mm) we could visually tell the difference between the different increments of coating thickness. None of these get anywhere near Derek's supposedly invisible one fortieth of a millimetre thickness of dust on Surveyor.

Quote
Quote
Nonsensical to you is not the same as totally nonsensical.

This is exactly the kind of judgment that has probative value only when made from a position of experience and adjudicated knowledge.  "I don't understand, therefore fraud," is never a convincing argument.

Indeed. There are many things in the world that don't make sense to me, but that's because I haven't taken the time to develop my understanding of the subject such that it does make sense. I don't go dismissing whole swatches of history and science on that basis though.

Quote
Quote
The concern over corrosive materials had nothing to do with damage to the spacesuit.

The outer layer of the space suit is Beta cloth.  Beta cloth is glass, and almost entirely impervious to chemical erosion.

Indeed, and so Derek has simply made up a situation based on his understanding of the word 'corrosive' with no actual reference to what it applies to. The greatest absurdity comes from the fact that people handle corrosive liquids all the time on Earth using protective things like rubber gloves and those gloves conspicuously don't dissolve in these materials. Even with the gross oversimplified notion of what a spacesuit is held by many hoax believers (a single inflated person-shaped rubber bag), there is still no reason to suppose that any corrosive material such as may be in use in a battery would actually eat its way through.

Quote
Quote
"Mylar gold foil..."

No such thing.  There was aluminized Mylar and aluminized Kapton.  Describing it as a "foil" and suggesting that blown dust would damage it is pretty hilarious.  Mylar is tough enough in film form that I can hang from it and support my own body weight.  Not quite the same as paint.

And again another hoax believer who thinks he can look at something and deduce its physical properties. It's the old 'cardboard and scotch tape' argument in another form.

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 06, 2019, 01:30:33 PM
My issue is when Derek raised fluid dynamics and the astronauts being engineers, and they should have known something. Yes, that is correct that they were engineers but again we need some context.
[...]
Al Bean had said how there was so much to absorb in an Apollo mission that when he went to various functions, he would never remember anyone's name in case it pushed some vital piece of information out of his head.
[...]
Sure, I know the basics but some of the detail has gone. [...]

What is to say the same did not happen to those astronauts?

The reaction from Conrad and Bean is what I would expect as a first-pass, knee-jerk opinion from engineers whose general knowledge might have gone stale in favor of recent, task-specific knowledge.  It was my knee-jerk opinion too, and my knowledge isn't stale.  But I'm sitting in a comfortable, air-conditioned office, not bouncing around on the lunar surface.  At the present, I have little else pressing on my attention; I'm not trying to keep to a tight schedule of exploration.  And unlike the Apollo 12 crew, I'm primed to suspect that the first-order estimation is probably not enough to address the problem.  So no, there's no reason to believe the crew's initial opinion was the authoritative (or even the best) engineering assessment.

Often in fluid dynamics analysis for engineering analysis purposes, the second- and third-order effects are what you're interested in.  Conrad and Bean are naturally considering the first-order flow.  But the minor aspects of fluid flow are often what you're interested in while solving some specific problem.  For example, the stall characteristics of some wing may not be a problem as seen only in the major wing.  But you may need to look at the minor flow around some fairing or collection of features that conspire to create the effect in question out of a minor flow.  Similarly, if we want to consider that the post-impingement DPS plume is responsible for applying dust to Surveyor III, we may need to sit down and think of what the secondary and tertiary effects might be.  That's definitely not something you do while standing on the lunar surface, and indeed maybe not even something you do while the mission is being flown.  It takes careful consideration, and -- these days especially -- detailed and costly digital modeling.

What Bean said above rings true also in regards to the television camera.  One of the problems that never quite got solved during Apollo was the tension between mission planners and crew operations.  Today we would call it "feature creep," the cumulative effect of adding many small, seemingly insignificant tasks and requirements to an already busy schedule.  This was felt most acutely in training.  During training, crew operations tended to follow a priority-oriented plan.  Evidently mission planners believed all the items were being trained on with equal emphasis and success.  Bean didn't get a lot of training on the television setup, and didn't have a real camera to train with.  What astounds us these days, but which was seriously considered for Apollo 11, was to delete the EVA television experience altogether.  The mission was going to be difficult enough without "extra" obligations like minding the TV.  In the larger sense, considering all the mission procedures written around camera and optics maintenance, I think it was David Scott who complained that most of the problems they were constantly having to face with respect to photography could have been solved with lens caps.  That certainly would have solved Bean's problem in a very straightforward, simple way.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 06, 2019, 01:53:22 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I fell into the trap of assuming it was a NASA source because it was on the NASA website, but of course that's the same kind of fallacious thinking made by many hoax believers who assume everything was done by NASA.

Well, David Percy even tried to claim the feature film Apollo 13 was an official NASA source because it had been made with their cooperation.  I know the ALSJ is not an official NASA source because I've contributed to it.  And I don't work for NASA and never have.  So if that's how it acquires content, you can't grant it NASA authorship.  In any case, statements of ownership, authorship, and the license terms are on the site itself.  It's not as if we have to guess or deduce what they are.  Granted the ALSJ probably the single most useful record of the Apollo missions available on the web.  But it's neither comprehensive nor official.

Quote
....I don't go dismissing whole swatches of history and science on that basis though.

...and arrogantly conclude that the only possible resolution of your conundrum must be to accuse people you know little about of wholesale criminal malfeasance.

Quote
And again another hoax believer who thinks he can look at something and deduce its physical properties.

The aluminized film that gets reported as "gold foil" is considerably thinner than the stuff I commonly use.  But it's about the same look and feel as a chip bag (crisp packet).  Except Kapton is significantly stronger than the substrate on food packages, per unit mass.  And more elastic.  It doesn't seem likely at all to me to be pitted by impact from entrained particles.  And as we're all fond of pointing out, the post-impingement plume passes under the footpads.  By the time the footpads are on the ground, the exhaust has stopped.

Conversely, the paint on Surveyor III was chosen for its optico-thermal properties, not its strength as a coating.  Sometimes we apply epoxy coatings on airplanes and some portions of spacecraft because we want mechanical and chemical protection.  But paint designed to have the proper thermal behavior is not guaranteed to have all the desirable mechanical behavior.  Although I don't have any examples of it on hand, there's no reason to suppose a rigid coating would behave the same as a flexible film under aerosol abrasion.  The argument that if pitting and chipping from sandblasting occurred on Surveyor, it should also have happened on the Intrepid landing gear, is pure supposition with no rational basis.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on June 06, 2019, 03:49:39 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I fell into the trap of assuming it was a NASA source because it was on the NASA website, but of course that's the same kind of fallacious thinking made by many hoax believers who assume everything was done by NASA.

Yup.

Over on ISF, we've been dealing with one of those "rockets don't work in a vacuum" idiots who thinks that the Rocket Equation and all the physics regarding rockets is NASA fakery because they all appear on NASA's website.

Go figure!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 06, 2019, 04:12:00 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I fell into the trap of assuming it was a NASA source because it was on the NASA website, but of course that's the same kind of fallacious thinking made by many hoax believers who assume everything was done by NASA.

Yup.

Over on ISF, we've been dealing with one of those "rockets don't work in a vacuum" idiots who thinks that the Rocket Equation and all the physics regarding rockets is NASA fakery because they all appear on NASA's website.

Go figure!

Where did that go?  I thought the whole thing must have been "blown away".  :)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Allan F on June 06, 2019, 04:27:20 PM
I've been discussing with an individual, who think the pressure on the surface of the moon is minus two billion PSI. Because he has seen a figure stating the pressure is 10e-12 torr. He thinks the minus-sign in front of the exponent means the resulting number is negative 10e12 torr. Could not explain to him, the difference between negative pressure and negative pressure differential.

Also, he thinks the LM didn't have enough battery capacity, even though he didn't know HOW MUCH battery capacity was available and also didn't know how much power was needed and used. I told him the J-mission LMs had battery capacity equal to two tonnes of lead-acid car batteries. Still wasn't "enough" even though he didn't know the consumption.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 06, 2019, 04:54:32 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I fell into the trap of assuming it was a NASA source because it was on the NASA website, but of course that's the same kind of fallacious thinking made by many hoax believers who assume everything was done by NASA.

Yup.

Over on ISF, we've been dealing with one of those "rockets don't work in a vacuum" idiots who thinks that the Rocket Equation and all the physics regarding rockets is NASA fakery because they all appear on NASA's website.

Go figure!

That guy's clickbaiting all over the place. The vacuum is between his ears.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Peter B on June 08, 2019, 10:05:03 AM
I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

And being married to a lawyer, I can tell you what their answer will be.  A retraction of an error with substantial evidence of its being innocent (i.e., two very similar books), immediately and conspicuously published, is dispositive disproof of malice.  Since you aspire to be a public figure, actual malice is an essential element to the tort.  In some jurisdictions in the United States, before you can claim defamation, you must ask for and be denied a retraction.  In this case a full and frank retraction was provided to you unconditionally without demand.  Your refusal to accept it estops many causes of action.  And should I prevail in court, your prior refusal could very well entitle me to recover my legal fees from you.

Further, the transcript of your activity here -- which I'm sure you'll provide unedited and in full to your publisher -- will contain the following

Well, it really is bizarre. The more I am criticized and insulted on the forums, the more people are emailing me and pre-ordering my book.

So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me. Doing so can only add to the interest in my book.

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

This suggests you don't actually believe you're being defamed on this and other forums, and that you in fact welcome such activity as would tend to discredit, defame, or malign you.  Absent actual malice, you can't recover punitive damages.  The only thing you can recover for now is actual monetary loss.  But since by your own admission, you believe the adverse attention improves your sales (both fiction and non-fiction), you just estopped that claim as well.

There's also a bit in here somewhere about you not caring whether you get attention or not, but I can't be arsed presently to look for it.  Be sure to show that to your publisher.

Quote
So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled.

Give me the name and number of your publishing company's legal department.  I'll phone them myself and we can get this settled today.

Oh wow, I'm honoured to be in such august company.

Over at UM, back on 7 May, Derek posted this in response to a post I made here:
Quote
I'll answer your questions shortly. In the meanwhile, I took a look at Apollohoax. I noticed you wrote: "Over at UM, a poster by the name of Derek Willis has announced his belief in the faking of Apollo 12." Not only is that is a misrepresentation, it is potentially defamatory. I explained in my first post on this subject that I wrote my articles based on what John Kelly told me. My intention was to find out if the anomalies he described could be explained by other means than claiming Apollo 11, 12 and 17 were faked. So, basically, you are presenting me as a conspiracy theorist, and consequently making an unbiased response to what I have to say essentially impossible. Is that really the best way to conduct this sort of debate?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/327357-belief-in-apollo-hoax-conspiracy-could-grow/?page=12&tab=comments#comment-6731911
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 08, 2019, 12:52:55 PM

Over at UM, back on 7 May, Derek posted this in response to a post I made here:
Quote
I'll answer your questions shortly. In the meanwhile, I took a look at Apollohoax. I noticed you wrote: "Over at UM, a poster by the name of Derek Willis has announced his belief in the faking of Apollo 12." Not only is that is a misrepresentation, it is potentially defamatory. I explained in my first post on this subject that I wrote my articles based on what John Kelly told me. My intention was to find out if the anomalies he described could be explained by other means than claiming Apollo 11, 12 and 17 were faked. So, basically, you are presenting me as a conspiracy theorist, and consequently making an unbiased response to what I have to say essentially impossible. Is that really the best way to conduct this sort of debate?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/327357-belief-in-apollo-hoax-conspiracy-could-grow/?page=12&tab=comments#comment-6731911

Wow - just how dishonest can Mr Derek be? When he says he know someone who has shown him some of proof of moon landing fakery that isn't some sort of conspiracy theory?

When he says this in his article:

Quote
The logical conclusion drawn from these findings is that the Apollo 12 mission was itself entirely fabricated.

He isn't claiming some sort of conspiracy?

When he says this:

Quote
The answers to these questions add credence to claims that the Apollo missions were faked, and as we will see, strongly suggest that persons unknown – ‘whistle-blowers’ – planted evidence to draw attention to the deception.

There somehow isn't a conspiracy involved?

When he presents what he describes as

Quote
a plausible means by which the Surveyor 3 components were presented to the scientific community and to the public as having been returned from the Moon by the Apollo 12 astronauts

in order to hide their non-lunar origin he isn't presenting evidence of a conspiracy?

He's writing a book called "Faking Apollo" (not, "Faking Apollo?") and he isn't claiming a conspiracy to hide a faked series of missions?

You claimed to be here, Derek, to have your questions answered. You have shown no interest in the answers you were given. You have avoided answering specific points about your article and resorted to the standard pouting lip boohoo poor me everyone's being horrid victim stance we've seen many times before. Get over yourself.

Oh and Derek, if you're still in touch with your lawyers, my personal view is that your story about being shown evidence from a former Hughes Corporation employee is a complete fabrication.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 08, 2019, 02:58:00 PM
I think the question mark is of little value to Derek, IMO.  Some of the missions were faked, others he hasn't gotten around to observing anomalies that he has found or been told by "John"  He has fallen for this fantasy and doesn't have the courage to declare it is a fantasy.  Too far down the rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on June 08, 2019, 04:11:48 PM
Mr Willis may end up learning the hard way what most people discover when trying to claim defamation:  the damage to one's reputation is reckoned according what that reputation actually is, not what one imagines or fervently desires it to be.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 08, 2019, 04:36:16 PM
Mr Willis may end up learning the hard way what most people discover when trying to claim defamation:  the damage to one's reputation is reckoned according what that reputation actually is, not what one imagines or fervently desires it to be.

Now that is funny and correct at the same time.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 09, 2019, 01:45:48 PM
Returning to the actual subject, I saw in this article:

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/51416/1/jgr12355.pdf

the following text under an image of footpad 2:

Quote
Picture of footpad 2 from Surveyor 3 television camera, April 21, 1967. The image is hazy because a film of lunar dust was deposited on the mirror of the camera during the landing.

My emphasis.

The Surveyor III Preliminary report states that:

Quote
it is possible for dust to settle on the faceplate of the vidicon tube.

and that

Quote
records that the probe landed with its camera mirror open, rather than closed and protected.

It also notes that:

Quote
The spacecraft touched down three different times during landing on the lunar surface, during the first two touchdowns, the vernier engines, which control the descent of the spacecraft, continued to fire...Evidently, the mirror and possibly other parts of the optical train of the camera were either partially coated with particles of rocket impact or pitted by impact on particles entrained by the rocket effluent.

So, if the landing was difficult enough for material to be deposited on a camera mirror some way up the probe it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it would have deposited material elsewhere.

The sampling regime carried out by Surveyor 3 was vigorous and also disturbed a lot of material, deliberately depositing mounds of it on footpad 2 to allow it to be examined more clearly. Add to that the amount of disturbance caused by the astronauts themselves.

Why is this not a reasonable explanation for dust on the Surveyor, which appears to be more marked at nearer the ground?

Meanwhile, in July 2018 Mr Derek published his article on Apollo 17 at aulis where he repeatedly alludes to fake scenarios, inconsistencies, continuity errors and whistleblowers. In December of that year he's saying this at UM:

Quote
I am old enough to remember Project Apollo, and so far I have seen no definitive evidence demonstrating the missions were not real.

Quote
I know Neil Armstrong and the others landed on the Moon.

Quote
For the record, I am not claiming anything I have said demonstrates the Moon landings were faked.

If there are any inconsistencies in this story, it's not coming from the Apollo record.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on June 09, 2019, 05:28:48 PM
Here is a quote from UM. 
Quote
On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 12:20 PM, Derek Willis said:



I am not refuting the bouncing. However, the bouncing does not explain the dust. Neither the engines nor the impacts of the landing pads can explain how the Surveyor was covered in dust.


I find it interesting that he states that Surveyors bouncing did not explain the dust, but later admits that dust on the lander was caused by the bouncing, but literally more dust than he(Derek) could explain by bouncing.  And we have gone over that he doesn't(didn't) believe dust was deposited by the LM descent engine.

I asked how he could ascertain the amount of dust from a two dimensional image of a three dimensional object.  A question he never answered or explained. 
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on June 09, 2019, 06:41:22 PM
I think we should all take a breath and step back for a moment. Who among us can deny that Derek Willis has indeed established a reputation?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 02, 2019, 02:02:42 AM
Back from Glastonbury Festival to find my recently purchased original copy of this waiting for me:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_SP_284.pdf

skimming through it I came across one article that made my wonder if all of this fuss is down to Derek mistaking discolouration for dirt.

One section covers radiation darkening of Surveyor, and says this at the start:

Quote
One of the most conspicuous features noted by the astronauts during examination of Surveyor on the Moon and later during examination of the returned hardware in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) was the change in color. The overall tan color was in sharp contrast to the stark white paint and shiny metallic surfaces of Surveyor before launch.

also noting that the probe's white paint was known to suffer from radiation darkening.

Is that all this is? Mistaking browning in the sun for a layer of dust?
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: raven on July 02, 2019, 03:04:38 AM
I guess Surveyor just needed the astronauts to Retrobright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retr0bright) it then.  ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on July 16, 2019, 11:11:20 AM
Only four more days to the big reveal, I can hardly wait. Any offers on another damp squib? 😂😂
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 16, 2019, 01:49:53 PM
Only four more days to the big reveal, I can hardly wait. Any offers on another damp squib? 😂😂

Forgive my asking, but damp squib?  ???
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on July 16, 2019, 02:46:57 PM
A soggy firework that fails to go off. = literally an event that fails to meet expectations.
I think the term originally meant a round of ammunition that fails to exit the barrel.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 16, 2019, 03:13:53 PM
Interesting, and probably quite correct description of the HB's "big" day.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on July 20, 2019, 11:37:32 PM
Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on July 21, 2019, 04:34:38 AM
Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....

D day +1 and counting 😂😂😂😂
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on July 21, 2019, 04:45:18 AM
Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....


Don't hold your breath!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 21, 2019, 06:16:30 AM
Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....


Don't hold your breath!

We have a bunch of guys about to turn blue here...
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 21, 2019, 07:04:47 AM
Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....


Don't hold your breath!

We have a bunch of guys about to turn blue here...

Now that is funny.  To me on 21 Jul 2019, I didn't find any news that "John" had come forth with his group of papers/memos that proved conclusively that Apollo was a hoax.  This was not unanticipated of course and no astronaut came forth and admitted to any hoax missions to the Moon.  So all in all it was a big failure for Derek.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on July 22, 2019, 07:35:42 PM
Dear god this is just CT hell on earth.

Derek claims... well basically he can't show the evidence because he would have to commit Hari-Kiri or something. He never threatened Jay with legal action, he has evidence but can't understand why the 20th no show happened and he is not responsible for any of it because  "john Kelly" told him so. But read his book which will be released when "john kelly" turns up at god know where.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY DEITY DAMMIT ALREADY.

Boo Hoo, he doesn't have photos and documents, but he has seen them.

THATS FRAKKIN USELESS. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT?

After that interaction I need therapy. Or possibly alcohol. Or kill me now. Take a shortcut.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 22, 2019, 10:31:02 PM
In America, alcohol's cheaper than therapy.

You're describing an interaction with a con man.  He's willing to lie and keep lying to cover up the former lies.  He's desperate to be believed, but can give a rational person no reason to do so.  There you go.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on July 23, 2019, 01:32:05 AM
In America, alcohol's cheaper than therapy.

You're describing an interaction with a con man.  He's willing to lie and keep lying to cover up the former lies.  He's desperate to be believed, but can give a rational person no reason to do so.  There you go.
I still feel slightly....sticky. But I guess I have a modicum of moral fibre.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on July 23, 2019, 01:53:56 AM
Some clarification: he claims he has SEEN evidence (property of the mysterious John Kelly) which convinces him that John is telling the truth. He won't reveal the evidence, however, because he is waiting for John to release it... which he (John) has done already to a 'major Chicago newspaper' but they are not publishing it, it seems. Derek knows this because he "...has spoken..." to the reporter concerned at the newspaper but Derek won't say who the reporter is or which newspaper it is in case in adversely influences 'John' and his major announcement.

Derek is going to reveal some details in his book - which has been "pre-purchased via Pay Pal" by some people and therefore Derek will not 'reveal' what is in his book in deference to them... even though the text version of the book will be released to everyone free of charge.

My own honest and personal opinion is that next Derek will say that it was going to all happen and be published but a dog ate the lot... and they were the only copies.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 23, 2019, 10:04:34 AM
In America, alcohol's cheaper than therapy.

You're describing an interaction with a con man.  He's willing to lie and keep lying to cover up the former lies.  He's desperate to be believed, but can give a rational person no reason to do so.  There you go.
I still feel slightly....sticky. But I guess I have a modicum of moral fibre.

IMO  Derek is nothing but a snake oil salesman wannbe.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on July 23, 2019, 11:22:24 AM
Sounds like he's on his way to Aldebaran.  :) :)  Is he pulling peoples chains or is he serious? Just so funny.

PS For those who haven't read the post on UM, Derek's next book is about Howard Hughes building a spacecraft and flying off to Aldebaran."  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 23, 2019, 11:23:55 AM
Sounds like he's on his way to Aldebaran.  :) :)  Is he pulling peoples chains or is he serious? Just so funny.

PS For those who haven't read the post on UM, Derek's next book is about Howard Hughes building a spacecraft and flying off to Aldebaran."  ;D ;D

Incredulous at best.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 23, 2019, 01:38:48 PM
IMO  Derek is nothing but a snake oil salesman wannabe.

Perhaps.  He looks to me like a mediocre author wishing he were a real author.  He seems to have had a ripple of success writing short fiction.  But his proposed nonfiction seemed squarely aimed at only gullible audiences predisposed to buy conspiratorial tales.  That's what looks like snake oil.  The whole sequence of "dog ate my homework" excuses by which he seems to be trying to extricate himself from the Apollo mess comes off as childish and ham-fisted.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: smartcooky on July 23, 2019, 03:56:32 PM
Some clarification: he claims he has SEEN evidence (property of the mysterious John Kelly) which convinces him that John is telling the truth. He won't reveal the evidence, however, because he is waiting for John to release it... which he (John) has done already to a 'major Chicago newspaper' but they are not publishing it, it seems. Derek knows this because he "...has spoken..." to the reporter concerned at the newspaper but Derek won't say who the reporter is or which newspaper it is in case in adversely influences 'John' and his major announcement.

Derek is going to reveal some details in his book - which has been "pre-purchased via Pay Pal" by some people and therefore Derek will not 'reveal' what is in his book in deference to them... even though the text version of the book will be released to everyone free of charge.

My own honest and personal opinion is that next Derek will say that it was going to all happen and be published but a dog ate the lot... and they were the only copies.


Oh what a tangled web we weave........
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: SerPounce on July 23, 2019, 06:32:06 PM
Sounds like he's on his way to Aldebaran.  :) :)  Is he pulling peoples chains or is he serious? Just so funny.

PS For those who haven't read the post on UM, Derek's next book is about Howard Hughes building a spacecraft and flying off to Aldebaran."  ;D ;D
That rant was a response to me asking if he was willing to provide financial records to back up his claim that he was donating any profit to charity. I had previously brought up his connection to Something called "the Aldebaran project".
If you have the chance look up his thread about it on UM, its quite entertaining. (Btw. I'm Noteverythingisaconspiracy on UM. It was to long to use here)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on July 23, 2019, 07:06:05 PM
Sounds like he's on his way to Aldebaran.  :) :)  Is he pulling peoples chains or is he serious? Just so funny.

PS For those who haven't read the post on UM, Derek's next book is about Howard Hughes building a spacecraft and flying off to Aldebaran."  ;D ;D
That rant was a response to me asking if he was willing to provide financial records to back up his claim that he was donating any profit to charity. I had previously brought up his connection to Something called "the Aldebaran project".
If you have the chance look up his thread about it on UM, its quite entertaining. (Btw. I'm Noteverythingisaconspiracy on UM. It was to long to use here)

OK, fairly obvoius who I am, bknight is bknight, obviousman is obviousman, threadworm is onebigmonkey, anyone left out? Oh Chrlzs is chrlzs, I think.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 24, 2019, 10:17:20 AM
Sounds like he's on his way to Aldebaran.  :) :)  Is he pulling peoples chains or is he serious? Just so funny.

PS For those who haven't read the post on UM, Derek's next book is about Howard Hughes building a spacecraft and flying off to Aldebaran."  ;D ;D
That rant was a response to me asking if he was willing to provide financial records to back up his claim that he was donating any profit to charity. I had previously brought up his connection to Something called "the Aldebaran project".
If you have the chance look up his thread about it on UM, its quite entertaining. (Btw. I'm Noteverythingisaconspiracy on UM. It was to long to use here)

Well I have to agree everything is NOT a conspiracy. :)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on July 25, 2019, 05:06:46 PM
Wheeee. Now we are using PM to co-ordinate an attack on poor Derek over on UM, apparently.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: raven on July 25, 2019, 05:46:40 PM
Just as a critique as a story, but that sounds like a really terrible idea for a book. Howard Hughes was something of a genius, but that goes beyond any form of credulity.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Abaddon on July 25, 2019, 06:29:16 PM
This takes the cake...
Quote
If people insist on asking me questions, but then don't like my answers - can I suggest they stop asking me questions?

Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: raven on July 25, 2019, 07:21:55 PM
This takes the cake...
Quote
If people insist on asking me questions, but then don't like my answers - can I suggest they stop asking me questions?
I literally snerked* in real life when I read this. Bet it would work real well with the police and in court.
*a kind of mixed giggle snort
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 25, 2019, 08:00:58 PM
My understanding is that his flounce here was predicated on the impression that he had been defamed and that the sales of some book would be, or had been damaged.  He said he felt that it would be improper of him to participate further here without first resolving the legal implications of those impressions.  If, as it has been represented here, he never did believe himself to have a legally actionable case and had no intention of pursuing it, then I question in what way he must consider the matter to be yet unresolved.  If there is nothing left to resolve here, then I suggest nothing prevents him from returning here and attempting to show himself accountable for the material he published at Aulis.  His willingness and ability to do that will certainly inform my willingness to read his lengthier book on the subject.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on July 25, 2019, 08:12:06 PM
Wheeee. Now we are using PM to co-ordinate an attack on poor Derek over on UM, apparently.

Admittedly he was been hammered from all sides but that was only because he wouldn't give meaningful answers to direct questions.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on July 25, 2019, 08:16:07 PM
This takes the cake...
Quote
If people insist on asking me questions, but then don't like my answers - can I suggest they stop asking me questions?
I literally snerked* in real life when I read this. Bet it would work real well with the police and in court.
*a kind of mixed giggle snort

Is that anything like a Burp Snart?


Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 25, 2019, 08:26:52 PM
Admittedly he was been hammered from all sides but that was only because he wouldn't give meaningful answers to direct questions.

I would say that anyone who writes provocative material and then volunteers to discuss it in public forums peopled largely by critics who are both well equipped and well motivated to dispute him essentially deserves what he gets.  Complaints of being too overwhelmed or too consumed by other concerns to offer meaningful discussion don't ring harmoniously to me in that event.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 26, 2019, 12:47:24 AM
Given that every other post of his is "buy my book" it's pretty obvious what motive underpins his trolling.

In between his self-promotion it's the standard HB argument: I demand evidence of a very specific type. I'm demanding it because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: raven on July 26, 2019, 01:04:27 AM
I literally snerked* in real life when I read this. Bet it would work real well with the police and in court.
*a kind of mixed giggle snort

Is that anything like a Burp Snart?


Thankfully, no. It's more an all at once deal, and it sounds, well, more a less like how it's spelled, a chortle and a snort mixed.
In between his self-promotion it's the standard HB argument: I demand evidence of a very specific type. I'm demanding it because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
'And if shown it does exists, I will pretend it doesn't or try and claim this doesn't actually count'.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 26, 2019, 09:05:41 AM
Given that every other post of his is "buy my book" it's pretty obvious what motive underpins his trolling.

That would make him fit right in at Aulis.  I got the impression from Bennett and Percy that they didn't have the slightest interest in Apollo or the historical record and were interested merely in lining their pockets at the expense of the gullible.  And Ralph Rene had the same opinion of them, ironically.

Quote
In between his self-promotion it's the standard HB argument: I demand evidence of a very specific type. I'm demanding it because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

Doesn't exist or is of a nature that makes it onerous to produce.  Either way, I'll bet he's asking for it because he's sure it won't be produced.  Not because it's sine qua non evidence.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 26, 2019, 10:35:16 AM
Given that every other post of his is "buy my book" it's pretty obvious what motive underpins his trolling.

In between his self-promotion it's the standard HB argument: I demand evidence of a very specific type. I'm demanding it because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

Or he falls back onto "if "John" is correct" lame excuse.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on July 26, 2019, 11:26:33 AM
Thankfully, no. It's more an all at once deal, and it sounds, well, more a less like how it's spelled, a chortle and a snort mixed.

That's funny, since a chortle is a chuckle and a snort mixed, per the creator of the word!
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 26, 2019, 11:28:58 AM
Shifting accountability is another classic Aulis stunt.  They published an anonymous film clip as actual footage of the Surveyor taken during the Apollo 12 landing.  Mary Bennett assured us it was legitimate NASA footage, although couldn't account for its provenance.  Under pressure she finally admitted it was taken from a German documentary on Apollo.  She insisted that any fault for it not being original NASA footage, as she claimed, must certainly lie with the producers of that film, not with her.  Under further pressure she admitted that the documentary didn't purport it to be actual footage of the landing.

Similarly, in researching the "Una Ronald" story, I followed up on the claim that the West Australian had published letters from people noting, as had "Una," that there was an errant soda bottle bouncing across the lunar surface in the television coverage.  Aulis authors claimed they had contacted the West Australian to confirm this, but were met only with silence.  When I asked the same question as they, I got an answer back within 24 hours to tell me the archivist had scoured the issues for two weeks after the Apollo 11 mission and had found no such publication.  Again Mary Bennett foisted blame for that onto the West Australian, maintaining that while they may have been kind and polite to me, they had ignored her.

But then the whole "Una Ronald" story itself stinks to high heaven.  As does the "Bill Wood" or "Woods" story, the "David Groves" story, and the whole faculty of hitherto unknown Russian academics they rely upon.  It seems that Derek has learned the lessons well from his publishers about how to escape intellectual accountability for claims he intends to use to make money.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on July 26, 2019, 11:33:52 AM
That's funny, since a chortle is a chuckle and a snort mixed, per the creator of the word!

But also I think snerk is a perfectly frabjous word.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Von_Smith on July 26, 2019, 11:51:50 AM
That's funny, since a chortle is a chuckle and a snort mixed, per the creator of the word!

But also I think snerk is a perfectly frabjous word.

It's a snortmanteau.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on July 26, 2019, 12:11:15 PM
Shifting accountability is another classic Aulis stunt.  They published an anonymous film clip as actual footage of the Surveyor taken during the Apollo 12 landing.  Mary Bennett assured us it was legitimate NASA footage, although couldn't account for its provenance.  Under pressure she finally admitted it was taken from a German documentary on Apollo.  She insisted that any fault for it not being original NASA footage, as she claimed, must certainly lie with the producers of that film, not with her.  Under further pressure she admitted that the documentary didn't purport it to be actual footage of the landing.

Similarly, in researching the "Una Ronald" story, I followed up on the claim that the West Australian had published letters from people noting, as had "Una," that there was an errant soda bottle bouncing across the lunar surface in the television coverage.  Aulis authors claimed they had contacted the West Australian to confirm this, but were met only with silence.  When I asked the same question as they, I got an answer back within 24 hours to tell me the archivist had scoured the issues for two weeks after the Apollo 11 mission and had found no such publication.  Again Mary Bennett foisted blame for that onto the West Australian, maintaining that while they may have been kind and polite to me, they had ignored her.

But then the whole "Una Ronald" story itself stinks to high heaven.  As does the "Bill Wood" or "Woods" story, the "David Groves" story, and the whole faculty of hitherto unknown Russian academics they rely upon.  It seems that Derek has learned the lessons well from his publishers about how to escape intellectual accountability for claims he intends to use to make money.

It is too bad that the links to books don't accurately give sales figures.  I was wondering how many dumb fools will buy this masterpiece of "scientific" research.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Obviousman on July 26, 2019, 09:31:06 PM
Similarly, in researching the "Una Ronald" story, I followed up on the claim that the West Australian had published letters from people noting, as had "Una," that there was an errant soda bottle bouncing across the lunar surface in the television coverage.  Aulis authors claimed they had contacted the West Australian to confirm this, but were met only with silence.  When I asked the same question as they, I got an answer back within 24 hours to tell me the archivist had scoured the issues for two weeks after the Apollo 11 mission and had found no such publication.  Again Mary Bennett foisted blame for that onto the West Australian, maintaining that while they may have been kind and polite to me, they had ignored her.

I did the same thing, but in person. I knew it was wrong from the start because I grew up in Perth and saw the Apollo 11 moonwalk in school, and it was late morning, just before lunch and NOT in the evening as she claimed.

I went to the WA State Library and checked original and microfiche copies of The West Australian, the Daily News and the Sunday Times for any mention of this "anomaly". The TV guides confirmed the moonwalk times as being in the day and the only letter to the paper complained that the space programme money would be better spent on medicine, the homeless or poor, etc (and that was pretty much a single letter).
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: Kiwi on July 27, 2019, 05:01:27 AM
Getting off topic here, but that makes three of us who checked the "West Australian" for the alleged letters to the editor -- Peter B, you and me.

I hired the microfilms for July and August 1969 for a small interloan fee, studied them, took copies of most relevant articles and letters and did typescripts of them. Any members are welcome to copies.

Interestingly, the microfilm boxes had an address on them: The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE.

So I don't see any reason why Bennett and Percy could not have checked the "West Australian" for themselves and found exactly the same as we did.

IIRC Percy claimed that copies of the newspaper must have been changed to exclude the letters. Un-bloody-believable!!  ;D
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: gillianren on July 27, 2019, 11:43:29 AM
That's funny, since a chortle is a chuckle and a snort mixed, per the creator of the word!

But also I think snerk is a perfectly frabjous word.

Oh, it is, and I can hear the exact sound it makes.  I'm just saying.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on August 09, 2019, 03:08:40 PM
Oh Derek here is some information to guide you through the development of the AGC as you may see it was more than up to the task of getting to the Moon and landing with Mr. Tindall leading he development.  I'll bet old "John" never studied it nor I suspect you.

https://www.universetoday.com/143113/the-story-of-the-apollo-guidance-computer-part-3/
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bobdude11 on August 12, 2019, 05:02:57 PM
Jay, I didn't join ApolloHoax to talk about my works of fiction.

I consider them relevant principally because you claim that having published them gives you experience with the editing and fact-checking process of professional writing.  It's still unclear what your attitude on fact-checking is, and whether you plan to do it for your non-fiction Apollo book.

Quote
Can you please direct me to the reviews on Goodreads which, as you say, point out I didn't do my homework...

Well, here's where I eat some crow.

Here's your book, which tells the story of near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32878654-ocean-of-storms

Now here's the other book called Ocean of Storms that deals with near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38724898-ocean-of-storms

The reviews I described were for the other book, not yours.  I apologize for my carelessness and I withdraw the accusation that your fiction has been said to be inadequately researched.

I do, however, press the expectation that you will tell us what you're doing to assure us that your non-fiction will be properly researched and vetted.  And I asked you several other questions that don't have to do with your fiction.  If you're not here to discuss your fiction, and you accept my apology for inadvertently maligning yours, will you kindly favor me with those answers?

No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net. I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement.

So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled. 



He apologized for his mistake.
Sales for anything you may produce in future are not in jeopardy from users of this site.

Your refusal, in MY opinion is disingenuous, at best.

To insinuate, even briefly, that you have been maligned, negatively impacted, or even harmed, is, again in my opinion, simply a dodge to try and avoid any in depth discussion about a book, that right now, may actually not be accurate.
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: bknight on August 12, 2019, 05:16:33 PM
I believe he may be smarting from the lack of disclosure of "John", or the lack of publishing by the major Chicago newspaper.  Of course I'm not really surprised 8)
Title: Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
Post by: JayUtah on August 12, 2019, 06:27:56 PM
Your refusal, in MY opinion is disingenuous, at best.

Very much so.  I'm told that elsewhere Derek disavowed ever having threatened me with legal action.  i doubt anyone believes him.  If he doesn't have the cajones to sue me, then I see no reason why the matter shouldn't be considered settled and therefore no reason why he shouldn't return here to defend his claims and answer questions put to him.  But naturally he has not, and I daresay he will not.  As you note, it was probably a flimsy excuse to flounce.  As with so many others who have published under the Aulis aegis, he seems to lack the conviction to behave like an honest researcher.  Since his own book is clearly defamatory and since he has abrogated at least one avenue by which he could have claimed due diligence for the claims made in it, I'd say he's the one who had better lawyer up.