Author Topic: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery  (Read 77210 times)

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #60 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?

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #61 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.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #62 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #63 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.

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #64 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #65 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
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #66 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.

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #67 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #68 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?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #69 on: June 02, 2019, 07:11:22 PM »
Jason:
Kudos for a very complete dissection of the report.   ;D
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #70 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.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2019, 02:54:04 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #71 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.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #72 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #73 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.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #74 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.