Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[bknight]

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.

[Obviousman]

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).

[Kiwi]

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!! 

[gillianren]

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.

[bknight]

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/

[bobdude11]

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.

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.

[bknight]

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

[JayUtah]

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.