Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[onebigmonkey]

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?

[Mag40]

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.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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. 

[bknight]

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:

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:

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.

[bknight]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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.”

[onebigmonkey]

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...

[ineluki]

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

[bknight]

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. 

[Zakalwe]

  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"

[gillianren]

"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?

[Allan F]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[Derek K Willis]

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:

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:

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.   

[Derek K Willis]

"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!