Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[gillianren]

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.

[Derek K Willis]

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. 

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. 

[Derek K Willis]

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.

[bknight]

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. 

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.

[bknight]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

You seem to be having trouble answering questions. I'll try and clarify my point using words from your article:

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[JayUtah]

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.

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?

[Allan F]

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.

[Abaddon]

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.

[AtomicDog]

How come no magician has ever seen through the Apollo fakery and ratted them out?
Or are they in on it too?

[smartcooky]

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.   

[Derek K Willis]

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 ...