Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[benparry]

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 ??

[Bryanpoprobson]

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?

[Derek K Willis]

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.

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:

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.

[Derek K Willis]

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.   

[mako88sb]

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?

[Derek K Willis]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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?

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.

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?

[onebigmonkey]

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?

[Bryanpoprobson]

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. 

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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?

[onebigmonkey]

Here's footpad 2 from 2 different photographs - one near the start of their work around it and one from later on.



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

[Derek K Willis]

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?

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.

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.

[Derek K Willis]

Here's footpad 2 from 2 different photographs - one near the start of their work around it and one from later on.



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.

[Derek K Willis]

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.

[Derek K Willis]

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.