Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[mako88sb]

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.

Well, lets see some verifiable proof for that claim.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

And the evidence for this claim is...?

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value. 

[Derek K Willis]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here? I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it. 

[gillianren]

It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?

[Jason Thompson]

But let's not disappear off down this rabbit hole. You asked for a response to your article from someone who has read it. You have been given it. Now respond to that.

[Abaddon]

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.

No, I do not admit I talk utter c**p.

I would have thought that all you experts would have relished the opportunity to prove me wrong. It seems I am wrong about that.

Rot. We don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct.

And to illustrate how utterly vacuous your argument really is, here is a transcript from Apollo 8

089:32:50 Mattingly: Apollo 8, Houston. [No answer.]
089:33:38 Mattingly: Apollo 8, Houston.
089:34:16 Lovell: Houston, Apollo 8, over.
089:34:19 Mattingly: Hello, Apollo 8. Loud and clear.
089:34:25 Lovell: Roger. Please be informed there is a Santa Claus.
089:34:31 Mattingly: That's affirmative. You're the best ones to know.

From which we can only conclude that Santa Claus is real by your (lack of) logic. Right?

[Derek K Willis]

It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.

I know nothing whatsoever about film-making. I have, though, watched some of the videos explaining why recreating the low gravity and vacuum on the Moon is impossible. The problem is, everyone is looking in the wrong direction - so to speak - when explaining why it is impossible. I was astounded to discover how simple it actually is. It's more like a conjuring trick - you know, like when someone floats in the air and appears to defy gravity.

But like I said, this is the point where I will be dismissed as being full of c**p. So, I am in no way surprised by your response.

[Derek K Willis]

But let's not disappear off down this rabbit hole. You asked for a response to your article from someone who has read it. You have been given it. Now respond to that.

I am working on my responses. Like I said earlier I will do that in the coming days because you made a lot of points that need to be addressed.

[benparry]

It is not physically possible to fake the footage of the Apollo missions using modern technology, much less 1960s technology.

I have no qualifications in fluid dynamics.  I do, however, have extensive study into the history of film.  This is the point where I dismiss you as being full of crap (you can use the whole word here), because this claim is definitely full of crap.  Every single film, ever, that is intended to represent the Moon has errors that are easy to spot, because the specific situation of walking on the Moon is so different.  They all have problems with portraying the gravity and the vacuum.  All of them.  Even modern ones.

I know nothing whatsoever about film-making. I have, though, watched some of the videos explaining why recreating the low gravity and vacuum on the Moon is impossible. The problem is, everyone is looking in the wrong direction - so to speak - when explaining why it is impossible. I was astounded to discover how simple it actually is. It's more like a conjuring trick - you know, like when someone floats in the air and appears to defy gravity.

But like I said, this is the point where I will be dismissed as being full of c**p. So, I am in no way surprised by your response.

I'm no expert but I believe you are mixing up what gravity affects. I believe the difficulty lies both in simulating the lack of gravity compared to earth and the lack of air entirely but i'm sure many of the experts here will put me right on that one. They wont spend a long time doing it. Why. Because a. I haven't demanded it and b. because I haven't provided a strong enough case to warrant it !!!!

[Derek K Willis]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?

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?

[benparry]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

Good guess.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

If such a man exists, which I doubt, why wouldn't he publish them here, there and everywhere? Why sit on the biggest news story of the century rather than publish? And why does 'the man' have any photographs that prove faked moon landings were shot in that hangar? And if he's not publishing them why is he showing them to you and just letting you tell us he has them and publish your own articles that purport to be based on proper analysis? If these photos exist your analysis is meaningless and unnecessary.

I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

Do you think you're the first to try to impress us with the idea that a big revelation about the hoax is coming 'soon'? Why the 50th anniversary? Why not the 40th?

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. You could not have made the claim in the first place and kept it quiet. Are we supposed to be impressed by your inside knowledge of the hoax? If as you say you have seen these pictures that prove beyond doubt that the hangar was used to fake Apollo missions, your answer to gillianren's earlier question about what it would take to prove you wrong was a lie, since it matters not one whit if someone points out all the flaws in your articles if you have this 'trump card' of actual evidence it was faked, does it?

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 (and i'm sure Jason is already typing this) that evidence already exists in multiple forms. The only thing currently which doesn't exist is your willingness to prove your assertions. If you could do that that would clean up the issue surely !!!

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

I have seen the photographs. But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here? I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Even without seeing the photographs, I would want to know how you ascertained that the photographs are authentic, and how you ascertained that they prove it was faked?

There were a number of facilities that were used for Apollo training, many of which would have had astronauts in actual or simulated Apollo gear preparing for their missions.  Photographs of these training events could certainly be misinterpreted by those who are unfamiliar with them, or misrepresented by those who care more about their agenda than the truth, as evidence for faking the missions. 

It would be helpful to know what steps you took to eliminate perfectly reasonable, non-hoax explanations for what you saw in the photos before deciding they definitively prove the mission was faked.

That said, I understand that you are under a barrage of responses and will, from here back off, and give you time to address everything that's come up so far.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

Can you provide evidence that this is the case?  No one should be expected to take that statement at face value.

Well, this is the point where you will dismiss me as being full of c**p.

You're full of crap. Of course you have. I mean, you said so right?

I have seen the photographs.

uh-huh.

But do you really believe the man who possesses the photographs - along with a whole load of other evidence - is going to publish them here?

No, I'd expect him to present them to a contributor to a crank website, or maybe sell it to the highest bidder. One of those things.

I would imagine come July 20th every news channel and newspaper in the world will be discussing them.

You have an over-excited imagination.

I know the response I have given is totally unsatisfactory, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Yes, there is. You can put up or shut up.