Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[Derek K Willis]

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...

I don't think Howard Hughes ever worked for Hughes Aircraft. Until 1953 he owned it. After that his Medical Institute owned it.

[Derek K Willis]

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.”

As I pointed out on Unexplained Mysteries some time back, I have no intention of making any profit from the book. If there is any income beyond the cost of production and marketing, then I will donate it to charity.

Of course, I am sure no one will believe that.

[onebigmonkey]

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.”

As I pointed out on Unexplained Mysteries some time back, I have no intention of making any profit from the book. If there is any income beyond the cost of production and marketing, then I will donate it to charity.

Of course, I am sure no one will believe that.

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.

[Zakalwe]

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01L9HP0C0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0#customerReviews
Very probably.

[Abaddon]

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?

[Derek K Willis]

I'm more than happy to believe you won't make a penny from it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01L9HP0C0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0#customerReviews
Very probably.

Well, it really is bizarre. The more I am criticized and insulted on the forums, the more people are emailing me and pre-ordering my book. Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked. Consequently, a lot of people want to know how it was done.

So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me. Doing so can only add to the interest in my book.

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

[JayUtah]

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

To what extent would you say attracting attention to yourself motivates you to write?

[JayUtah]

Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked.

I assume you mean this report.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/moon-landing-celebrates-47th-anniversary-8446862

From the same sample:

• 5% believe dragons are real
• 30% believe in ghosts
• 12% believe witches and wizards are real
• 8% believe in fairies
• 64% don't believe dinosaurs were real

Are such people the intended audience for your book?  Who is the intended audience for it?

[onebigmonkey]

So by all means, please continue criticizing, ridiculing, and attempting to discredit me.

Thanks. We will.

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

Like the one in your first post?

Now, where did you get the figure of 0.1mm as the particle size embedded in the returned Surveyor parts examined by Metzger et al.?

Why do you claim that there are no photographs showing disturbance underneath lunar module engine bells?

[ApolloEnthusiast]

"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!

As you are not the magician and it's not your trick, you should have no trouble explaining the secret of how every observable object, right down to the dust, in hours of video footage is apparently in a 1/6g vacuum. 

Most people believe the secret is that they were filmed on the Moon, where the biggest challenge involved is actually travelling to the Moon to shoot video.  If you believe that's not what happened, please don't hesitate to expose how they were able to shoot the scenes on Earth. 

[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.

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.

No that is not what I used for the CSM, but you already know the correct number so list it.  And you were shown the calculations?  Who did them and is he qualified to perform them? And something was added to reduce the acceleration of the S-IVB?  Your fantasy grows every time you post something.  So post the calculations for all to see and comment on.

ETA: added the "d" in and.

[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. 

[Derek K Willis]

And you never know, some people might even be tempted to take a look at my fiction!

To what extent would you say attracting attention to yourself motivates you to write?

I have never sought to attract attention to myself. As for my writing, I mentioned one of my articles on this forum, and then someone else mentioned the other one. Similarly, someone else was first to mention my book on the wider subject. Ditto my efforts in the world of fiction.

If someone has something to say, then surely they should write about it (or use some other medium). I am sure some people enjoy the attention, but it is not something that motivates me. 

[Derek K Willis]

Apparently, in the UK 52% of people now believe the Apollo missions were faked.

I assume you mean this report.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/moon-landing-celebrates-47th-anniversary-8446862

From the same sample:

• 5% believe dragons are real
• 30% believe in ghosts
• 12% believe witches and wizards are real
• 8% believe in fairies
• 64% don't believe dinosaurs were real

Are such people the intended audience for your book?  Who is the intended audience for it?

Not that actual report, but a a similar report based on the survey.

It is astounding what some people believe.

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 audience for the book are people who are not convinced they are being told the truth about Apollo.

[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!

As you are not the magician and it's not your trick, you should have no trouble explaining the secret of how every observable object, right down to the dust, in hours of video footage is apparently in a 1/6g vacuum. 

Most people believe the secret is that they were filmed on the Moon, where the biggest challenge involved is actually travelling to the Moon to shoot video.  If you believe that's not what happened, please don't hesitate to expose how they were able to shoot the scenes on Earth.

Yes, but magicians only tell people they trust how their tricks work. I am sure the magician will be making his big reveal soon enough.