Author Topic: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery  (Read 117755 times)

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #210 on: June 05, 2019, 03:47:01 PM »
I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

You already did an article about AP-17 and you've already come to the conclusion that it to was most probably faked as per what you posted back on June 3:

"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."

So the later missions took place successfully. why did they probably fake AP-17(your conclusion)? Jack Schmitt is a pretty dedicated geologist. I think that if he was told AP-17 had a 75% chance of not returning he would have still been all for it. What inconsistencies have you found in any of his performance leading up to being selected as an astronaut and eventually being selected for AP-17 plus his subsequent training and participation in the last Apollo moon landing mission justifies your claim that he is lying about it all? Pretty disgusting behavior by you imho to claim you are only seeking the truth, denigrating people who put their lives at risk for a greater cause, when it's pretty apparent you've come up with some pet theories, much like many hoax promoters, and are simply too full of yourself to admit that your pet theories are flawed.

As I have pointed out - perhaps not here, but on UM - Apollo 17 is, to me at least, a mystery. There would be no reasons for "faking" the mission on grounds of safety because the three prior missions were successful. There are rumors among the conspiracy theory community that there is a reason why the mission wasn't as the history books say. But that reason seems to me to be so outlandish I am not going to repeat it here.   

Offline Derek K Willis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #211 on: June 05, 2019, 04:04:44 PM »
Jay, I didn't join ApolloHoax to talk about my works of fiction.

I consider them relevant principally because you claim that having published them gives you experience with the editing and fact-checking process of professional writing.  It's still unclear what your attitude on fact-checking is, and whether you plan to do it for your non-fiction Apollo book.

Quote
Can you please direct me to the reviews on Goodreads which, as you say, point out I didn't do my homework...

Well, here's where I eat some crow.

Here's your book, which tells the story of near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32878654-ocean-of-storms

Now here's the other book called Ocean of Storms that deals with near-future Chinese astronauts on the Moon.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38724898-ocean-of-storms

The reviews I described were for the other book, not yours.  I apologize for my carelessness and I withdraw the accusation that your fiction has been said to be inadequately researched.

I do, however, press the expectation that you will tell us what you're doing to assure us that your non-fiction will be properly researched and vetted.  And I asked you several other questions that don't have to do with your fiction.  If you're not here to discuss your fiction, and you accept my apology for inadvertently maligning yours, will you kindly favor me with those answers?

No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net. I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement.

So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled. 


Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #212 on: June 05, 2019, 04:09:08 PM »
I do believe men have walked on the Moon. The basic thrust of what I have been told is that the early missions had to be "faked" to ensure the later missions could take place.

On that basis, I do not consider anyone who was involved to be a "bad person". I look on those people no differently than the people who fight a just war. Consequently, I have no desire to profit from what must have been incredibly difficult moral decisions to make. But I do consider the truth - or what I believe to be the truth - ought to be told.

You already did an article about AP-17 and you've already come to the conclusion that it to was most probably faked as per what you posted back on June 3:

"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."

So the later missions took place successfully. why did they probably fake AP-17(your conclusion)? Jack Schmitt is a pretty dedicated geologist. I think that if he was told AP-17 had a 75% chance of not returning he would have still been all for it. What inconsistencies have you found in any of his performance leading up to being selected as an astronaut and eventually being selected for AP-17 plus his subsequent training and participation in the last Apollo moon landing mission justifies your claim that he is lying about it all? Pretty disgusting behavior by you imho to claim you are only seeking the truth, denigrating people who put their lives at risk for a greater cause, when it's pretty apparent you've come up with some pet theories, much like many hoax promoters, and are simply too full of yourself to admit that your pet theories are flawed.

As I have pointed out - perhaps not here, but on UM - Apollo 17 is, to me at least, a mystery. There would be no reasons for "faking" the mission on grounds of safety because the three prior missions were successful. There are rumors among the conspiracy theory community that there is a reason why the mission wasn't as the history books say. But that reason seems to me to be so outlandish I am not going to repeat it here.

So how about this last bit from your AP-17 article:

"Interestingly, the Rover used on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 had an oil leak from the left rear wheel (observed by Scott Henderson) that resulted in the left rear wheel hub of each mission becoming very oily and therefore caked in dirt and dust. 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."

Seems to me you're more inclined to believe the latter conclusion about the same LR being used for all 3 J-missions vs the "...all three missions had a very similar oil leak from the left rear wheel,". If that is so, it would seem to be another anomaly that would call into question the legitimacy of the AP-15 & AP-16 missions, based upon your 2 articles about the Apollo missions. Or do you think it likely that the left rear wheel on all 3 LR's had the same problem?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #213 on: June 05, 2019, 04:11:34 PM »
No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

You really must think this forum has far greater reach than it does. Check the stats at the bottom of the forum page. A few hundred members only. Apparently you had to be told of this place's existence before even being aware of it or coming here. Not exactly a huge dent in your audience, is it? Among the readership here the damage to your reputation has been done by your own actions, and no-one considered you a credible author anyway. Earlier on you said that the more you were ridiculed and attacked here the better the interest in your work, so which is it?

Quote
I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

Let me save you the trouble. Honest mistake admitted to and apologised for on the same forum and on the same page within a few hours. No case to answer. End of story.

Quote
In the meanwhile I think it best if I cease posting on ApolloHoax.net.

How convenient. Asked for response to an article, got it, now using other flimsy excuse to claim a reason for not responding.

Quote
I have no idea what the situation is regarding a forum publishing what could amount to a defamatory statement.

There isn't a situation. All that is required is for you to respond to my post challenging your article as you claimed you wanted.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 04:17:16 PM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3130
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #214 on: June 05, 2019, 04:20:22 PM »
In deed Jason, convenient that he doesn't have to answer all those questions that he has no answer.  A stealth flounce just occurred.  But since thee weren't any anomalies in A12 or S3 to discuss it was almost guaranteed.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #215 on: June 05, 2019, 04:31:51 PM »
I am going to contact my publisher and request their legal department advise me on this.

And being married to a lawyer, I can tell you what their answer will be.  A retraction of an error with substantial evidence of its being innocent (i.e., two very similar books), immediately and conspicuously published, is dispositive disproof of malice.  Since you aspire to be a public figure, actual malice is an essential element to the tort.  In some jurisdictions in the United States, before you can claim defamation, you must ask for and be denied a retraction.  In this case a full and frank retraction was provided to you unconditionally without demand.  Your refusal to accept it estops many causes of action.  And should I prevail in court, your prior refusal could very well entitle me to recover my legal fees from you.

Further, the transcript of your activity here -- which I'm sure you'll provide unedited and in full to your publisher -- will contain the following

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.

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!

This suggests you don't actually believe you're being defamed on this and other forums, and that you in fact welcome such activity as would tend to discredit, defame, or malign you.  Absent actual malice, you can't recover punitive damages.  The only thing you can recover for now is actual monetary loss.  But since by your own admission, you believe the adverse attention improves your sales (both fiction and non-fiction), you just estopped that claim as well.

There's also a bit in here somewhere about you not caring whether you get attention or not, but I can't be arsed presently to look for it.  Be sure to show that to your publisher.

Quote
So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled.

Give me the name and number of your publishing company's legal department.  I'll phone them myself and we can get this settled today.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 05:13:44 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #216 on: June 05, 2019, 04:42:34 PM »
As I mentioned before, I will not be providing a comprehensive rebuttal to Mr Willis’ article.  He hasn’t yet convinced me it will be worth my time to produce one.  So we’ll start with the introduction to his article, which contains some isolated claims, and see how well he fares.  If he impresses me with his handling of my rebuttal, we’ll proceed.
 
Quote
The astronauts who descended onto the lunar surface ─ Charles “Pete” Conrad and Alan Bean ─ had been tasked with making a precision landing. Just four months earlier the Apollo 11 LM Eagle had landed six kilometres off target. Conrad and Bean brought their LM down at a distance of only 155 metres from Surveyor 3.

You don’t provide any line of reasoning.  You draw a contrast here, but to what point?  The reader is presumably meant to imagine that the Apollo 12’s feat seems suspiciously adept in light of its forerunner.  But it’s intellectually dishonest to walk right up to your point and then not say it.  Previous Aulis authors did that a lot.  They “let the reader draw the conclusion,” and by that sketchy rhetoric they absolve themselves of having to defend the only conclusion the reader was supposed to draw, but which they disclaim ever having made themselves.  That’s where an editor would have helped you write honestly.  We’ll proceed as if you stated the conclusion you evidently wished the reader to draw.

It’s easy to suggest something seems suspicious if you just leave out the explanation of how it was done, which is what you did.  And it’s lazy to make your fact-checkers have to compensate for your disinterest in the whole story, which is what we now have to do.  My sources are the flight plans, mission reports, and crew technical debriefings for Apollos 11 and 12, and the supporting documents they reference.  These would be considered primary sources in researching what Apollo procedure was and how effective it was determined to be.

Apollo 11 was not tasked with making a precise landing.  It’s a bit misleading to say they landed 6 km “off-target.”  They landed that far from the center of a target ellipse measuring 20 by 5.5 km.  Apollo 11’s objective was to make a safe landing -- anywhere on the lunar surface -- and then return to Earth.  Everything past that was a secondary objective.  A landing anywhere within the target ellipse would satisfy a secondary mission objective: to show that they had reasonable model of what lunar navigation entailed, if not yet all the fine quantitative details.

It’s also important to realize that the different mission objectives informed which of several possible alternatives the flight controllers opted for on the fly in each case, which then affects the outcome.  To imply that Eagle didn’t make a pinpoint landing because it couldn’t omits this important principle.

A well-known feature of the Moon is its lumpy gravitational field.  A pure Keplerian approach to orbital mechanics isn’t accurate enough to specify precisely how objects orbit the Moon.  A more generalized solution involves harmonic equations.  Under contract from NASA, Boeing produced a 13-term spherical-harmonics model to describe the potential energy in lunar orbit.  The model having so many degrees of freedom, using it to predict an accurate picture of the spacecraft’s orbit around the Moon was possible only after repeated observation.  Ground trackers measured the Doppler shift in the ship’s radio frequency as it moved away from Earth going around to the far side, and toward Earth as it emerged again.  The error between the model’s predicted velocity state and the measured velocity state was used to alter the parameters of the model and refine the prediction.  That’s a straightforward curve-fitting problem -- straightforward in the sense that no mathematical chicanery is involved.  Less straightforward in the realization that it takes a 1960s mainframe an appreciable amount of time to get the fit to converge.

From its circular parking orbit around the Moon, the lunar module went into a pre-descent orbit, with a pericynthion (PC) just a few kilometers above the lunar surface.  Since PC had to be on the near side, where the landing site is, the retrograde LM DPS burn to achieve it happened on the far side, at the corresponding apocynthion, where ground observation is impossible.  Mission Control couldn’t watch the LM do this burn, or measure its speed and position from Earth.  Thus the LM emerged from behind the Moon in a different orbit, not the one painstakingly curve-fit to the Boeing R2 gravity model over several revolutions.

But not to worry.  The new orbit can be acceptably derived from the precisely-determined one by integrating the effects of the DOI (descent orbit insertion) burn, as recorded in the LM’s guidance system.  Every maneuver produces residuals, and these are also recorded in the guidance system and were trimmed with the LM’s RCS to achieve as near to zero a measured error as possible for the overall maneuver.  With that mathematical idea of the LM’s new orbit computed, a landing trajectory can then be fashioned to connect the desired landing site with the orbital model.  The result is the point along the computed orbit near PC where the actual powered descent had to start.

But what if the computed orbit is not the actual orbit?  As Eagle appeared from the right side of the Moon, it transmitted its trimmed DOI residuals so that the ground computers could add the appropriate kinetic energy to the orbit.  Then as it rounded the face of the Moon to start its descent, ground observers began to note that its Doppler-measured velocity was about 4 meters per second faster than the residual-corrected R2 model predicted.  You need several Doppler measurements taken over a few minutes to determine the orbital path that’s producing them.  A method for doing this is in Bate’s Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.  This error ultimately meant the spacecraft’s state vector, which was being deduced by the computer from the model orbit, believed it was more than 5,000 meters behind where Eagle actually was in its orbit.  And since the model -- not the actual position -- is what schedules the PDI burn (powered-descent initiation), the burn would come too late and the ship would land long.  And the crew confirmed this too, because their expected landmarks were passing under the ship sooner than the orbital model predicted.

Now nominally this can be fixed.  The LM’s computer has only a simplified mostly-Keplerian orbital model.  It was always part of the plan that the state vector would be updated in lunar orbit periodically from the ground, based on fitting the Doppler data to the R2 gravity model.  That’s what happened with the CSM during the many orbits that preceded the landing attempt.  The effect of the update is to correct the errors that arose out of the AGC simplification.  In general, throughout an Apollo mission, all the simple AGC models would work in the short term, and the more accurate ground-based measurements and more sophisticated mathematical models run on the bigger computers would periodically recalibrate the onboard computer.

And it was certainly part of the mission plan that the orbit extrapolated from the DOI burn and its residuals was likely to be off by a certain amount from the empirical Doppler measurements.  The onboard accelerometers are only so accurate.  A last-minute update of the state vector was possible between DOI and PDI.  But since Apollo 11 had no accuracy constraint on its landing, this was deemed unwarranted for this mission.  Landing 5 km long was considered okay, and not worth the invocation of a guidance contingency.  Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.

So what was done differently on Apollo 12?

First, Apollo 12 went into a higher inclination orbit around the Moon.  The R2 model is more accurate with inclinations farther away from zero, because there’s more variation in the latitude parameter.  You can fit data more confidently to a more sharply inflected curve.  Apollo 11’s orbital inclination was constrained by the free-return translunar trajectory.  Apollo 12 used the hybrid translunar trajectory.

And the gravity potential model was revised to the so-called L1 model, which extended the R2 model with an added term to improve its accuracy.  The motivation to do this was purely an engineering concern.  Intrepid didn’t attempt to trim its residuals from DOI using the RCS.  While the guidance system is very accurate in measuring accelerations in three dimensions while under powerful SPS propulsion, The accelerometers are less accurate in the lower range, such as that produced by RCS translations.  This is due in part to the mechanical limitations of pendulous accelerometers, but also to the granular error inherent to the measurement.

If your car speedometer reads off speeds in increments of one kilometer per hour, it’s easier to regulate your speed to arrive somewhere on time at speeds of, say, 50 km/h.  The difference between 50 and 51 km/h is proportionally small.  It won’t result in much error.  But if you need to go at exactly 1.5 km/h, the difference between 1 and 2 km/h is dramatic.  If your readout is 1, you don’t know if your actual speed is 1.1 km/h or 1.9 km/h.  And the error could result in you arriving almost twice as early or twice as late.

With this principle in mind, mission analysts concluded the trim that Eagle attempted might have actually given them a worse reckoning of the ultimate residuals that were integrated into Apollo 11’s R2.  The untrimmed residuals were determined to have a greater precision, even if their magnitude was larger.  So second, part of the role played by the new term in L1 was to integrate the untrimmed residuals from DOI directly.

Third, and onward, are the many things Apollo 12 didn’t do that Apollo 11 had done that affected the LM descent orbit in ways the guidance system couldn’t measure, record, or compensate for.  Let’s look at this in more detail.

The Apollo guidance computer can operate in accelerated-flight mode, in which burns by the SPS, DPS, APS, or even in some cases the RCS (in translation) are integrated through the accelerometers into the state vector by a computer routine called the Servicer.  Or it can operate in orbital mode, in which the state vector is maintained by the Encke method of conic integration, referring to Keplerian orbital mechanics.  This relies on orbital elements deduced from previous maneuvers or transmitted from the ground.  No attempt was made to integrate these flight modes, as it would have exceeded the capacity of the AGC.  Encke-based dead reckoning ignores the accelerometers.  Servicer-based dead reckoning ignores the orbital model.  Both modes are open-loop control logic.  That means the spacecraft has no way of actually knowing whether it’s actually on the deduced path.  That information has to come from the ground.

Now fourth -- an uncoupled RCS burn is one in which balanced pairs or sets of jets are not used, and in fact only one jet may be used.  I described this to the astonishment of our previous hoax claimant, Jr Knowing.  In uncoupled RCS attitude burns, the desired rotation is accompanied by undesired translations.  There were plenty of those on the far side before and after DOI.  In docked flight, and just after undocking, certain RCS jets have to be inhibited in order to protect the delicate high-gain antennas of the companion spacecraft.  Eagle also performed hot-fire RCS tests, a post-undocking separation maneuver, and lots of stationkeeping activity while Michael Collins in Columbia checked out the exterior of the ship.  What’s important to know is that none of this activity was being integrated into the state vector because the AGC necessarily was in conic-integration mode.  Those maneuvers certainly affected the orbit, but they would not have been captured in the only guidance data the LM sent back to the ground -- the DOI residuals.

All these sources of error were known during and after Apollo 11’s flight.  They just weren’t important to deal with under the Apollo 11 mission objectives.  Apollo 12 adjusted the flight plan to eliminate the sources of error that could be, and deal with those that remained.

The Apollo 12 undocking occurred with the stack oriented along the orbital radius, instead of along the orbital path.  Again, this wouldn’t have registered in the computer because the accelerometers were being ignored.  This different orientation for the separation minimized the dispersion that the R2/L1 gravity model would be sensitive to.  And there was no separation maneuver from the LM.  The separation was accomplished entirely using the SM RCS.  No LM stationkeeping, no RCS tests.

Apollo 12 also had the advantage of a landing site farther west.  This means the LM would be in view of the Doppler measurements for a longer period before PDI.  Not only could the ground trackers accumulate more data to measure the descent orbit, but they had more time to formulate and upload a new state vector.  When the crew reported their DOI residuals and the L1 model was updated and fit to the Doppler data, a very accurate state vector resulted and was sent back to Intrepid.

Finally, Intrepid’s crew had an easier time of it.  Armstrong and Aldrin were distracted for long enough dealing with the AGC program alarms that by the time they looked back out of the window, they weren’t sure where they were.  Armstrong could have easily pointed Eagle to the originally designated landing site, if only he could locate it on the ground in time.  He couldn’t.  Instead he just chose not to land on the pile of rocks he was headed for.  The lunar terrain around Surveyor Crater was much more distinctive, and Commander Conrad didn’t have a computer problem to deal with.  He could easily recognize the intended landing site and easily point the LPD to it.

This is a very detailed explanation of what was different about the engineering and procedures used in Apollo 12 that allowed it to meet an objective that was not set for Apollo 11.  Properly researched and understood, there’s no reason for suspicion.  You, the author, are not necessarily responsible for reproducing this detail for your reader.  But you are responsible for knowing it, and for writing whatever summary of it you want to make in terms that accommodate it.  Your insinuation that Apollo 12’s landing was suspiciously accurate after Apollo 11 is either unaware of the solution or deliberately ignoring it.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #217 on: June 05, 2019, 05:31:15 PM »
Among the readership here the damage to your reputation has been done by your own actions, and no-one considered you a credible author anyway.

That's what it will come down to for the publisher.  The publisher has contracted with Mr Willis to write fiction.  But Mr Willis has decided to self-publish simultaneously a non-fiction book that takes a highly contestable stand on a controversial subject, and arguably defames various Apollo participants.  A reputable publisher might reasonably consider that to be the primary concern with regard to the author's reputation and the future sales of books he is obliged to write for them.  The publisher might well disagree with Mr Willis' opinion that his actions to promote his own work -- that has nothing to do with them -- is improving their business.  It's doubtful they want to expend their resources cleaning up the mess he has made by sailing all over the Internet stirring up a hornet's nest.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 07:11:43 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #218 on: June 05, 2019, 10:22:14 PM »
I haven't read this until now.  I didn't want it to taint my own answer.  With Mr Willis' uppity departure and unlikely return, I feel some comment is appropriate.

One of NASA’s officially recognised records.

Actually the property of Eric Jones and licensed to NASA for distribution.  A very good source, but not an official source.  NASA is not answerable for its content, which is largely crowd-sourced.  Certainly not a primary source.

Quote
Actually the instructions for the TV panorama said ‘omit up-sun’. There is little indication, as far as I know, that astronauts were told specifically that pointing the camera at the Sun would actually cause permanent damage.

Nor did they have an actual camera for training.  The first time Bean saw the camera was when he was on the Moon.  There is no single "training manual" for an Apollo EVA, nor did Derek cite which of several possible documents he meant.  The instruction in question for a specific procedure.  There is no expectation that it should have been generalized to all cases.  There was no warning of irreparable damage.  The Apollo 12 mission report squarely blames training and planning for the TV mishap.

Quote
If, as you go on later to say, you know this to be erroneous, you need to present it differently.

This is why I hope he gets an editor.

Quote
It does not take a thick layer to noticeably change the colour of anything, especially if it started as white. Human eyes are very good at distinguishing not white from white.

Especially when the not-white is basaltic regolith, roughly the shade of aged asphalt.

Quote
Can you justify your assertion that the amount of dust rising higher than 15cm is insufficient?

Or can he provide any actual model?  "It is believed" doesn't absolve him of having to provide some substance.  One of the first questions you ask in law is, "How do you know that?"  The question is designed to uncover such begged question is this.

Quote
Just becdause they didn’t see any doesn’t mean there was no dust.

I'm guessing Derek has never worn a space helmet.  I have.  I'm not surprised at what the astronauts didn't see.

Quote
Nonsensical to you is not the same as totally nonsensical.

This is exactly the kind of judgment that has probative value only when made from a position of experience and adjudicated knowledge.  "I don't understand, therefore fraud," is never a convincing argument.

Quote
Both of them were into their 60s by the time the ALSJ was compiled.

This is why it matters to correctly characterize one's sources.  If the reader is made to believe that "inconsistency" exists between "official" NASA sources, then one might suspect something.  The ALSJ is not the sine qua non of Apollo history.  This is why I expressed my concern that Derek's offering was going to be a poorly-researched hit piece based on nothing but some casual Googling.  It's okay to say, "This was my primary source."  But when one says "This is NASA's official source," and then draws conclusions based on about what is missing from it or inconsistent in it, then one has lied.

Quote
The concern over corrosive materials had nothing to do with damage to the spacesuit.

The outer layer of the space suit is Beta cloth.  Beta cloth is glass, and almost entirely impervious to chemical erosion.

Quote
Why is it odd to return the parts to the original manufacturer?

Indeed, most of NASA's space equipment is actually designed and built by contractors.  The contractors are the experts in the details of how their product operates.  NASA keeps its contractors on the hook to provide quality control and to analyze failures or other curious conditions.  This is normal and expected.  This is why it's helpful for someone actually to have some experience in the industries he proposes to criticize before drawing erroneous conclusions about how they operate.  The first time Derek became "uppity" was when he was questioned on exactly that sort of expertise and experience.  This sort of ignorant layman's interpretation of events is exactly why we don't accept judgment from unqualified individuals.

Quote
"Mylar gold foil..."

No such thing.  There was aluminized Mylar and aluminized Kapton.  Describing it as a "foil" and suggesting that blown dust would damage it is pretty hilarious.  Mylar is tough enough in film form that I can hang from it and support my own body weight.  Not quite the same as paint.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3130
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #219 on: June 05, 2019, 10:26:42 PM »
Ten maybe fifteen stars, Jay  :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #220 on: June 05, 2019, 10:45:25 PM »
And he never did answer why "I'm wrong" is not the more logical conclusion to his problems with the mission.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #221 on: June 06, 2019, 12:38:05 AM »

No, at this point I am not going to accept your apology. Your incorrect statements may have damaged the future sales potential of any or all of my books, and damaged my reputation.

You damaged your reputation the second you published a badly researched article on a crank website. You damaged it even more every time you avoided answering direct questions and refused to acknowledge the criticisms of your article that you claimed to be seeking. It went down the toilet when you spat your dummy out and ran away.

While you're on the phone to your lawyers  get them to check the legal position in calling people frauds and liars.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 12:41:03 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline VQ

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #222 on: June 06, 2019, 02:08:09 AM »
The outer layer of the space suit is Beta cloth.  Beta cloth is glass, and almost entirely impervious to chemical erosion.

Avoid fluorine, I would imagine.  ;D

Offline VQ

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #223 on: June 06, 2019, 02:09:35 AM »
So, to everyone else: I will not be posting again until this matter is settled.

Pathetic.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery
« Reply #224 on: June 06, 2019, 02:36:44 AM »
There was aluminized Mylar and aluminized Kapton.  Describing it as a "foil" and suggesting that blown dust would damage it is pretty hilarious.  Mylar is tough enough in film form that I can hang from it and support my own body weight.  Not quite the same as paint.

Another funny thing there is that he doesn't recognise the contradiction between citing the Chinese landers with the lack of dust on their footpads as an explanation as to why there wouldn't necessarily be any on lunar module ones, and the the fact that the Chinese landers also have a protective foil covering that remains similarly unshredded by the dust entrained by the engine (and also don't have a blast crater beneath them).