Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[bknight]

I think the question mark is of little value to Derek, IMO.  Some of the missions were faked, others he hasn't gotten around to observing anomalies that he has found or been told by "John"  He has fallen for this fantasy and doesn't have the courage to declare it is a fantasy.  Too far down the rabbit hole.

[JayUtah]

Mr Willis may end up learning the hard way what most people discover when trying to claim defamation:  the damage to one's reputation is reckoned according what that reputation actually is, not what one imagines or fervently desires it to be.

[bknight]

Mr Willis may end up learning the hard way what most people discover when trying to claim defamation:  the damage to one's reputation is reckoned according what that reputation actually is, not what one imagines or fervently desires it to be.

Now that is funny and correct at the same time.

[onebigmonkey]

Returning to the actual subject, I saw in this article:

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/51416/1/jgr12355.pdf

the following text under an image of footpad 2:

Picture of footpad 2 from Surveyor 3 television camera, April 21, 1967. The image is hazy because a film of lunar dust was deposited on the mirror of the camera during the landing.

My emphasis.

The Surveyor III Preliminary report states that:

it is possible for dust to settle on the faceplate of the vidicon tube.

and that

records that the probe landed with its camera mirror open, rather than closed and protected.

It also notes that:

The spacecraft touched down three different times during landing on the lunar surface, during the first two touchdowns, the vernier engines, which control the descent of the spacecraft, continued to fire...Evidently, the mirror and possibly other parts of the optical train of the camera were either partially coated with particles of rocket impact or pitted by impact on particles entrained by the rocket effluent.

So, if the landing was difficult enough for material to be deposited on a camera mirror some way up the probe it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it would have deposited material elsewhere.

The sampling regime carried out by Surveyor 3 was vigorous and also disturbed a lot of material, deliberately depositing mounds of it on footpad 2 to allow it to be examined more clearly. Add to that the amount of disturbance caused by the astronauts themselves.

Why is this not a reasonable explanation for dust on the Surveyor, which appears to be more marked at nearer the ground?

Meanwhile, in July 2018 Mr Derek published his article on Apollo 17 at aulis where he repeatedly alludes to fake scenarios, inconsistencies, continuity errors and whistleblowers. In December of that year he's saying this at UM:

I am old enough to remember Project Apollo, and so far I have seen no definitive evidence demonstrating the missions were not real.

I know Neil Armstrong and the others landed on the Moon.

For the record, I am not claiming anything I have said demonstrates the Moon landings were faked.

If there are any inconsistencies in this story, it's not coming from the Apollo record.

[bknight]

Here is a quote from UM. 

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 12:20 PM, Derek Willis said:



I am not refuting the bouncing. However, the bouncing does not explain the dust. Neither the engines nor the impacts of the landing pads can explain how the Surveyor was covered in dust.

I find it interesting that he states that Surveyors bouncing did not explain the dust, but later admits that dust on the lander was caused by the bouncing, but literally more dust than he(Derek) could explain by bouncing.  And we have gone over that he doesn't(didn't) believe dust was deposited by the LM descent engine.

I asked how he could ascertain the amount of dust from a two dimensional image of a three dimensional object.  A question he never answered or explained. 

[Abaddon]

I think we should all take a breath and step back for a moment. Who among us can deny that Derek Willis has indeed established a reputation?

[onebigmonkey]

Back from Glastonbury Festival to find my recently purchased original copy of this waiting for me:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_SP_284.pdf

skimming through it I came across one article that made my wonder if all of this fuss is down to Derek mistaking discolouration for dirt.

One section covers radiation darkening of Surveyor, and says this at the start:

One of the most conspicuous features noted by the astronauts during examination of Surveyor on the Moon and later during examination of the returned hardware in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) was the change in color. The overall tan color was in sharp contrast to the stark white paint and shiny metallic surfaces of Surveyor before launch.

also noting that the probe's white paint was known to suffer from radiation darkening.

Is that all this is? Mistaking browning in the sun for a layer of dust?

[raven]

I guess Surveyor just needed the astronauts to Retrobright it then. 

[Bryanpoprobson]

Only four more days to the big reveal, I can hardly wait. Any offers on another damp squib? 😂😂

[bknight]

Only four more days to the big reveal, I can hardly wait. Any offers on another damp squib? 😂😂

Forgive my asking, but damp squib? 

[Bryanpoprobson]

A soggy firework that fails to go off. = literally an event that fails to meet expectations.
I think the term originally meant a round of ammunition that fails to exit the barrel.

[bknight]

Interesting, and probably quite correct description of the HB's "big" day.

[Obviousman]

Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....

[Bryanpoprobson]

Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....

D day +1 and counting 😂😂😂😂

[smartcooky]

Still waiting, Derek, still waiting.....

Don't hold your breath!