Hoax? A12 - Surveyor3 Landing Print - Undisturbed after 30 months

[najak]

I apologize for not knowing the # for this print, but it's famous.   The Surveyor 3's Landing Pad FINE Print is shown here UNDISTURBED, after 30 months.

In 1969, we didn't know about the severe ionization of the moons surface, which yields +10-20 volts on Sunny Side, and -200 or more volts on the dark side.  It now seems to be NASA consensus that there is a great deal of "Electrostatic Levitation and Transference" happening on the moon, and solar currents cause the levitated dust particles to move slowly.   One chart showed 80 micro particles having an estimate levitation height of 0.5 cm....

How on the moon, did this FINE print remain "UNDISTURBED!"...  I would think this print would have been erased like an Etch-a-Sketch.  No?

This seems to me, like yet another instance of Apollo "Breaking Physics".  What say you?

[BertieSlack]

"UNDISTURBED!"

How do you know it's completely "UNDISTURBED!"

[najak]

How do you know it's completely "UNDISTURBED!"

I believe that was the common term used..  Here's an article that says it:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Apollo-12-astronaut-Charles-Pete-Conrad-Jr-near-the-Surveyor-3-spacecraft-on-the_fig2_245307656

"Surveyor landing pads left detailed marks that were apparently undisturbed after 31 months."

And for reference here are some articles on Levitation/Transference:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245307656_Lunar_Dust_Levitation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005RG000184

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JA009347

https://www.space.com/35240-moon-dust-levitates-nasa-study.html

[najak]

How do you know it's completely "UNDISTURBED!"

Here's another link to Apollo 12 Science Report:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA-SP-235.pdf

"The optical properties indicate that the lunar surface in the area of the
Surveyor spacecraft has not received a new covering of dust nor been mechanically altered by
the lunar environment during the 30 months. "

[najak]

How do you know it's completely "UNDISTURBED!"

And finally, here's the Apollo 12 transcript:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a12/a12.surveyor.html

"Examination of the photographs taken at the Surveyor III site (by the Surveyor TV camera and, later, by the astronauts) suggest that the lunar surface has undergone little change in the past 2-1/2 years. The trenches excavated by the lunar material sampling device on Surveyor, as well as the waffle pattern of the Surveyor footpad imprint, appear much the same as when formed on Surveyor landing."

Got any more questions?  Or better, any answers?

[BertieSlack]

How does any of that preclude the possibility of some action via electrostatics?

[TimberWolfAu]

I think that you have once again made a claim with no supporting evidence.

How much should the surface have changed? How much has it changed? The TV images from Surveyor aren't exactly the same quality as the later photos from Apollo 12, so how have you tracked each item of dust?

Please provide some sort of prediction on how much the surface should have changed.

[bknight]

How do you know it's completely "UNDISTURBED!"

And finally, here's the Apollo 12 transcript:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a12/a12.surveyor.html

"Examination of the photographs taken at the Surveyor III site (by the Surveyor TV camera and, later, by the astronauts) suggest that the lunar surface has undergone little change in the past 2-1/2 years. The trenches excavated by the lunar material sampling device on Surveyor, as well as the waffle pattern of the Surveyor footpad imprint, appear much the same as when formed on Surveyor landing."

Got any more questions?  Or better, any answers?

Well for one aspect the Surveyor 3 actually landed four times since the egine did not shut off correctly and it bounced three times.
najak your willful ignorance is evident, should you decide to learn and do some real research instead of parroting some other willful ignorant individual, you would be better served.  Bottom line you/ no one will be able to prove that Apollo didn't happen as described in the massive amount of data that was acquired attests.

[najak]

I think that you have once again made a claim with no supporting evidence.

How much should the surface have changed? How much has it changed? The TV images from Surveyor aren't exactly the same quality as the later photos from Apollo 12, so how have you tracked each item of dust?

Please provide some sort of prediction on how much the surface should have changed.

@bknight wrote - "parroting".

Actually this is my own original claim - I haven't seen anyone else present this.   I started out solo for 5 weeks of obsession, seeing many things that were worse than "bloody unlikely".  This is one of them.

I posted some articles here that present the evidence.

Based on the lack-of-meat on any response here, I'm guessing this is a new topic for all of you too?

I posted it here to "test the waters" - fishing for some sign of "meaningful resistance" (specific) - explaining how PNA's justify that this electro-static repulsion didn't tend to cause "prints to erase" (repulsion of full dry 80 micro dust wouldn't be able to hold a 70 degree slope of the boot prints)?

I've not seen much attention given to the issue of this "Electrostatic repulsion, Levitation, and Transference".   I'm ready to dig in.   

Does anyone here have ANY specific rebuttal to this general claim?  Or is this new to you?   I'm looking for ANY sign of this being a claim or rebuttal at all.

[bknight]

Bertie Slack asked a question, I repeat.  How do you know the site is completely undisturbed?  What is your criteria, and evidence have you?
Do you believe that Surveyor's television proves your contention?  What comparison of the TV with the 70 mm film?  There is no comparison the 70 mm film beats the TV image.

[najak]

Bertie Slack asked a question, I repeat.  How do you know the site is completely undisturbed?  What is your criteria, and evidence have you?
Do you believe that Surveyor's television proves your contention?  What comparison of the TV with the 70 mm film?  There is no comparison the 70 mm film beats the TV image.

You added "Completely", not me (I just said "Undisturbed" by itself).  I haven't completed my research on this topic.  Before I began, I wanted to see if anyone here might be aware of this being addressed yet.  If not, then this is one more "unique" argument that I'm bringing to the table.

At this point, I'm trying to figure out if PNA's have ever looked into this claim, in light of the "repulsion, levitation, and transference" theories that have gained considerably traction lately.

I'll dig into the details, and create a thesis article, which shows some math, studies, and claims in more detail.

If it's what I think it might be -- this too could be smoking gun evidence of a faked landing.   If the print should have been erased like an Etch-a-Sketch - this means "it was faked."   Apollo can't Break Physics.

[BertieSlack]

Apollo can't Break Physics.

It doesn't. Ask any physicist.
And once again, semantics is your only ally here. Sadly for you, the word "undisturbed", qualified or not, does not exclude the possibility that some dust in and around the footpad prints was moved by electrostatic action beyond the discriminating power of photography to observe.

[najak]

It doesn't. Ask any physicist.
And once again, semantics is your only ally here. Sadly for you, the word "undisturbed", qualified or not, does not exclude the possibility that some dust in and around the footpad prints was moved by electrostatic action beyond the discriminating power of photography to observe.

I'm asking ALL PHYSICISTS.. ALL OF THEM.  For the "Lunar Launch Too Fast" and the "Flag moves Towards the LM" -- these are obvious breaks in Physics.   There is no valid defense, no matter how smart you are.   You can't out-think simple physics.

As for the Surveyor3 Pad prints -- I can't qualify this as "Breaking Physics FACT" because we cannot test the theories.   At best this can become a "Not Bloody Likely" case against the PNA's... depending upon what the "theory suggests".

I brought this up, because I haven't ever seen this debunked, or mentioned.  Yet, in light of the presence of levitation/transference, and repulsion -- I find the story they told of an undisturbed print (beyond their notice) to be likely to be "Not Bloody Likely".   My own verdict here is pending more investigation.

I posted this FIRST, to see if anyone had heard of this claim before.  Because the Debunking sites don't seem to show it.   I currently believe it's because NASA/others would like to keep people from realizing this likely discrepancy between reality, and what Apollo showed us.   Verdict is pending more investigation.

[BertieSlack]

It doesn't. Ask any physicist.
And once again, semantics is your only ally here. Sadly for you, the word "undisturbed", qualified or not, does not exclude the possibility that some dust in and around the footpad prints was moved by electrostatic action beyond the discriminating power of photography to observe.

I'm asking ALL PHYSICISTS.. ALL OF THEM.

Does that include the physicists at ISRO, whose Chandrayaan-2 lunar orbiter took a photo of the Apollo 12 landing which shows the Intrepid descent stage on the edge of Surveyor crater, Surveyor III on the opposite edge, and the astronauts foot-trails in between the two?

[Mag40]

In 1969, we didn't know about the severe ionization of the moons surface, which yields +10-20 volts on Sunny Side, and -200 or more volts on the dark side.  It now seems to be NASA consensus that there is a great deal of "Electrostatic Levitation and Transference" happening on the moon, and solar currents cause the levitated dust particles to move slowly.   One chart showed 80 micro particles having an estimate levitation height of 0.5 cm....

How on the moon, did this FINE print remain "UNDISTURBED!"

Begging the question. Suppose you quantify how much the print should actually be disturbed. Since most papers on the subject suggest this occurs at the micron level, what is your quantifiable claim related to how that would change the visible print?

Would it be possible for you to drop this attitude that you are currently exhibiting? It may be the fad on Facebook, but it doesn't impress on this forum.