Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Derek Willis

Fifty years of Apollo conspiracy theories

119 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Derek Willis
7 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Well it's not exactly the end of the world is it? 

No, it's not the end of the world. But this is a forum about conspiracy theories. Consequently I began a thread about a conspiracy theory. Namely, some people claim the Moon landings were faked, and give as an example of "proof" the lack of dust on the Lunar Module landing pads. A lack of dust is in fact to be expected. Of course, the people who faked the landings will have known that - especially after having seen the Surveyor 1 image - and so made sure the stage hands in the secret studio didn't put any dust on the landing pads ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Minimalists

Yeah OK..Thats like saying its raining on one side of the world and not the other and calling it a conspiracy agianst the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Yeah OK..Thats like saying its raining on one side of the world and not the other and calling it a conspiracy agianst the weather.

No, it is saying the physics of rocket engines on the Moon make it unlikely a lander would be covered in dust. Surveyor 3 was covered in dust. Many reasons have been given - as described earlier in the thread - but none are definitive. By the way, I was joking about the stage hands in the secret studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

No, it is saying the physics of rocket engines on the Moon make it unlikely a lander would be covered in dust. Surveyor 3 was covered in dust. Many reasons have been given - as described earlier in the thread - but none are definitive. By the way, I was joking about the stage hands in the secret studio.

 
Quote

I was joking about the stage hands in the secret studio.

Not a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
On 1/30/2019 at 4:43 AM, Derek Willis said:

Here is something I didn't notice earlier. According to the conclusions of the paper linked to below (which was funded by NASA), Surveyor 3 was coated in dust when the Apollo 12 Lunar Module flew past on its way to the landing site. Then, as the Lunar Module landed, the engine exhaust propelled particles horizontally and these "sandblasted" some of the dust off Surveyor 3.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120008741.pdf

This seems to make sense when you look at the diagram below (provided by NASA). As the Lunar Module came in to land, it's closest approach to Surveyor 3 was 109 meters. This would have been to point where the dust was being blown onto Surveyor 3. Then, when the Lunar module landed at a distance of 155 meters, the parts of Surveyor 3 facing the Lunar Module were "sandblasted".

landpath.jpg

The problem is, when the Lunar Module was at its closest approach to Surveyor 3, it was at an altitude of 67 meters. According to the diagram, dust only began to be seen by the astronauts when the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 30 to 35 meters. This accords with what Alan Bean said during the descent: "130 feet (39 meters). Going to get some dust before long."

So, if no dust could be seen blowing from the surface until the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 30 to 35 meters, how when the Lunar Module was at twice that altitude - i.e. 67 meters - was enough dust blown up to cover Surveyor 3

The dust on S3 was present prior to the LM approaching it you have been presented evidence in another thread, but I'll repeat it here,  The authors of the report believed it to be there and more dust was blown off by the LM.  This is more realistic than your belief that the dust could not be deposited during the bouncing events.  The camera quality was poor in S3's case as compared to the other successful Surveyor landings.

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

 

Get over your belief that no dust accumulated on S3 during the landing events.  You can't explain it, but these two papers indicated it was present.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

So Derek - no great revelations, no stunning news from your "source".

Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abaddonire
14 hours ago, Obviousman said:

So Derek - no great revelations, no stunning news from your "source".

Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed?

Why do you think he has not returned? At best, he might come up with a lame excuse for why "John" is a no show.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
19 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

Why do you think he has not returned? At best, he might come up with a lame excuse for why "John" is a no show.

 

Although Derek has no control over what this mysterious "John" says or does, Derek DID hang his hat on him revealing significant revelations and thus backing up some of Derek's own theories. So, by association, he has to share in the negative connotations arising from the failure of "John" - if they exist - to produce anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

What I don't quite get (well, actually, I think I do....) is that this guy let Derek fall flat on his face in a blaze of idiocy and completely untenable claims ... and Derek now feels inexplicably honour bound to not identify him....?

I can only think of one reason why that would be the case...............

 

And on a minor point - not that any of this bulldung requires further debunking, such is the 100% bunk content...

On 3/5/2019 at 10:47 PM, Derek Willis said:

No, it is saying the physics of rocket engines on the Moon make it unlikely a lander would be covered in dust.

No, it bloody well isn't.  As we've pointed out from the start, it's not just about the LM's driveby - sources of dust could (and probably did) include local or distant deposition by micro, macro, small, medium and large meteor strikes.  Once an area was 'covered' by dust and depending on the depth, later events might have created localised net increases OR decreases.  It would even be possible that a meteor strike hit a very deep/shadowed polar crater and thus sent ice particles flying, which might then melt either in transit or once deposited - a water washing..?  Prove me wrong....  When you add all the possibilities and unknowns, including the (dis)coloration issues, it is as clear as a polished solar panel that not only are you completely out of your depth, nobody could possible make a case either way.  It's just patently ridiculous to make such vacuous claims.

 

(see what i did there..) 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
Posted (edited)

Hands down my favorite conspiracy theory regarding the Apollo Moon Landings is that they were faked for the US Government by Stanley Kubrik, who was such a stickler for perfection he had them shot on location, and he went grossly over budget.

Edited by Alchopwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Then you'd love "The Dark Side of the Moon", which is where most of that originated..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)

As you watch, just remember that it is a mockumentary and everyone (including Kubrick's wife, who plays it beautifully) is either in on the joke, or their interviews have been very cleverly edited.

It's so well done I can almost understand people getting suckered - there were a couple of notable Apollo deniers right here at UM who went down very embarrassingly in flames over that...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
On 8/6/2019 at 4:02 PM, Obviousman said:

Although Derek has no control over what this mysterious "John" says or does, Derek DID hang his hat on him revealing significant revelations and thus backing up some of Derek's own theories. So, by association, he has to share in the negative connotations arising from the failure of "John" - if they exist - to produce anything.

And the calendar keeps moving, nothing from the great Apollo sleuth detractor, nor from the "Chicago newspaper that has the evidence"  Derek is a nobody that writes fiction in hopes he will become famous.  And nothing from his blockbuster book?  Although he claims to have a physicist degree he uses the science without fully understanding what he talks.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Obviousman

Yep - it is now September and nothing from him at all. I understand he might not be able to say what The Mysterious JohnTM had as evidence but Derek said he had his own theories / supporting material; so where is that?

Oh - I forgot: 'Buy My Book!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Over here, back in July:

Derek was waffling on about the process by which the free version of his book, which he promised, would be made available.

It's now September....

WHERE's THE FREE VERSION YOU PROMISED, Derek?

And for the record, I'll be absolutely happy to analyse in full detail whatever that book nominates as the 'best' evidence Derek can provide for his claim of Apollo fakery.

If it doesn't nominate the best.. I'll assume whatever they raise first is the #1 issue.  Naturally, if it can be shown that Derek's #1 is horse****, then the rest of the book will be worse than horse****...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

It's now nearly October.... paging Derek K. Willis.. Derek K. Willis, can you come to reception please?

(tap tap tap)  ... Is this thing on?

 

On 9/20/2019 at 10:18 AM, ChrLzs said:

WHERE's THE FREE VERSION YOU PROMISED, Derek?

Repeating - I'll be absolutely happy to analyse in full detail whatever that book nominates as the 'best' evidence Derek can provide for his claim of Apollo fakery.

So, Derek K. Willis (have you got this yet, search engines and robots?), when you Google yourself next and come over here, please respond.  We are trying to be helpful and throw a bit of science at your claims.  Isn't that what you want, Derek K. Willis?

:)

As an embarrassing side issue for Derek, at that Apollo denial website he also had a lengthy rant about a 'mystery' that he claimed surrounded a fender on the Apollo 17 lunar rover.  To quote Derek K. Willis:

Quote

It is appropriate to conclude with two photographs of the exhibited makeshift fender, because they are in themselves a mystery. In the first photograph below AS17-137-20979, the details of the four spare laminated maps used to assemble the fender can be seen on the outside of the curved surface. However, in the second photograph the details of the map are on the inside of the curved surface. Perhaps the curators at the Smithsonian made a mistake and curved the maps the wrong way. It seems odd that no one took the trouble to correctly display such an important item that had been brought back from the Moon.

In fact, as usual, Derek K. Willis got it horribly wrong.  Even a quick glance at the original Apollo source images shows that what Derek thinks are 'details of the map' are in fact fingerprints and other dust marks on the blank reverse side of the maps.  If you check the Smithsonian's images of the returned/souvenired ''fender' properly you will see that the maps are exactly aligned and curved as they should be, right down to the positioning of the lines of tape that were used to make that improvised dustguard...  This is covered in glorious detail here:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1691.0

Seriously, Derek, your research skills are woeful.  Please drop the pretence that you are anything other than a fiction writer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

It's now nearly October.... paging Derek K. Willis.. Derek K. Willis, can you come to reception please?

(tap tap tap)  ... Is this thing on?

He is obviously still busy looking for "John Kelly". :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
On 9/24/2019 at 7:59 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

He is obviously still busy looking for "John Kelly". :rolleyes:

IF he really exists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, bknight said:

IF he really exists.

Are you implying that mr. Willis might be less that entirely trusthworthy ?

Say it ain't so. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Are you implying that mr. Willis might be less that entirely trusthworthy ?

Say it ain't so. :rolleyes:

I'll happily accept he is trustworthy IF he comes back and fulfills the promises he made, and, perhaps more importantly, begins to acknowledge where he completely screwed the pooch.  As it is a simple and REALLY obviously glaring error, I think the one above where he didn't look closely enough at the images of the Smithsonian's improvised mudguard made out of folded maps and tape, would be the place to start.  Then we can work backwards.

And I trust he will also nominate what he feels is the very best, well-evidenced, non-subjective, indication that any of his hoaxing claims are correct.  If his chosen 'best' falls down, then it's game over.  Indeed, by default given what transpired above, it is already Game Over, unless he come up with 'the goods'.

Derek K. Willis, it's your time to shine, either as a decent honest investigator... or a flaming fireball of misinformation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.