Latest topics
» Light Ship Plasma UFOs
by easynow Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:03 am

» Portage County Ohio, Police UFO chase 1966
by easynow Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:07 am

» UFOs over Langenburg, Saskatchewan, Canada 1974
by easynow Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:58 am

» Credible Statements about the UFO/OVNI subject.
by karl 12 Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:55 pm

» Video: 1952 Washington D.C. UFO Sightings
by easynow Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:10 pm

APOLLO 12's COVERT EVA - Proof of NASA's Off-The-Record Lunar Surface Operations

View previous topic View next topic Go down

APOLLO 12's COVERT EVA - Proof of NASA's Off-The-Record Lunar Surface Operations

Post  Admin on Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:02 pm

APOLLO 12's COVERT EVA - Proof of NASA's Off-The-Record Lunar Surface Operations

The Apollo Experience Lessons Learned for Constellation Lunar Dust Management (NASA/TP-2006-213726)
- Surface Obscuration During Descent Observations - Page 9

Could the paragraph from the 2006 "Lunar Dust Management" document where they reference the Standup-EVA during Apollo 12 simply be a misprint or typographical error of some kind?

No. The available evidence effectively rules that excuse out, showing it to be quite implausible. There is simply too much relevant information about this Standup-EVA contained within that paragraph for it to be debunked and just "written off" as being an accidental, erroneous entry. Very importantly, this document does not merely admit to the fact that a Stand-up EVA did take place during the Apollo 12 mission, but it goes considerably deeper than that by also briefly declaring when they did it, and why they had to do it.

The inclusion of those three key related points effectively rules out the possibility that what you see there is just a big ol' mistaken typo of some kind. Anyone trying to explain away that paragraph as being just an accidental error would have to want you to seriously believe that NASA somehow made three massive "mistakes" by thrice referencing an incident that never even happened, which would mean the space agency somehow printed totally inaccurate statements that must have been somehow accidentally made up out of thin air and then somehow were bizarrely inserted into this one paragraph of a relevant document that deals with evaluating lunar dust issues experienced during the Apollo Program, with all three of those grammatically correct "errors" just coincidentally also providing very specific information referencing an SEVA during Apollo 12 that was conducted due to dust issues! Anyone forwarding that incredibly weak excuse as an attempt to try to debunk this document must also consider it to just be a bizarre and lucky coincidence that the "erroneous" claims made in that paragraph also just happen to be actually supported by significant mission archive evidence from Apollo 12 that allows us to demonstrate that they are not "errors" or "mistakes" at all.

In addition to the blatant admission this document makes that an SEVA did take place during Apollo 12, the inclusion of the "when" and the "why" components in that paragraph are, as I show in that video presentation, very clearly supported by and are directly in line with the available historical record evidence of the Apollo 12 mission as well. The clear reason the document provides to justify why Conrad and Bean conducted this SEVA - so they could assess the site because blowing dust completely obscured the view during landing - is a statement that happens to be applicable to the official historical record evidence of only ONE Apollo lunar landing mission - that of Apollo 12. In fact, we know that the Apollo 12 mission experienced the worst dust issues during final descent of all six Apollo lunar landing flights, so if any mission would have needed to conduct an SEVA to assess the site after landing due to dust issues, it would have been Apollo 12!

I will also point out that there is simply no way this document could possibly be accidentally referencing the declared Apollo 15 SEVA that was conducted at Hadley Rille a year and a half after Apollo 12 (Apollo 15 was the only mission to admittedly carry out a declared SEVA on the Moon remember). We know that the Apollo 15 SEVA was publicly pre-planned before that flight ever even left Earth, so that declared event was absolutely NOT conducted due to dust issues experienced during landing. The Apollo 12 SEVA was though!

Also, if you read the "Surface Obscuration During Descent - Observations" section of that 2006 Lunar Dust Management document, you will notice that it lists all the relevant dust data for each mission in proper sequential order, starting with Apollo 11 through to Apollo 17. You can see in that document that this reference to the Apollo 12 SEVA (on page nine) is included precisely where it should be if it was describing an event that took place during Apollo 12! It is not like the paragraph was haphazardly and accidentally inserted into this document in any old place. The paragraph mentioning the Apollo 12 SEVA is clearly located at the start of the section dealing with Apollo 12, right in between the Apollo 11 description before it and the Apollo 14 description after. Any reference to the Apollo 15 mission does not come up until a page and a half later. This paragraph is very clearly NOT mistakenly referring to the Apollo 15 declared SEVA.

- Confirmation that an SEVA took place during Apollo 12
- Confirmation of when during the mission the SEVA took place
- Confirmation of why this SEVA was conducted

Those three key related points in that one paragraph blatantly admit to and describe this SEVA during Apollo 12, and the "when" and "why" they provide serve to create a massive hurdle for a skeptic to try to logically and honestly overcome. There is simply no way by my estimation that anyone can come up with an even remotely compelling argument that is able to dismiss all three points made in that paragraph as somehow being accidental inclusions of totally erroneous information, because in order to accept that excuse, you would have to believe that the information contained in that paragraph was not only somehow accidentally made up out of thin air by NASA, but then somehow it was included in that official archive document. No way! Those three facts about the Apollo 12 S-EVA clearly had to come from somewhere, and they were not just something one could dream up out of thin air accidentally and then erroneous include!

Author contact -


Posts : 1476

View user profile!/SpaceTimeForum

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum