This is my final attempt to set the record straight.
I have been engaged against those who seek to discredit NASA for about 10 years, at least since utube started. Recently with AE911 truth, Aulis, Luna Cognita, Jack White and many others.
Here is an example of the kind of research I have undertaken to prove to the witless, uneducated, and ignorant, why their claims are false. While I understand the temptation to “ridicule” these unfortunates is great, (I am guilty of this myself) only the facts are important. Hopefully those who read the refutations will be enlightened, but I have not found this to be the case. Take for example the refutation below, the Aulis contributor D.V. Schmausen relied that he would not enter into debate on his Aulis posting. The reasons I believe lie elsewhere. I have corresponded with James Oberg and he is of the opinion that it is hate or mistrust of the U.S. which drives, at least the Apollo, and 911 hoax fraternity. If the conspiracy theorist had been willing to accept the facts it should have never been a problem, but they do not. I do not intend to discuss this matter further with regards to my veracity, but I will be happy to answer questions on the refutation below. I hope this now puts end to the matter.
Gas has Mass Page 1.
Aulis online article article written by Mr. Dietrich von Schmausen 2007
Replying to the article
Peter May 2012-07-07
Some notes on Mr. Schmausens article concerning the Apollo 11 decent phase, the position of the LM lunar contact probes after landing, the ”trench” and ”crane” hypothesis et al.
Mr. Schmausen, referred to as MS.
MS. Furthermore, if the contact probes were dragged along the lunar surface on a straight course, why are they shown in photographs sticking out at odd angles? (see photo above) It's as though the LM had landed straight down and was rotated in opposite directions during landing, consistent with being lowered by a crane.
PM. I do not understand your statement above. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Does MS mean the angle at which one of the probes, the on the -Z footpad has been bent towards the vertical?
PM. On a straight course relative to what? MS does not say, straight is a relative term, remember the LM can move in three axis, roll, pitch, and yaw.
MS. ”why are they shown in photographs sticking out at odd angles”
PM. MS only shows one image. AS11-40-5917. The +Y and -Z probes are at about the same angle relative to each other and the surface of the moon, i.e. somewhat less than parallel but both pointing North, further the -Z probe is bent towards the vertical at about 35 degrees. This is consistent with the direction of the LM moving left (South) and as the LM was translating to the left as Buzz states, (video footage supports this) then this could indicate a slight change in LM attitude, meaning the -Y pad (South) is slightly lower than the +Y (North) pad allowing it to touch the surface during the last second or so before engine cutoff. (To understand this you have to look at position of the LM thrusters). Remember the LM actually landed partially in a small crater and damaged the decent engine bell. The -Y probe (South) in under the footpad which is consistent with it moving in that direction.
PM. Below is an important image.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html Apollo 11 Multimedia.
Below NASA journal extract.
110:48:05 Buzz took this photo of the area under the Descent Stage to document the effects of the engine plume. A radial pattern of scouring is readily visible. Note the gouge made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) strut at contact. The fact that the spacecraft landed directly over this gouge mark is a clear indication that, as is discussed after 102:45:32, the LM was drifting left (South) during the final moments of the landing.
http://www.workingonthemoon.com/Vlad/a11photomapVP120124sm.gif
PM. This link shows the LM’s position on the moon graphically.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5925.jpg shows the +Y pad and contact probe (North)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5918.jpg -Y footpad (South)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5920.jpg Close up of -Y footpad (South)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg Shows the -Z (East) and -Y pad
( South) with contact probes, the -Z East probe is bent upwards.
Page 2.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5926.jpg
This image shows the -Z and -Y pads plus contact probes. Note that the buildup of soil is on the South side of the footpad showing that the LM was moving left. Note. This is contrary to the MS image which shows the direction at touch down to be approximately North West. MS indicates this with an arrow.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5865.jpg
MS. While I’m at it, I think that it should be mentioned that there were collapsible surface contact probes attached to the bottoms of the Apollo 11 landing pads. Since the LM (as the record states) came in at an angle and those contact probes did not retract upon surface contact but rather dragged along the lunar surface, what happened to the drag marks left by the surface contact probes?
PM. Only three contact probes where attached to the LM landing pads, +Y, -Y, and -Z, the LM landing pad +Z (mounting the egress ladder) had no contact probe attached for safety reasons.
LM decent
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15mr-7.htm (NASA document)
The sequence films from the onboard camera showed no evidence of large structural oscillations during lunar touchdown, and crew comments agree with this assessment. Landing on the lunar surface occurred with estimated velocities of 6.8 ft/sec in the minus
X direction, 1.2 ft/sec in the plus Y direction, and 0.6 ft/sec in the plus Z direction. The descent rate at probe contact was 0.5 ft/sec. Following probe contact, the descent engine was shut down while the footpads were still about 1.6 feet above the surface, resulting in the 6.8 ft/sec velocity at footpad contact. Computer simulations indicate 1.0 inch of stroke in each primary strut except the forward strut, for which a 3.0-inch stroke is estimated. The simulations also indicate that the forward footpad was off the surface in the final rest position. The crew stated that the forward footpad was loose and rotated easily, confirming the computer results.
At touchdown, the lunar module was located partially inside a small crater with the rim of the crater directly underneath the descent engine skirt. The descent engine skirt buckled during landing. This is accounted for in the touchdown dynamic analysis, and was expected as the skirt length had been extended 10 inches over that of previous vehicles. This buckling was noted by the crew and confirmed by photographs of the damaged skirt ( fig. 7-1 ).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15mr-7.htm
The vehicle contact velocity and attitude data at touchdown show that the landing was very stable in spite of the relatively high lunar surface slope at the landing point. The plus-Z and plus-Y footpads contacted the lunar surface nearly simultaneously, providing a nose-up pitch rate of 17 deg/sec and a roll rate to the left of 15 deg/sec. Final spacecraft settling occurred 1.8 seconds later. The vehicle at-rest attitude, as determined from the gimbal angles, was 6.9 degrees pitch up and 8.6 degrees roll to the left, resulting in a vehicle tilt angle on the lunar surface of approximately 11 degrees from the horizontal ( fig. 7-2).
Page 2.
Conclusions.
As far as I can see only one contact sensor touched the surface giving a “contact” light indication to the crew, this is consistent with the drag mark in image AS11-40-5921. I can’t find any evidence of drag marks for the North and South pads +Y and -Y with enough detail although in image AS11-40-5917 one could extrapolate the shadow which continues from the tip of the probe and conclude there is, or is not a drag mark, but there is not enough image coverage to be conclusive.
It is important to understand the position of the LM with respect to the Lunar surface, and to know what direction the LM was traveling in at touchdown.
http://www.workingonthemoon.com/Vlad/a11photomapVP120124sm.gif.
When this information is correlated with the lunar surface images, it is easy to understand. Shadows can be very misleading depending on their direction with respect to the LM structure geometry.
Images AS11-40-5925, AS11-40-5926 are consistent with the direction of the LM, immediately prior top touchdown. Image AS11-40-5925 shows the probe bent up at an angle of about 35 degrees, I don’t see anything “Odd” with the amount of bending although it is much greater than the other two, and is just a function of how the footpad forced the probe into the soil.
While the text, in part may be a little long winded, I believe enough evidence should be presented to avoid speculation, i.e. the crane, the direction of the LM as shown with image AS-40-5917 in Mr. Schmausen’s article the arrow should be pointing towards the LM egress ladder pad at the top of the image which is pointing South West.
Finding the information presented here has proved to be more difficult than I imagined. Speculation
can be dangerous, MS. “if the contact probes were dragged along the lunar surface on a straight course” PM. You really need to know exactly what the attitude of the LM was in those final seconds of the decent to avoid any misinterpretation of the facts. Is the crane hypothesis consistent with the information presented?
MS. Present one image, with no reference as to where the information was obtained whatsoever, (other than the nasa film number) with this single image and the accompanying text he seeks to discredit NASA.
I can’t find a specific definition for ”Blast trench” which sounds rather violent. This may be nitpicking, but one should use accepted definitions if one is not to mislead the reader. If you study the images above perhaps you might agree the dust was simply wafted away. Further I understand that it is infinitely more difficult to refute a hoax theory than to perpetuate one.
Peter May Page 3.
Sweden
There are a few formatting problems but I can't be bothered to correct them
I can make people's eyes glaze over in no time at all talking about it 
