Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,591 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,320,103
Pageviews Today: 1,775,773Threads Today: 398Posts Today: 7,808
02:53 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined

 
Dave McGowan
User ID: 746625
United States
11/01/2009 11:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
I'm not Diamond Dave, but the writer of the Laurel Canyon series is back with more snarky insight into one of the biggest hoaxes of the 19th century - the Moon shot!

Here's the intro from the first part - there are 6 parts in all, link at the bottom..


--------------


Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
October 1, 2009
by David McGowan


“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon



I can see all of you scratching your heads out there and I know exactly what it is that you are thinking: “Why the hell are we taking this detour to the Moon? What happened to Laurel Canyon? Have you completely lost your mind?”



*Sigh*



It all began a few months ago, when I became very busy at my day job as well as with family drama and with what turned out to be a very time-consuming side project, all of which made it increasingly difficult for me to carve out chunks of time to work on the remaining chapters in the series. Over the next two months or so, I pretty much lost all momentum and soon found it hard to motivate myself to write even when I could find the time.



That happens sometimes. Though it sounds rather cliché, ‘writer’s block’ is a very real phenomenon. There are many times when I can sit down at the keyboard and the words flow out of my head faster than I can get them down on the page. But there are also times when producing just one halfway decent sentence seems a near impossible task. This was one of those times.



I found a new source of inspiration, however, when my wife e-mailed me the recent story about the fake Dutch Moon rock, which I and many others found quite amusing, and which also reminded me that I had a lot of other bits and pieces of information concerning the Apollo project that I had collected over the nine years that have passed since I first wrote about the alleged Moon landings. After taking that first look, back in 2000, I was pretty well convinced that the landings were, in fact, faked, but it was perfectly obvious that the rather short, mostly tongue-in-cheek post that I put up back in July of 2000 was not going to convince anyone else of that.



So I contemplated taking a more comprehensive look at the Apollo program. Toward that end, I pulled up my original Apollo post along with various other bits and pieces scattered throughout past newsletters, threw in all the newer material that had never made it onto my website, and then combed the Internet for additional information. In doing so, I realized that a far better case could be made than what I had previously offered to readers.



I also realized that a far better case could be made than what is currently available on the ‘net.



I was rather surprised actually by how little there is out there – a couple of books by Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, a smattering of websites and a variety of YouTube videos of varying quality. Virtually all of the websites and videos tend to stick to the same ground covered by Kaysing and Rene, and they almost all use the same NASA photographs to argue the same points. So too do the sites devoted to ‘debunking’ the notion that the landings were faked, and those sites seem to actually outnumber the hoax sites.



While suffering through the numbing uniformity of the various websites on both sides of the aisle, it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need of a fresh approach and some new insights. So I began writing again. Feverishly. That does not mean, however, that I have abandoned the Laurel Canyon series. I intend to get back to it quite soon.



And truth be told, while the Apollo story may initially appear to be a radical departure from the ongoing Laurel Canyon series, it actually isn’t much of a detour at all. After all, we’re still going to be living in the 1960s and 1970s. And to a significant degree, we’re probably still going to be hanging out in Laurel Canyon – because who else, after all, was NASA going to trust to handle the post-production work on all that Apollo footage if not Lookout Mountain Laboratory?



I am very well aware, by the way, that there are many, many people out there – even many of the people who have seen through other tall tales told by our government – who think that Moon hoax theorists are complete kooks. And a whole lot of coordinated effort has gone into casting them as such. That makes wading into the Moon hoax debate a potentially dangerous affair.



Remember when Luther (played by Don Knotts) gets taken to court and sued for slander in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken? And don’t try to pretend like you’ve never seen it, because we both know that you have. So anyway, he goes to court and a character witness is called and the guy delivers credible testimony favoring Luther and it is clear that the courtroom is impressed and everything is looking good for our nebbish hero, Luther. Remember what happens next though? On cross-examination, the witness reveals that he is the president of a UFO club that holds their meetings on Mars!



The courtroom, of course, erupts with laughter and all of that formerly credible testimony immediately flies right out the window.



I have already received e-mails warning that I will suffer a similar fate (from people who heard me discussing the topic on Meria Heller’s radio show). Not to worry though – I have somewhat of an advantage over others who have attempted to travel this path: I don’t really care. My mission is to ferret out the truth, wherever it may lie; if at various points along the way, some folks are offended and others question my sanity, that’s not really something that I lose a lot of sleep over.



Anyway, a whole lot of people are extremely reluctant to give up their belief in the success of the Apollo missions. A lot of people, in fact, pretty much shut down at the mere mention of the Moon landings being faked, refusing to even consider the possibility (Facebook, by the way, is definitely not the best place to promote the notion that the landings were faked, in case anyone was wondering). And yet there are some among the True Believers who will allow that, though they firmly believe that we did indeed land on the Moon, they would have understood if it had been a hoax. Given the climate of the times, with Cold War tensions simmering and anxious Americans looking for some sign that their country was still dominant and not technologically inferior to the Soviets, it could be excused if NASA had duped the world.



Such sentiments made me realize that the Moon landing lie is somewhat unique among the big lies told to the American people in that it was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively benign lie, and one that could be easily spun. Admitting that the landings were faked would not have nearly the same impact as, say, admitting to mass murdering 3,000 Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate and then using that crime as a pretext to wage two illegal wars and strip away civil, legal and privacy rights.



And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign lie, there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years – years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to.



But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?



That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.



It has been my experience that the vast majority of the people who truly believe in the Moon landings know virtually nothing about the alleged missions. And when confronted with some of the more implausible aspects of those alleged missions, the most frequently offered argument is the one that every ‘conspiracy theorist’ has heard at least a thousand times: “That can’t possibly be true because there is no way that a lie that big could have been covered up all this time … too many people would have known about it … yadda, yadda, yadda.”



But what if your own eyes and your innate (though suppressed) ability to think critically and independently tell you that what all the institutions of the State insist is true is actually a lie? What do you do then? Do you trust in your own cognitive abilities, or do you blindly follow authority and pretend as though everything can be explained away? If your worldview will not allow you to believe what you can see with your own eyes, then the problem, it would appear, is with your worldview. So do you change that worldview, or do you live in denial?



The Moon landing lie is unique among the big lies in another way as well: it is a lie that seemingly cannot be maintained indefinitely. Washington need never come clean on, say, the Kennedy assassinations. After all, they’ve been lying about the Lincoln assassination for nearly a century-and-a-half now and getting away with it. But the Moon landing hoax, I would think, has to have some kind of expiration date.



How many decades can pass, after all, without anyone coming even close to a reenactment before people start to catch on? Four obviously haven’t been enough, but how about five, or six, or seven? How about when we hit the 100-year anniversary?



If the first trans-Atlantic flight had not been followed up with another one for over forty years, would anyone have found that unusual? If during the early days of the automobile, when folks were happily cruising along in their Model T’s at a top speed of 40 MPH, someone had suddenly developed a car that could be driven safely at 500 MPH, and then after a few years that car disappeared and for many decades thereafter, despite tremendous advances in automotive technology, no one ever again came close to building a car that could perform like that, would that seem at all odd?



There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”



The goal of any dissident writer is to crack open the doors of perception enough to let a little light in – so that hopefully the seeds of a political reawakening will be planted. There are many doors that can be pried open to achieve that goal, but this one seems particularly vulnerable. Join me then as we take a little trip to the Moon. Or at least pretend to.





“If NASA had really wanted to fake the moon landings – we’re talking purely hypothetical here – the timing was certainly right. The advent of television, having reached worldwide critical mass only years prior to the moon landing, would prove instrumental to the fraud’s success.”
Wired Magazine



Adolph Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that, "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really fucking big lie."



Truth be told, I’m not exactly conversant in the German language so that may not be an exact translation, but it certainly captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was trying to say. He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well. But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper … you know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie. The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare utter it if it was in fact a lie.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 746625
United States
11/01/2009 11:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Yeah - umm biggest hoax of the 20th century.


Jules Verne started it all in the 19th century - I need another cup o' coffee!
White Widow
User ID: 780533
Chile
11/01/2009 11:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
A loud clappa

and a big bump
Kirk

User ID: 749840
United States
11/01/2009 11:47 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
--------------



“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon



[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
 Quoting: Dave McGowan 746625

Worry is a misuse of the imagination.
LelaBear

User ID: 790847
United States
11/01/2009 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
This guy can write!
Can't wait to read the rest of it!
Once you see what reality is, you just have to laugh!

[link to www.youtube.com]
Wraithwynd

User ID: 717743
United States
11/01/2009 11:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
I'm not Diamond Dave, but the writer of the Laurel Canyon series is back with more snarky insight into one of the biggest hoaxes of the 19th century - the Moon shot!

 Quoting: Dave McGowan 746625


You are absolutely correct, we did NOT go to the moon in the 19th Century.

We did, however, reach the moon in the middle of the 20th century.
Sinkhole list:
Thread: Sinkholes Updated 28 Dec 2010
find a sinkhole, add it to this thread, please.

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15, NKJV).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 774515
United Kingdom
11/01/2009 11:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
 Quoting: Dave McGowan 746625


He's not too far off here. Von Braun originally envisaged a far larger Moon ship, exploring the surface with a crew of fifty instead of just three, hence the colossal figures quoted here. Even so, his argument here is not against a Moon flight per se, but against the Direct Ascent configuration. Direct Ascent requires that the rocket fly straight from Earth to Moon, that the whole spacecraft land, and then take off again and return to Earth. The weight of fuel required for this is enormous and made it impractical, though NASA did consider it early on; look up the Saturn C-8 which might have launched such a mission.

The Apollo missions as flown used the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous configuration. This is where only a small part of the spacecraft lands on the Moon and lifts off again, the remainder staying in lunar orbit. That way, the fuel needed to return to Earth stays in space, rather than needing to be launched back from the surface of the Moon. It saves an awful lot of weight.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 688990
United Kingdom
11/01/2009 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Reading the rest of it at your site, an amazing and riveting read.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 746625
United States
11/02/2009 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump

fun to read.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 746625
United States
11/03/2009 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
I especially love how he pounds the shit out of shill debunkers like Jay Wind-ass over at Clavius and that dipshit Plait who runs BadAstronomy.

Priceless.

Go Dave!
YFH
User ID: 809774
Australia
11/03/2009 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Yeah - umm biggest hoax of the 20th century.


Jules Verne started it all in the 19th century - I need another cup o' coffee!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625


So, first you spam the board, then you forget that your IP gives you away as the OP. embarrassing.
YFH
User ID: 809774
Australia
11/03/2009 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump

fun to read.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625


Even MORE embarrassing, hey Dave?

but then...
YFH
User ID: 809774
Australia
11/03/2009 07:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
I especially love how he pounds the shit out of shill debunkers like Jay Wind-ass over at Clavius and that dipshit Plait who runs BadAstronomy.

Priceless.

Go Dave!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625


... but I guess it gets hard keeping track of who's who, when you have a BIG FAMILY of sockpuppets.

sockpuppetsockpuppetsockpuppetsockpuppetsockpuppet



Dave (OP) - PRICELESS!! You would make IDW proud.

Oh, wait.........
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
11/03/2009 08:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflagbsflag

There you have it, a 21 bsflag salute.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Woof Woof Woof
User ID: 748364
New Zealand
11/03/2009 08:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bsflag <---Bloody Super
 Quoting: The Commentator

Go beat your chest a little harder commentator, so the construction boys can whistle at ya,

The real Disney Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax

Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : Disney's Obvious Fake Dog Rock Wags



It's all real I tell ya, 1rof1 cry
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
11/03/2009 10:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226s226
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
ToSeek

User ID: 445334
United States
11/04/2009 12:03 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it.

Not true. The tapes missing were the ones recorded for Apollo 11 by the Australian tracking stations. That's all.

Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon?

Um, no.

Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

Not true. It's all on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites.

True, but in far smaller quantities than the 800+ pounds brought back by Apollo. And the only way we know these are lunar meteorites are by comparing them to the Apollo samples - the first one was only identified in 1982.

The problem, alas, is that the only known source for ‘authenticated’ Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.

There's no evidence that NASA has anything at all to do with the Dutch "moon rock," or in fact that any American ever claimed that it was in fact a Moon rock.

It appears then that having a ‘control rock’ wouldn’t really be of much help after all, since nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don’t seem to be around any more.

The missing Moon rocks are those given as gifts to governments around the world. The total weight of them all combined is under 2 pounds. There are still over 840 pounds of Moon rocks available for study.

For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon.

Only the hoaxers have ever claimed that Hubble could image the lunar modules. Anyone who knows the first thing about optics knows it's impossible.

In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that a “European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored."

NASA can't be held responsible for what journalists claim. SMART-1 was never going to get detailed images of the Apollo landing sites.

Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously have the technology to send spacecraft to the Moon, why they haven’t sent any manned missions there? I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon … right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go.

Who would believe that someone writing about the space program would be so ignorant as not to know that Europeans had a space agency? Who would be so ignorant as to think the only difference between an unmanned spacecraft and a manned one is the number of seats you put on it?

Does anyone truly believe – and I’m including all the True Believers out there – that we had the technology in the late 1960s and early 1970s to hit a target of that size with a laser beam from at least 234,000 miles away? Does anyone believe that we have the technology to do it now?

Yes. It's not a big deal - the beam of the laser expands to several kilometers wide over the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon’s gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least.

It doesn't have to break free of the Moon's gravity - it just has to get into orbit.

I’m not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work, come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of – and please stop me if I am stating the obvious here – air.

Cooling does not require air.

It would help, of course, if our spacecraft was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn’t appear to be the case

Appearances - to someone as ignorant as the author, at least - can be deceiving. The LM was well insulated.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not really sure why we have to pack the damn rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the Moon … except for the fact that they make for good TV, and that seems to be of paramount importance. And as can be seen below, it should easily fit into our spaceship.

The rover made it possible to do much more science in much less time. And it wasn't put inside the LM, but fastened to the side.

NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon).

This exhibit is around 10 miles from my house. I have no idea what McGowan is talking about here: the exhibit includes an actual lunar module and full-sized astronauts.

These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!

The lunar module was thoroughly tested, both piecemeal and as a unit, with three test flights (Apollo 5, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10) before the landings.

Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably.

The space shuttle went 25 missions before the first failure (and even that one could be attributed to human error). There were only 11 manned Apollo missions (15 if you count Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz).

Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding

That depends very much on the type of radiation. It's definitely not preferred for radiation in space.

So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

There's a big difference between three days of exposure and billions of years.

Because the lighting conditions on the Moon are pretty unique, as you well know, and nobody had ever been there before, so I’m not really seeing how NASA’s photographers were able to work the exposures out “ahead of time.”

What's the big deal? They know how bright the Sun is, they know how much the lunar soil reflects.

For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots.

If you're really going to do this experiment, then you should train with the camera for several months before making this attempt, which is what the astronauts did.

Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.

Airport security radiation isn't enough to damage any but the most sensitive film, and the film was never exposed to 540-degree fluctuations - those reflect what the Moon experiences during the course of a lunar day (an Earth month), and they weren't there nearly that long.

Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction.

Not true. Why would it go back in the same direction?

All of the scenes below, for example, which are obviously not very well lit, would have required long exposures – exposures that would have definitely captured the brilliantly shining stars, since they would have been the brightest objects in the camera’s field of view.

McGowan is showing images of the lunar surface in full, unfiltered sunlight and making the idiotic claim that the stars would be even brighter.

Phil also conveniently forgets that the view from the Moon is not filtered through an atmosphere, so the stars have many times the luminosity as here on Earth.

Not true. Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to visible light, so there would be no noticeable difference between the brightness of the stars on Earth and on the Moon.

The shadows in the foreground and in the background are at nearly right angles, a phenomenon that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be explained away as a perceptual problem

The shadows aren't anywhere near being at right angles to each other, and the difference can be explained by lens distortions.

n truth, Goddard’s “nifty demonstrations” are entirely dependent upon the effects of atmosphere causing the light to disperse, and thus they have no validity whatsoever.

Goddard's demonstrations do not depend on atmospheric effects.

but what we’re really looking for here is depth of field, which this photo has very little of. The photographer has focused on the United States sign (and he did it blindly!), but little else is sharply focused.

The extremes are very slightly blurry in this very enlarged shot, but the edges are still remarkably clear. If it truly lacked depth of field, the stuff at the extremes would be unintelligible blobs.

which would, I would think, make it difficult for a portion of that lunar terrain to obscure part of the ship’s S-band antennae assembly.

The S-band antenna is in fact cut off at that point so it can be retracted. This is obvious in numerous photos if McGowan had only bothered to look.

Specifically, there is no crater visible under any of the modules, despite the fact that NASA’s own artist renderings clearly showed the presence of a substantial crater. Also, not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the 10,000 lb reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent.

Do I really need to refute this nonsense yet again?

In addition, despite the ridiculously close proximity of the immensely powerful rocket engine, no noise from that engine can be heard on the video.

The descent engine had 10,000 pounds of thrust - hardly "immensely powerful" and was on the other side of the descent stage from the astronauts.

As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced!

McGowan cherry-picks a photo where he can at least vaguely support this claim. There are others that show significant displacement and scouring.

First of all, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to cut the engine and let their three-ton spaceship simply drop onto the lunar surface. Nor are they going to cruise on in while progressively easing up on the throttle, effortlessly setting the module down, as Plait claims, like “a car pulls into a parking spot,” as if they had been landing lunar modules since the day they were born.

Except that's exactly what they did do. And if they hadn't cut the thrust, instead of landing, they would have gone shooting off back into orbit, which is what happens when you fire a 10,000-pound rocket engine at the base of a spacecraft that now weighs only a few thousand pounds because you're in lunar gravity and have used up most of your fuel.

Then there was the ever-reliable lunar module finding, catching and docking with another ship while in lunar orbit, utilizing some more completely untested technology.

First off, the technology had been tested, and, second, they knew where the other ship was - there was no need to "find" it, just to get to the same orbit at the same time.

What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye.

That would not have been necessary - the temperature exchange, due to the lack of atmosphere, was very gradual.

And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.

How does he figure this?

According to NASA, every square inch of every exposed surface of every rock allegedly gathered from the surface of the Moon shows this pattern. By extension then, we know that every square inch of the lunar surface is peppered with meteoroid craters. There really is no safe place to hang out. There you are minding your own business lining up your golf shot, and the next thing you know a meteoroid is ripping through your spacesuit at 50,000 mph. That has to sting a little bit.

Again, this is over billions of years, as contrasted with a few hours for the astronauts.

Anyway, doesn't it seem just a little strange that experts would now suggest that if we get to work right away, we might be able to land men on the Moon by the year 2020? Isn't that like saying that with a lot of hard work and a little luck, we might be able to develop a video game as technologically advanced as Pong by the year 2025? Or that by 2030, the scientific community might produce a battery-operated calculator small enough to fit into your pocket?

It would if it cost $125 billion to develop a computer game, and if the relevant technology hadn't improved more than marginally over the last 40 years.

And there apparently either wasn’t any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.

He didn't have to see into the future - he knew when the liftoff was going to happen.

Last Edited by ToSeek on 11/04/2009 10:41 AM
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 779945
United States
11/05/2009 04:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Dave's boring. He recycles arguments from other people -- arguments he barely understands himself. And he won't even stand behind those; he won't permit comments. And he certainly won't engage in open debate.

He's like a script kiddie of the conspiracy nuts; hiding in his parent's basement with a fistful of conspiracy he borrowed from someone else, waving it around and thinking it makes him look smart and cool.
AfuckinC (OP)
User ID: 746625
United States
11/09/2009 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
So, first you spam the board, then you forget that your IP gives you away as the OP. embarrassing.
 Quoting: YFH 809774


Hey Capt GLPTard,

Since you did not read or believe my original preamble and can't seem to remember that you are the douchebag who typed in YFH in the blank 'User Name' field when you replied to this message...

I am not Dave McGowan - I merely typed his name in the User Name field while posting a snippet and link to his article to give him proper credit.

I doubt Dave gives two shits about the GLPtard-verse and certainly wouldn't waste time responding to majority of unthinking minds posting here.

AC
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 813928
United States
11/09/2009 12:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Here's an anomaly with the hoax...so, where did the astronauts go while the mission was supposedly happening ? Were they just in Earth orbit the whole time or ?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 746625
United States
11/09/2009 12:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Here's an anomaly with the hoax...so, where did the astronauts go while the mission was supposedly happening ? Were they just in Earth orbit the whole time or ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 813928



Great question. I have often wondered about this.

Again, I am not Dave, just Some Dude, for what it is worth.

I personally think if the Moon shots were indeed faked in some way, two things happened:

1) Some if not all missions really did happen, but actual footage pawned to the world was faked for public dissemination, proof of which has been documented and published for 20+ years. If you choose to discredit it all, you must have read it all.

Dave goes into it later in his article, without citing sources, that the Hasselbad cameras used and film technology at the time could not have survived the journey or environment on the moon, as published and understood by NASA, period. Heck, there are very few instruments today that could perform under those conditions, and this is 40 years later. So either the temps on the Moon are not really -250 to +250 some odd degrees F in and out of the sun or they had amazingly advanced camera technology available at the time. Either way, someone lied.

2) The missions were assisted with alien or significant unpublished technology. Seriously, if those pictures they showed us were authentic, WOW no blast crater? This has never been satisfactorily debunked, plain and simple. If those crazy astronauts did actually did that thing, I don't care what the gravity of the moon, there should have been dust everywhere and every evidence of it in the photos. Dave and a host of others go into numerous photographic discrepancies from the moon missions. If you choose to decredit it, you must have seen them all and be one smart cookie.

At the very list, the LEM and return module were augmented with tech from the UFO crashes in the 1940's or secret Tesla tech. The 'nauts would have been only educated on how to use the systems, but not necessarily the tech behind them.

This is common practice in the military to this day: Super high tech items developed. Tech = Top Secret. Pilots and personnel instructed on how to use said tech, No Questions Asked.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 806365
Australia
11/09/2009 01:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
When we recently bombed the Moon ...

Why didn't we have a camera much closer to the impact site ... gee, we had a whole film crew back in the 60's

LMAO @ moon landings
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 814497
Australia
11/09/2009 06:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 756789
United Kingdom
11/09/2009 07:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 814292
United States
11/09/2009 07:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
First of all, we went to the moon 9 times. We walked on the moon 6 out of the nine.

And Park, Australia Observatory was the only camera to capture the original walk. You can look it up. Why would they have gone to so much trouble to have a back up dish aimed at the moon for video IF they had taped the whole thing in advance?

The reason they had to use the back up had something to do with timing and weather, I think.

Why does NASA now want us to believe that we never went to the moon? The re-writing of history that is going on is very disturbing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 817019
Australia
11/12/2009 06:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
Yeah - umm biggest hoax of the 20th century.


Jules Verne started it all in the 19th century - I need another cup o' coffee!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625 - OP



So, you are claiming that this wasn't a LAMEASS sockpuppet attempt?

Or do ya always talk to yourself and give yourself encouragement in this way.. and think it is normal???

That's ONE example...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 817019
Australia
11/12/2009 06:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump

fun to read.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625 - OP


So, you are claiming that this wasn't a LAMEASS sockpuppet attempt?

Or do ya always talk to yourself and give yourself encouragement in this way.. and think it is normal???

That's TWO examples...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 817019
Australia
11/12/2009 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
I especially love how he pounds the shit out of shill debunkers like Jay Wind-ass over at Clavius and that dipshit Plait who runs BadAstronomy.

Priceless.

Go Dave!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 746625 - OP


So, you are claiming that this wasn't a LAMEASS sockpuppet attempt?

Or do ya always talk to yourself and give yourself encouragement in this way.. and think it is normal???

That's THREE examples...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 817019
Australia
11/12/2009 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
And you posted the first one as "Dave McGowan".

Why?

Why are you unwilling to debate any of the issues Nomuse addressed - not up to arguing in your own words?

Why did you then post more? Oh yeah, woo-woo techniqiue number 5 - hit and run, then ignore responses and preten you didn't see anything.


That's why you're only refuge is this consipracy board. Why don't you go where the critics are a little harsher, and you have to adhere by rules of evidence?

(Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. No rocket science required to work you out, loser..)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2474861
United States
11/13/2012 12:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wagging the Moondoggie - Moon shot hoax examined
bump

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!