Wagging the Moondoggie

[nationalize the fed]

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Wagging the Moondoggie
Part I of 11 October 13, 2009 by David McGowan

"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"

(snip)

...I found a new source of inspiration, however, when my wife e-mailed me the recent story about the fake Dutch Moon rock,

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
29 Aug 2009: Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

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.

Ooopsie- Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
Jul 20, 2009: The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used...NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969 landing...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/20/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090720

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...snip

...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...
Read more (much more- there are eleven pages)
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Plenty of room for a fold up dune buggy


It's Electric!




Under the lander: Where's the evidence of rocket thrust?




No lunar dust on the landing pads, eh?




Interesting antennae!

A low budget sci-fi scene or Astronauts lifting off from the moon:
NASA allegedly filmed that final lift-off

NASA claims that the camera was mounted on the abandoned lunar rover... and that the pan and zoom functions were operated remotely by the ground crew back on Earth. You couldn’t control your television from across the living room in those days, but NASA could pan and zoom a camera from 234,000 miles away. Awesome! ...Apparently there wasn’t any delay in the signal...

What Happened On the Moon? - Analysis of the Lunar Photography

[bvf]

1. Yeah, and Stanley Kubrick directed the whole thing.

Need proof? What was on the sweater Danny Lloyd wore in key scenes in The Shining?

Riddle me that.

Jeez.

[zappaman]

2. Your mistake is in thinking there even is a moon.

Hologram.

[smiley]

3. Thank you for posting this.

I've never been in the moon hoax camp, but I do think it's an interesting topic. I find it hard to believe that it could be pulled off w/o someone blowing the whistle. But now the finding out the moon rock is a fake, definitely has me questioning the story. I also hadn't heard about the original recordings being lost.

[dougolat]

15. One can look at it as the script for a stand-up routine...

...slanted for laughs and absurdity.
It is funny, especially the first two pages, a riot to read.

Sure, there's some exaggeration and purposeful misunderstanding in there, all part of the "shtick"; but overall, I think he does land some barbs and establish some grounds for incredulity.

So, any way you look at it, the Moon Landings were an incredible accomplishment!

( And the petrified wood switcheroo - a mocking prank)

[jberryhill]

4. What is interesting about the "Interesting antennae!"?

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

That one eludes me.

Since the hi-gain antenna array is interesting to you, could you explain why you find it interesting?

I'm going to take a wild guess here, and assume you are ignorant of the shape of the dishes in that antenna array, and that presumably you are puzzled at how the surface of the moon is visible "in front" of what you think are supposed to be round dishes.

The thing is - the dishes weren't round. Like a lot of stuff, the array had to be designed to be folded up, and then swung into position after deployment of the command module.



There is even a prototype one hanging in a museum in Oklahoma:




So, as with most of this stuff, your personal ignorance of what the high gain antenna array actually looked like, causes you to reach a ridiculous conclusion.

[jberryhill]

5. So, about the Rover...

Just because you are personally ignorant of how it was designed to fold and unfold for storage, then it is evidence of fakery?

Here's a video of one of the deployment tests:

and here they are deploying it:

[jberryhill]

6. It's beyond obvious you were not around at the time

...or you wouldn't say dumb things like this:

NASA claims that the camera was mounted on the abandoned lunar rover... and that the pan and zoom functions were operated remotely by the ground crew back on Earth. You couldn’t control your television from across the living room in those days, but NASA could pan and zoom a camera from 234,000 miles away. Awesome! ...Apparently there wasn’t any delay in the signal...

Indeed, there was a delay in the signal, which is why they got it wrong on more than one mission. It was kind of a big deal to try to capture the liftoff with the remotely operated rover camera, and they always made a point of discussing that.

http://io9.com/how-nasa-captured-this-iconic-footage-of-apollo-17-leav-1671650186

So the engineers suggested moving the rover a certain distance from the lunar module and setting the camera to automatically tilt to show the lunar liftoff when commanded from Earth.

That was the plan, at least. On Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunctioned and the camera never moved upwards, allowing the lunar module to slip out of sight. And while the attempt on Apollo 16 gave a longer view of the lunar module rising up, the astronauts actually parked the rover too close to it, which threw off the calculations and timing of the tilt upwards so it left view just a few moments into the flight.

Ed Fendall was the person doing the controlling. In an oral history for NASA done in 2000, he recalled how complex the procedure was.

Now, the way that worked was this. Harley Weyer, who worked for me, sat down and figured what the trajectory would be and where the lunar rover would be each second as it moved out, and what your settings would go to. That picture you see was taken without looking at it (the liftoff) at all. There was no watching it and doing anything with that picture. As the crew counted down, that's a (Apollo) 17 picture you see, as (Eugene) Cernan counted down and he knew he had to park in the right place because I was going to kill him, he didn't — and Gene and I are good friends, he'll tell you that — I actually sent the first command at liftoff minus three seconds. And each command was scripted, and all I was doing was looking at a clock, sending commands. I was not looking at the television. I really didn't see it until it was over with and played back. Those were just pre-set commands that were just punched out via time. That's the way it was followed.

[nationalize the fed]

7. I didn't "say" anything

That's McGowan writing.

I don't even know if I believe McGowan- Just thought it was well written and worthy of some thought.

I DO know that my government has lied regularly and consistently about almost everything.

Why are so many Americans so emotional about everything?

Spock had it right. Stop already.

[jberryhill]

8. I don't know what's so "emotional" about what I wrote

It is, however, beyond obvious that you did not live through that era, since it was always a question whether they'd get the timing right and sometimes they didn't.

Posting obvious bullshit that "somebody else wrote" does not excuse failing to exercise your critical faculties, or even a cursory effort to determine whether you are, or are not, purveying bullshit. On this point in particular even a lazy Google into the mystery of "how did they film lunar liftoff" provides a wealth of information sufficient to determine that this "mystery" is indeed bullshit.

You're welcome.

[nationalize the fed]

9. This discussion board is called "Creative Speculation"

And I'll do just that, thanks.

It is, however, beyond obvious that you did not live through that era

Have you gone through your entire life making assumptions like that?

I'll keep posting what I think is worthy, and you can keep on insulting and assuming. Nothing better to do?

You're welcome.

EDIT: Any guess as to why Neal and Buzz gave Holland a piece of petrified wood and called it a "Moon Rock"? ROFL

And those tapes...I don't believe they were lying around and someone came in over the weekend and overtaped the Super Bowl.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL TAPES? That would be 700 CARTONS

That's a good question, isn't it.

[jberryhill]

10. What insult?

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

It is not an "insult" to observe that either you were not paying attention at the time or were not yet alive for the reasons I stated. I was not alive for JFK being elected. So what? That is an incident of age, not an insult.

This is indeed the CS forum and you will find, in this very forum, an extensive discussion of the "original tapes" canard. The original transmission, by the way, was not received in a U.S. facility, but by an Australian earth station. It was broadcast live to the world, and there are plenty of "original tapes". Nothing makes one more "original" than another, and there is nothing magic about the video feed received in Houston, Melbourne or London for that matter.

Indeed this is the "Creative" speculation forum. The word "creative" is suggestive of original thought, and not the repetitive parroting of long-addressed bits of nonsense without the slightest actual evidence of intelligent curiosity. You don't know the details of that story, because you do not actually care enough to look into it at all.

Look at all the fucks you do not give:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6085635

And that is just one of the many.

Now, the simplest thing to observe about the "lost original tapes" canard is that - THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE MOON LANDING.

This only requires critical thought and no research at all:

There were SIX manned moon landings. Are you saying the "original tapes" (and given the changing video tape technology at that time) for all SIX are missing?

Or are you saying that the "missing original tape" from Apollo 11 is evidence that landing was faked, but the other FIVE were real?

[jberryhill]

12. You get a D on that closing Gish Gallop

This subthread addresses the camera work for the lunar liftoff.

It was a well-known problem with a well-known solution at the time.

[jberryhill]

11. About the Dutch museum rock

Now, since nothing of value, in your world, has ever been stolen from a museum, what do you suppose is more likely:

1. The moon landing was faked, and the whole thing is now unraveled because the fakers made the rookie error of giving the museum what is easily determined to be of terrestrial origin.

Or

2. Somewhere along the line, someone - and most likely someone involved to some extent in the curation of this object - obtained possession of the original rock and replaced it with something unlikely to be looked at closely until that person's trail was well covered.

There are a lot of lunar samples in laboratories and collections around the world. Are all of these samples - some of them very well studied - also fakes, and this Dutch museum just simply the first one to notice?

[William Seger]

13. Or 3. There are petrified trees on the moon

Hey, it's creative speculation, so it doesn't need to make any sense.

[jberryhill]

14. Good point

You sir, win the coveted Bearded Occam.