Wagging the Moondoggie

#1
Has anyone else read this series of essays by Dave McGowan? I guess because I am new, I can't link, but it is easy to find with Google.

I never thought I would be "that guy"... But after reading that series and looking into the space program and what are now good images of the LEM, I am left scratching my head at how 1960s/early 1970s technology accomplished what it did. And not one other country in the world has managed to have a manned-spacecraft get out of low orbit, much less to the moon. (Though I read the Chinese are working on it... Estimate in 2028!)

40 years later, and no one else can get out of low earth orbit except with machines, no men aboard. And the more I look at the LEM, the more it looks like something out of the 1960s show The Outer Limits, not a real space craft.

The first interviews with the first men on the moon (Neil Armstrong, etc) made it worse. They don't seem happy or exuberant. They seem guarded or defeated or something, though I am no psychologist. But I have seen people, who didn't have weeks of quarantine to rest up, like those who climbed Mount Everest, seem more exuberant and happy than these guys who went to the effing moon! And they seem kind of depressed or something?

Sorry for the jumble of words. I never questioned this and now I am. My mind is kinda blown.

Wish I could link. Google LEM and look at that. Does that look like a sophisticated piece of technology, or something out of 60s sci-fi shows or what?

Anyway, check out McGowan's series. I picked this forum because most forums would mock this outright and not even consider the possibility, but I do want intelligent replies.

Thanks!
 
#3
Has anyone else read this series of essays by Dave McGowan? I guess because I am new, I can't link, but it is easy to find with Google.

I never thought I would be "that guy"... But after reading that series and looking into the space program and what are now good images of the LEM, I am left scratching my head at how 1960s/early 1970s technology accomplished what it did. And not one other country in the world has managed to have a manned-spacecraft get out of low orbit, much less to the moon. (Though I read the Chinese are working on it... Estimate in 2028!)

40 years later, and no one else can get out of low earth orbit except with machines, no men aboard. And the more I look at the LEM, the more it looks like something out of the 1960s show The Outer Limits, not a real space craft.

The first interviews with the first men on the moon (Neil Armstrong, etc) made it worse. They don't seem happy or exuberant. They seem guarded or defeated or something, though I am no psychologist. But I have seen people, who didn't have weeks of quarantine to rest up, like those who climbed Mount Everest, seem more exuberant and happy than these guys who went to the effing moon! And they seem kind of depressed or something?

Sorry for the jumble of words. I never questioned this and now I am. My mind is kinda blown.

Wish I could link. Google LEM and look at that. Does that look like a sophisticated piece of technology, or something out of 60s sci-fi shows or what?

Anyway, check out McGowan's series. I picked this forum because most forums would mock this outright and not even consider the possibility, but I do want intelligent replies.

Thanks!
Hi What If, I'm in the same boat as you. Until recently I didn't suspect there was much to the moon landing "conspiracy theory." But to my surprise there's much more than I thought. But for the most part, I still don't know what to make of it.

I have not read those essays, but I'm going to now. Thanks!

So this is regarding the Apollo moon mission(s), specifically?

For folks not up to par on the moon landing hoax/conspiracy, at least with respect to the first Apollo mission, it maintains there was indeed a launch, however rather than traversing the distance to the moon, the astronauts simply remained in low-earth orbit until re-entry.

One thing I've never understood: The whole supposedly insurmountable or unsurpassable (or some word like that) solar radiation zone thingy, whatever it's called- the VanHalen Belt?
It's okay for machines but bad for humans?

Point to keep in mind: NASA is essentially an American federal intelligence agency. Therefore we can presume it is an entity entirely infested with immoral scumbag pieces of shit liars.

The aspect of the moon landing I've found most concerning- the point weighing most in favor of the conspiracy/hoax- is the seeming impossibility of the lunar surface landing itself.

But what about moon rock?

I'll add this as well. Very highly recommended:

 
Last edited:
#4
Hi What If, I'm in the same boat as you. Until recently I didn't suspect there was much to the moon landing "conspiracy theory." But to my surprise there's much more than I thought. But for the most part, I still don't know what to make of it.

I have not read those essays, but I'm going to now. Thanks!

So this is regarding the Appollo moon mission(s), specifically?

For folks not up to par on the moon landing hoax/conspiracy, at least with respect to the first Appollo mission, it maintains there was indeed a launch, however rather than traversing the distance to the moon, the astronauts simply remained in low-earth orbit until re-entry.

One thing I've never understood: The whole supposedly insurmountable or unsurpassable (or some word like that) solar radiation zone thingy, whatever it's called- the VanHalen Belt?
It's okay for machines but bad for humans?

Point to keep in mind: NASA is essentially an American federal intelligence agency. Therefore we can presume it is an entity entirely infested with immoral scumbag pieces of shit liars.

The aspect of the moon landing I've found most concerning- the point weighing most in favor of the conspiracy/hoax- is the seeming impossibility of the lunar surface landing itself.

But what about moon rock?

I'll add this as well. Very highly recommended:

According to my father, who worked on secret satellite programs for Lockheed, space is not kind to machines at all. It took a very long time to create consistently reliable satellites because space was far harsher than anyone dreamed.
 
#6
Thanks for the OP, What If: I just finished reading the series. I started off sceptical, but as I read more and more, I began to wonder whether or not we really did go to the moon. Whatever, I can thoroughly recommend Dave McGowan's series. It's a thunderingly good read!
 
#7
Thanks for the essays from D. McGowan. I had read some into the moon landing conspiracy before reading these essays. I've always considered myself on the fence on this one. After reading these interesting articles I'm still on the fence. But I wouldn't be surprised if someday we find out the Apollo landings were hoaxes. But then again I wouldn't be surprised if they were some how confirmed as facts beyond any doubt. I just don't know.

The difficulties of putting a man on the moon with the technology available seem quite daunting if possible at all.
 
#10
I was in the same boat for a while as most here: skeptical, a bit, but somewhat defaulted into the mainstream "of course we went to the moon" stance. I like Edgar Mitchell and hate to think he's lying! I posted an article a few weeks ago on McGowan over in the 911 thread, and bc of the info in Craig's article, I read wagging the moon doggie. (I posted it in the 911 thread bc McGowan said 911 was an inside job on 9/12.) I couldn't stop reading it; the shit's hillarious. But all of his writing is really good and interesting; years ago I read part of his Laural Canyon series and liked it. But his stuff on Abe is very eye-opening and interesting, too.

At any rate, bc of McGowan I now default into the "it's faked" camp.
 
Last edited:
#13
I want to see the set on which they filmed the lunar rover. That was some clever engineering!

And how much are they paying all the guys who have imaged the Moon since then?

~~ Paul
Could you please elaborate? I don't know what you mean specifically in regards to the engineering comment and the imaging.

The NY set of 9/11 was conveniently and non-covertly destroyed with additional pieces shipped to China or trashed in a New Jersey landfill (eg. jet engine), so I doubt the supposed lunar set would still be around. However, the film set of the Boston Bombing (and post-bombing show trial courtroom set) is still around. Sandy Hook Elementary was destroyed. I don't think sets matter much to folks one way or the other.
 
#14
I want to see the set on which they filmed the lunar rover. That was some clever engineering!

And how much are they paying all the guys who have imaged the Moon since then?

~~ Paul
In this link there's a picture of the rover beside the landing module. NASA said the rover folded up to the size of a large suitcase so that it could fit into the landing module. That's what I find clever, personally, concerning the rover.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#15
In this link there's a picture of the rover beside the landing module. NASA said the rover folded up to the size of a large suitcase so that it could fit into the landing module. That's what I find clever, personally, concerning the rover.
Indeed. We've already gotten to the point where we think that the technology of the '60s was archaic and silly. But there were some incredibly clever people working for NASA.

~~ Paul
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#16
Could you please elaborate? I don't know what you mean specifically in regards to the engineering comment and the imaging.

The NY set of 9/11 was conveniently and non-covertly destroyed with additional pieces shipped to China or trashed in a New Jersey landfill (eg. jet engine), so I doubt the supposed lunar set would still be around. However, the film set of the Boston Bombing (and post-bombing show trial courtroom set) is still around. Sandy Hook Elementary was destroyed. I don't think sets matter much to folks one way or the other.
The sets of the fake moonlandings were located in the WTC towers, that secret was about to be uncovered, that is why they were destroyed.
Wake up sheeple.
 
Top