Wagging the Moondoggie

You're right, I have a bias against crappy videos and the one LoneShaman posted is awful. What does "NASA NOT SOUND" even mean? Why aren't the actual video clips carefully annotated? Why doesn't it talk about whatever audio equipment the astronauts were wearing? And why, oh God why, did they include the horrific audio at the end?

I would guess there is no more than 10 seconds of actual footage in the video and none of it is annotated or cited.

~~ Paul

Can a mod make this thread mod plus please? Because I cannot? It is obvious Paul has not looked at anything linked or posted. He still thinks we are talking about that trailer that does not meet his standards when we are now talking about something else. He is being rude and condescending.

I just wanted to discuss mcgowan's essays and related material and I specifically said I did not not want mockers or people who won't read the material.

Thanks.
 

Yes, except that it is not only the Apollo 11 mission tapes that were lost or recorded over but apparently all data beamed back from all the Apollo missions according to the 2006 article linked to in the Moondoggie article part 1:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/616295/nasa_cant_find_original_tape_of_moon_landing/
The tapes also contain data about the health of the
astronauts and the condition of the spacecraft. In all, some
700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are
missing, he said.
 
Yes, except that it is not only the Apollo 11 mission tapes that were lost or recorded over but apparently all data beamed back from all the Apollo missions according to the 2006 article linked to in the Moondoggie article part 1:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/616295/nasa_cant_find_original_tape_of_moon_landing/
Yep, pretty stupid. But NASA apparently figured that there were copies of all the footage and they needed the tapes. Not the best decision, in hindsight, for sure.

~~ Paul
 
This is what I am talking about. Please stop. your bias is showing.

Put up or shut up. Read and watch the material and critique it but don't denigrate.

Thank you.
I cannot watch the video right now, but if it is of the same quality as the essay that started this thread, I am not going to waste an hour watching it.
This essay is really terrible, to give an example:

We are also going to need to install a top-of-the-line heating and cooling system. Probably several of them, actually. Because the ‘weather’ on the Moon, so to speak, can be a bit unpleasant. According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average a balmy +260° F, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of -280° F. If you’re looking for anything between those two extremes, you won’t really find it on the Moon. It’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen.

Since heat can only be lost or gained through radiation in a vacuum, the way to protect yourself is more by shielding rather than insulation.
You do not have to know a lot about physics to see this guy is pulling things from a place that is well shielded from the sun.

Somebody has to explain this man how a thermos flask works.

Most of his arguments are non sequitur arguments, but every time he goes specific, he is plainly wrong, or he doubt things that can be checked with existing physics.

At some point, while reading his essay, it was even hard to believe this guy knows there is such a thing as physics.

If the material is this crappy critiquing is equal to denigrating, nothing to do with bias.

You seem to be impressed by this essay, which is ok, but you can not expect for someone else to be equally convinced without checking the strength of the arguments.

It may be warranted to ask respect for a scientific paper published in a well respected publication, we know that is fact checked with an inch of it's life.

The essay you are talking about is not fact checked at all. Not by you; and worse, not even by the author.

So if you really want a discussion about the content, why don't you try to isolate one concrete argument from this word soup to discuss?
Choose the one that convinces you the most and we can go from there, you will have a far better chance of a serious discussion that way.
 
I cannot watch the video right now, but if it is of the same quality as the essay that started this thread, I am not going to waste an hour watching it.
This essay is really terrible, to give an example:



Since heat can only be lost or gained through radiation in a vacuum, the way to protect yourself is more by shielding rather than insulation.
You do not have to know a lot about physics to see this guy is pulling things from a place that is well shielded from the sun.

Somebody has to explain this man how a thermos flask works.

Well the suits did have heating and cooling systems actually. Several layers of insulation and reflective outer layer. Heat can also be transfered through conduction with any surface in contact with the suit.
 
Last edited:
Well the suits did have heating and cooling systems actually. Several layers of insulation and reflective outer layer. Heat can also be transfered through conduction with any surface in contact with the suit.
Agreed completely, there is always a degree of absorption, no surface reflects perfectly. But what McGowan said was not even close to being as reasonable as what you are saying.

I think the problems with heat/cold protection were known and perfectly manageable at that time, Difficult?, Yes, everything is difficult in space. But beyond the reasonable?, No.

Do you really think the perceived improbability of proper heat management is on the moon is a good argument (not a rhetorical question)?
 
Last edited:
I cannot watch the video right now, but if it is of the same quality as the essay that started this thread, I am not going to waste an hour watching it.
This essay is really terrible, to give an example:



Since heat can only be lost or gained through radiation in a vacuum, the way to protect yourself is more by shielding rather than insulation.
You do not have to know a lot about physics to see this guy is pulling things from a place that is well shielded from the sun.

Somebody has to explain this man how a thermos flask works.

Most of his arguments are non sequitur arguments, but every time he goes specific, he is plainly wrong, or he doubt things that can be checked with existing physics.

At some point, while reading his essay, it was even hard to believe this guy knows there is such a thing as physics.

If the material is this crappy critiquing is equal to denigrating, nothing to do with bias.

You seem to be impressed by this essay, which is ok, but you can not expect for someone else to be equally convinced without checking the strength of the arguments.

It may be warranted to ask respect for a scientific paper published in a well respected publication, we know that is fact checked with an inch of it's life.

The essay you are talking about is not fact checked at all. Not by you; and worse, not even by the author.

So if you really want a discussion about the content, why don't you try to isolate one concrete argument from this word soup to discuss?
Choose the one that convinces you the most and we can go from there, you will have a far better chance of a serious discussion that way.

I started to mention the temperature point made in the essays is overly simplistic and not a good point. It is all about radiation and conduction. Even on earth, with the proper PPE a person can stand on a 250 F surface. In space, you wouldn't have convection to deal with, so proper infrared radiation shielding with reflective materials could keep you cool enough... as long as the boots don't melt. Would like to know what they were allegedly made of. Staying warm in the suits is a matter of insulation and putting reflective materials facing inward. Without convection, I think it would certainly be possible to have a suit that can sustain the temperatures. However, I do question what materials can remain strong and flexible on the outside of the suit at such low temperatures. I also question how a suit can remain flexible when it should inflate like a very stiff high pressure balloon at 10-14 PSI. If anyone knows how this is accomplished, I'm very curious.
 
I don't think we're there yet.

I'm completely there... but then again, I might have a different perspective on things than you if you are not aware 9/11 was an inside job or that staged events are S.O.P. for the American government ever since the Maine was blown up in Havana Harbor in 1898.

The sound thing is hysterical. Oh yes, NASA was too stoopid to remember not to broadcast the sound from the sound stage.

I tend to ignore things like that since they are inconclusive.
 
I started to mention the temperature point made in the essays is overly simplistic and not a good point. It is all about radiation and conduction.
And that is not the only overly simplistic point he makes:
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. Though it may only have 1/6 the gravitational pull of Earth, keep in mind that it is still a force strong enough to create the tides here on Earth, 234,000 miles away.
Does he think calculating this is not feasible in some way? There must be people in the moon hoax community who have enough math skills to prove leaving the moon was impossible if it was.
I do not understand this line of argument, what is his point? Is his argument that is hard to leave the moon? If so, as long it is not impossible it is no argument at all.
What he is talking about is not easy, but again, nothing in space is.
There are a lot of other technical/engineering points made in the essays that I need to look into more before adopting and repeating, but some of them I find very compelling.
Please show me which ones you find compelling, i have a hard time finding one.
 
This guy has an interesting take on things.
He thinks we had the technology to go to the moon but not to fake it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lhl
It somehow needs to be thrown into the mix that, aside from such things as fuel and shadow analysis, McGowan's style of writing and humor shine a light on the absurdity of official stories/narratives. I feel like this is somehow falling between the cracks of things like convection and conduction.

(I don't especially need to hear the obvious counter to this).

Edit: along the lines of narrative, the "we went to the moon" story has some very poor actors (dejected, almost embarrassed astronauts) and props (lunar landing module and rover), and a script, as well . . .
 
Last edited:
Does he think calculating this is not feasible in some way? There must be people in the moon hoax community who have enough math skills to prove leaving the moon was impossible if it was.
I do not understand this line of argument, what is his point? Is his argument that is hard to leave the moon? If so, as long it is not impossible it is no argument at all.
What he is talking about is not easy, but again, nothing in space is.

I agree he makes a lot of arguments from incredulity, but I take his essays more as a journalist compiling information in a format that is approachable rather than a scientific paper. His essays provide a starting point for research and have aroused my skepticism enough to want to research the moon landings more... which nothing else I had previously come across compelled me to do. I'd like to do some calculations when I have time to see for myself... Some argument from incredulity is justified when talking about immensely complicated engineering feats that had not been thoroughly tested/simulated.

Please show me which ones you find compelling, i have a hard time finding one.

I would like to go back through all 14 essays and analyze the points in detail... unfortunately I've only had time to quickly read through once... but quickly skimming back through... here's a few things:

I mentioned one compelling point above... the fact that all the data originally transmitted back from the Apollo missions was lost or recorded over.

It is interesting that the space suits and ship had no protection against solar or cosmic radiation. Would like to know what was the accumulated exposure the astronauts endured.

No noise is heard from the rocket engine that gently set the LEM down on the moon. Noise from a 10,000 lb thrust rocket should travel through the structure and into the cabin.

Photographs of the LEM don't appear to show disturbed lunar soil directly below the LEM's descent engine.

The footage of the blast off from the LEM appears to be fake... especially since there's no way they could have remotely controlled the camera from earth considering the time delay.

No modern photogrpahic evidence exists showing any left behind equipment.

Before the LEM no one had ever successfully built a rocket engine with a throttle.

No one ever successfully landed in the LEM landing simulator.

The Ascent engine had to be rebuilt after every trial so the actual engine on every LEM was untested.

The LEM failed the pressure test blowing out a window which was merely replaced; no redesign.

No major issues occurred with any of this new untested unproven equipment except for Apollo 13 which was replete with 13 numerology (this point wasn't made in the essay, but its something I recall hearing before).

Adjusting exposure, focus, and Aperture with heavy pressurized gloves on and not being able to look through the viewfinder would be... problematic.

Apollo 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V rocket... and it allegedly went to the moon and back... after the previous Saturn V test launch failed.

Anyway.. that's all I have time for right now.
 
Do you really think the perceived improbability of proper heat management is on the moon is a good argument (not a rhetorical question)?
I am curious about the extremes. Modern EVA suits are very high tech, including some protection from micro meteors etc.
It is not a issue in my mind, nothing to warrant real doubt. I don't have the technical details or expertise to judge that area.

Watch the video. There are a few things not so easily dismissed. I am struggling for an explanation.
 
Last edited:
I would really like to know why hammering and other sounds are heard when no other space walk has ever amplified sound through the suit.
Not that the suit acting as a drum is even relevant, that can't explain a thrown object making a sound and picked up by the headset.

Those are shadows moving arcross that astronaught in the beggining of the film. That is impossible.

I don't have a big list of anomalies, I had seen and heard many of usual ones before.
 
Back
Top