Dave McGowan Takes on the Apollo MIssions

[spooked911]

Great stuff:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

The whole series is worth a read.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Again I ask....

is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embtace it, dude?

[Bonobo]

2. Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a double?

http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/index.html

[spooked911]

7. relevance?

[spooked911]

6. just read the articles, okay?

[jberryhill]

3. In what way do you believe this information advances discussion of Democratic values? /nt

[spooked911]

8. government accountability, citiznes being lied to and ripped off, etc

you don't think it's important to know that the moon missions were a hoax?

[jberryhill]

12. Lots of things are important. That was not my question

DU is a partisan political forum which, in the main, is supportive of the Democratic Party.

How do you see this moon hoax thing shaking out as a partisan issue. Is concern about the reality of the moon landings a matter of significant importance to Democrats in your area?

[spooked911]

13. It's not really partisan per se--

though I always thought Dems were more supportive of the truth and Repubs protective of the status quo.

I think this issue should be important for everyone, including Dems in my area. One key issue is to have a better, more open govt. I would think Dems would support that. Tearing away falsehoods is how we can heal as a country and improve. Tearing down the Apollo lies would help expose other big lies, such as about war.

Anyway, please read the pieces and let me know what you think. Thanks.

[jberryhill]

17. "I always thought Dems were more supportive of the truth"

The Apollo program was one of the primary projects of the Kennedy/Johnson administrations, and continued through the Nixon administration.

Now, this was a period of American politics in which disagreement could look like this:



or even this:



Now, you are going to tell me that the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, would get into a personal, physical confrontation with the federal government over whether to admit African Americans to the University of Alabama, but meanwhile over at the Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, AL, you have a whole team of Alabamans cooperating in an elaborate ruse to rip off taxpayers for the benefit of the federal government - and Wallace never called shenanigans on that?

You don't think the teabaggers would be a better audience than supporters of a the party of JFK, who believe that the Apollo program is one of the signal accomplishments of the most popular Democratic president of the last century?

[spooked911]

22. you're comparing very different things

NASA is akin to the military industrial complex, and repubs would rather die than question that. Plus, NASA would be an important source of jobs. No WAY would Wallace challenge NASA.

[jberryhill]

26. So Wallace was essentially bought off...

...and despite fundamental and distinct disagreements within American politics over decades, including incidents of armed confrontation, both right and left have jointly kept this secret about no Apollo program? Because there was money involved. Regardless of the fact that eliminating racial discrimination in education ALSO improves the economic climate.

The Apollo program spanned over a decade and involved the efforts of tens of thousands of people, who all willingly took part in this charade because... the money was good.

I am really glad you are a person of no particular social significance, because your perception of general corruptibilty is way off. Do you really believe that most people do not have convictions and principles which are not for sale? You need to get out more.

[spooked911]

31. you seem to have little understanding of the taboos here

Of course the powers that be send out orders to completely mock anyone who questioned the moon landings. There was and still is strong pressure to toe the official line if you are in government.

In any case, if you actually read the pieces, you will see the program was a farce. That trumps all other matters such as you bring up.

[spooked911]

35. Not sure what you mean about "no Apollo program"

There WAS a program, but it was mostly a hoax.

"The Apollo program spanned over a decade and involved the efforts of tens of thousands of people, who all willingly took part in this charade because... the money was good."

No, it wasn't just the money. If they were an insider enough to know what was going on, they were undoubtedly threatened with more than loss of pay.

"Do you really believe that most people do not have convictions and principles which are not for sale?"

Well, that's a confusingly worded question. But as I said, it's not just about money.

And again, the bottom line is that the we were hoaxed, and it was well covered up by all the people in power, by various ways-- and that is nothing new.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Jesus, Spooked...

So, no one would have said a word at the end of their life when they had absolutely nothing to lose? Your eagerness to turn Logic completely on its head is why no one here takes you seriously, dude. Your arguments are completely unbelievable and I honestly can't believe you are any sort of science professional when you offer up the utter bullshit you do.

Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there.

[spooked911]

58. is that the best you've got?

there are all sorts of reasons why someone deep in the hoax wouldn't reveal it even on their "deathbed"

[SDuderstadt]

69. Name them, dude...

then tell us precisely how even one of them is remotely plausible.

[spooked911]

81. some reasons off the top of my head

1) deep deep denial
2) brainwashing
3) desire not to discredit one's reputation
4) desire not to cause trouble for the family
5) desire not to upset the American people
6) some mixture of the above

[zappaman]

82. in other words

ANYTHING.
not really very good reasons and, of course, backed up with zero proof for any of them.

keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there

[SDuderstadt]

91. Involving thousands of people...

get real, dude.

[KDLarsen]

4. I wonder how much of it Dave McGowan is making up

Like, you know, how he made up the quote by William Colby (you know the one, 'CIA Owns everyone in the major media') which truthers tend to hark out every now and then?

[spooked911]

9. well, you could read the pieces and then fact check them

let us know

[SDuderstadt]

19. If you don't bother to fact-check it...

why should we?

[spooked911]

23. why are you so hesitant to read the pieces?

I thought they were fine, fact-wise. If you find substantial errors in them, please post it here.

[LARED]

5. "The whole series is worth a read."

Only for the comedic value. It's GOLD.

[spooked911]

10. yeah, they are very funny

the official Apollo story is surely a joke.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Dude...

can you give us an example of a conspiracy theory you reject? I'd be interested to see the degree of goofiness something has to achieve before it triggers your disbelief. Chemtrails, perhaps? Surely there's something out there so goofy that even you don't embrace it.

P.S. Did you realize that DU is a hoax? There's really only one member...you! The rest of this...all the other "members", all the other posts, even my own, are all generated by a large bank of servers using artificial intelligence. It's all an elaborate hoax to see how tenacious your belief in actual conspiracies is. We have big things in store for you, dude.

Someone will be in touch shortly. Just beware of Alex Jones look-alikes. Make sure you ask for ID. Congratulations!

[spooked911]

16. obviously I reject the official 9/11 conspiracy theory

In terms of what you probably mean, I try to keep an open mind but I don't believe everything.

For instance, I don't believe these:
1) bigfoot
2) Elvis is still alive
3) DEW was used to destroy the WTC

Lots of other things I tend to doubt but haven't look at the evidence carefully. Thus, I tend to doubt that Paul McCartney died and was replaced with a double, but I can't say for sure that it is a lie.


In any case, if you take some time to read the McGowan pieces, is pretty clear the Apollo missions were a farce.

[SDuderstadt]

18. "I tend to doubt Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a double"

Don't lose faith and ruin your perfect track record, dude, when you're so close to your manifest destiny. The Paul McCartney plot is part of the effort to control the price of gold. I'll explain it to you someday.

Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there.

P.S. your dog is actually a robot.

[spooked911]

24. just read the McGowan pieces and let me know what you think

OK?

Thanks.

[LARED]

51. Question

Do you ever feel embarrassed by your gullibility?

A number of DU'er have taken the time to point out the absurdity of the OP in very convincing posts. Yet I see zero acknowledgment from you that you have considered a single thing.

Why?

[SDuderstadt]

52. I think it's a fair assumption that....

Spooked wears his gullibility as a badge of honor.

[LARED]

56. I find it stricking

that truthers claim skepticism is a motivation behind the "investigation", but there is a huge lacuna in the skeptic's thought process when it comes to nonsense like the McGowen piece. Makes me think the claim of skepticism is simply convenient and normalizing.

[spooked911]

59. Why should I be embarrassed by something I don't think I have?

I could ask you the same thing-- aren't you embarrassed to support the laughable official story?

As far as "DU'er have taken the time to point out the absurdity of the OP in very convincing posts."

Where is that?

"Yet I see zero acknowledgment from you that you have considered a single thing."

WTF? Up until this morning, I have responded to every post to this thread, rebutting every point possible.

[apocalypsehow]

105. You should be embarrassed - among other things. Why not cease answering questions with questions,

and simply respond to inquiries put to you about the things you post? :shrug:

I think we know why - it's all yah got.

"rebutting every point possible"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spooked911]

114. No...

but I DO find arguing with people like you over and over gets tiresome.

I have been here a LONG time, and have dealt with many of these people for years. Please forgive me for not conforming to your exact wishes.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Well, maybe the "E.T.'s" could help you and...

"quarantine" the people you find "tiresome", dude. It's worth a shot.

Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there!

[Mist]

11. I read those--McGowans's snark is priceless. I keep checking his site to see if he'll finish

his Laurel Canyon series.

[spooked911]

15. yeah-- that is pretty great stuff too

Also they are close for me, since I grew up in that area and used to drive through Laurel Canyon regularly.

[zappaman]

20. The guy is only half right

I believe there actually is NO moon, so obviously we never went there.
Why would there be a moon? It doesn't do anything.
I think we have been hoodwinked by a process of lasers and big LCD screens.
Back in the old days, they(evil BUSHCO ancestors) just fed the populace lots of drugs and made them believe there was a moon.
In later years, it was done by hypnosis...first by using puppets and continuing thru backwards masking of music. If you listen to JIMI HENDRIX's Crosstown Traffic backwards you hear the words. "THERE IS A MOON. THERE IS A MOON. COFFEE GRINDS. THERE IS A MOON". Not sure about the "COFFEE GRINDS" remark, but we know that the CIA uses coffee companies as a front for their operations!
Scary stuff, I know.
It's a power trip. Governments do it all the time...look it up.
Keep digging Spooked...you're almost there.

[spooked911]

21. just read the McGowan pieces and let me know what you think

okay?

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. ooh, me! me! I think they're lousy

I'm guessing you'll have follow-up questions, but I'll say just two things.

(1) It's striking that McGowan has so little to say about counterarguments to his position. It's not as if they are hard to find.

(2) I'll never get that piece of my life back, and it was moderately entertaining, but I have to cut my losses somewhere.

[jberryhill]

27. The "striking" part...

I think we are seeing a cognitive phenomenon of some kind like OCD or something on the autistic spectrum.

I would think some folks we know would provide fascinating responses to a Thematic Apperception Test.

[spooked911]

37. you mean the guy who keeps writing

"keep digging, spooked, you're almost there" several times a day?

Yeah, that is some serious OCD.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude, you can't even get that right...

it isn't Berryhill that writes that. Duh.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

83. No....

I didn't say he wrote that.

[spooked911]

36. so nothing he wrote about the improbability of the missions gave you pause

or challenged your belief? Nothing at all?

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. you missed the point

Not surprising, given that you've already stated it to be "fact" that the landing was a hoax. Bona fide skepticism doesn't seem to be your forte.

[jberryhill]

49. He's tickling my funnybone with his fabulous lack of knowledge, though

You can start responding to my observations below on the factual meat of his essay anytime you like, spooked.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. yes, a lot of unintended humor

For instance, I can't quite tell whether McGowan has convinced himself that the Apollo craft offered no protection whatsoever against radiation because they weren't clad in four feet of lead, or whether he consciously intends to confuse people, but it's quite the giddy ramble either way. (I do understand Ohio Joe's annoyance: if you're expecting a coherent argument, and if you read slowly to try to figure out what it is, oy!)

This reminds me of several of the clever-stupid things I've read about how the 2004 election obviously was stolen. The first chapter of Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again takes basically the same rhetorical tack: Miller works at length to convey his subjective certainty that there is no way Bush could have won, and therefore, he didn't. All the reasons why many observers actually expected Bush to win go unmentioned, while trivia like the number of newspaper endorsements that Kerry won are trotted out as if Everybody Knows that as the Middletown Daily Tribune goes, so goes the nation. One might churlishly complain that the evidence is cherry-picked -- but, hey, cherries are really, really yummy.

ETA: But talking about "the evidence" is somewhat beside the point. Miller's real "evidence" is that hey, he believes it, and he is obviously a smart guy, so why wouldn't you? Same with McGowan. Some people are just defenseless against performances of competent confidence, at least when they are somewhat predisposed to believe what is being peddled.

[William Seger]

101. No, "improbability" is not a good reason to doubt

... such well documented facts as the Apollo missions. It is, however, good reason to doubt unsubstantiated claims -- such as claiming that NASA would even attempt such an elaborate hoax, much less get away with it. Conspiracists never seem to quite grasp the whole "evidence" thing and how rational people use it, though. Once you start believing that all that evidence must have been faked and start imagining that everything you just don't understand is the "real" evidence, you're pretty much living on a one-way dead-end street in Delusionville.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Keep digging, Spooked...

you're almost there!

[spooked911]

32. did you read them yet?

thanks

[SDuderstadt]

41. Yes, dude...

Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there!

[apocalypsehow]

29. I wasted about 45 minutes plowing through that bilge. The author seems to think third-rate sarcasm

is a substitute for actual hard evidence to back up his claims - a Seinfeld wannabe.

In lieu of said evidence, he obsesses long & hard about the "debunkers" rather than just laying out the evidence for his case. He posts lots of pretty charts and pictures and basically captions them in his writing with turgid rhetorical questions - standard operating procedure for CT'ers with little actual proof but the seemingly bottomless capacity to TYPE AND TYPE AND TYPE AND TYPE AND TYPE AND TYPE AND TYPE....

The eyes start to glaze over as one has to wind themselves back eighteen paragraphs to pick up the thread of a "point," the case for which is never quite made despite the logorrhea.

And, of course, just about every speck of it has all been debunked thoroughly before.

:boring:

[spooked911]

33. there was in fact plenty of proof in there

the sarcasm merely makes the material more entertaining.



But if you truly believe the official Apollo story, I suspect nothing will get you to change your mind.

[jberryhill]

47. How about if you respond to the factual observation series I'm posting, eh spooked?

...and so far I'm not done with the first page, and it is riddled with moronity.

[apocalypsehow]

50. There was in fact scarcely a speck of verifiable, documented "proof" in that vast vat of silliness.

But why don't you take jberryhill up on his offer and reply to his points? He's doing quite a good of job meticulously shredding McGowan's "thesis" - if something so error-laden & moronic can be said to constitute a "thesis" - to shreds & tatters.

:shrug:

[spooked911]

88. he's not shredding anything

in terms of proof, NASA's has pretty much debunked the moon landings themselves

[apocalypsehow]

100. Oh yes he is. Simply stating something because you wish it was so does not make it true.

"in terms of proof, NASA's has pretty much debunked the moon landings themselves"

No, they haven't. I'm not even going to bother to ask you for a link or links backing up this assertion, because such a creature does not exist. You're simply saying stuff that you wish you could somehow prove, and then pretending as if you had. This kind of behavior is more to be pitied than censored, alas.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. I have a problem with McGowan's information on the LEM's ascent engine.

He claims the engine was COMPLETELY UNTESTED.

"To keep the operation of the engine as simple as possible, so-called hypergolic propellants were used – which is to say, a fuel and an oxidizer that explode on contact. That simplicity though came at a price: “the fuels were extremely toxic.” What most concerned Grumman’s engineers was “that the fuel was so corrosive that at the end of a test, each engine had to be rebuilt. It meant the final assembly of an engine could never be tested!”

“Unbelievably,” explains Radcliffe, “the first time these engines would ever have been fired, ever – no check-out at the factory – the first time would be when they were fired on their mission.” As Dunne noted, “I don’t think that anyone could, at that time, tell you 100% that it was gonna work.”

Seeing as how the engines were completely untested – both in terms of being able to operate within the environment of the Moon and in terms of the individual engines being factory tested to see if they worked at all – Dunne’s evaluation would seem to be a bit of an understatement. Luckily though, none of the landers actually made it to the Moon, so whether the engines worked or not is a bit of a moot point."

The information in the previous three paragraphs is simply not true. Your turn to read...

"During the spring of 1963, Grumman hired Bell to develop the ascent engine, basing the selection on Bell's experience in Air Force Agena development and hoping that the technology from that program might be applicable to the lunar module. Grumman placed heavy emphasis upon high reliability through simplicity of design, and, in fact, the ascent engine did emerge as the least complicated of the three main engines in the Apollo space vehicle (the descent and service module engines were the other two).* Embodying a pressure-fed fuel system using hypergolic (self-igniting) propellants, the ascent engine was fixed-thrust and nongimbaled, capable of lifting the ascent stage off the moon or aborting a mission should a landing not be feasible.

There was one major concern about the ascent engine, and that was the usual worry about the ablation material burning off too fast and causing damage to the thrust chamber. Some ablative material eroded during firing tests at Bell's plant near Niagara Falls and at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee. But this erosion was not severe enough to warrant changes in the combustion chambers. In late 1964, Arnold was also the site of a fire-in-the-hole (FITH static firing test on a full-scale vehicle to supplement Grumman's previous scale-model test. The FITH flight test had to wait for later trials at White Sands.

Not everything went well with ascent engine development, however. About a year after the program began, the subsystem manager in Houston discovered that Grumman and Bell were using testing criteria left over from the Air Force Agena program. Since the Agena was unmanned, these were less stringent than NASA demanded for manned spacecraft. More rigorous standards were belatedly imposed by Houston, and a problem was revealed. In "bomb stability" tests, where the engine had to recover from combustion instability caused by an explosive charge within the combustion chamber, the ascent engine "went unstable" (failed to return to normal operation), and structural damage followed. This problem would have to be resolved before the engine could be trusted to bring a crew back from the lunar surface."
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/ch6-5.html
- - - - - - - -

Judging from some of the bullshit claims I've seen you post here, and claiming that one single "anomaly" renders most things false, I'm going to say that by your standards, McGowan's treatise is completely false.

Your thoughts?

[spooked911]

34. you seem to have missed McGowan's point

he's not saying that they never tested the engine, but that they never tested the actual engine they used on the lander because the tests were so corrosive-- which is supported by your source as well.

As far as anomalies, your logic is wrong. To prove the official story is wrong, we only need to show one thing is wrong. However, if we make 20 points, and 19 are wrong and 1 is right, but that one correct point shows the official story is wrong, than the official story is still wrong.

Of course, you are free to think what you want. But so far I'm not impressed with your points.

[jberryhill]

48. Yah, the explosive bolts on the launch stages weren't "tested" either...

If your definition of "tested" involves the actual use of a one-time-use part, the use of which is itself destructive of the part.

The art of engineering is that which enables me to know that if I put gas in a car randomly picked from the end of a production line, and turn the ignition key, there is a very high probability that the car will start and run.

The airbag in my steering wheel has never been "tested" by your definition. Do you think it will work within a stated statistical likelihood?

McGowan is correct to the extent that it is not know whether any assembly will work with a 100% likelihood. That's not what engineering is about, however. What an engineer can tell you is the likelihood that it will work, and it is up to the end user to specify how many 9's are a comfortable margin.

That's what engineers DO.

[spooked911]

60. so what?

his point is still correct.

[AZCat]

68. So what?

Did you even read jberryhill's post? Your curt dismissal indicates otherwise.

[spooked911]

84. I read it and understand the point

jberryhill's point is fine, but so is McGowan's.

[jberryhill]

109. But McGowan's Point, Properly Understood, Is Irrelevant To His Thesis

McGowan can say that grass is green, and be correct, but it is not probative of any hypothesis about the Apollo missions.

[spooked911]

113. you're the one who brought it up as some sort of evidence that he was wrong

not me

[OnTheOtherHand]

121. yes, it is evidence that he is wrong

When someone makes irrelevant arguments, that is a problem. Maybe a reasoning problem, maybe an integrity problem.

[spooked911]

130. First, I wouldn't say it was "irrelevant"-- whether the actual engine was tested or not is important

Particularly for such a critical issue as that the engine absolutely had to work perfectly or those guys were doomed.

Second, his essays were obviously done freestyle and not written in a strict argumentative, scientific manner. That doesn't make his points less valid, but clearly he didn't lay out his arguments as you would have liked.

His style made the essays fun for me to read, but unfortunately had the effect of giving people like you lots of side issues to poke at instead of getting to the real meaty evidence.

[AZCat]

138. It's just an engineering issue.

As jberryhill pointed out, this is not unusual in engineering. Yes, it was important for the engine to work, which is why they ran tests on other engines to get an idea of the reliability of the design. "Burn-in" isn't always feasible, and just because a layperson doesn't understand that doesn't make his argument from incredulity valid.

[spooked911]

154. Fine

but again, this was not a key premise against the landings. Merely, this fell into the category of questioning how well had everything been designed and tested, etc.

[jberryhill]

172. Do you think the airbag in your car will deploy or not? /nt

[spooked911]

179. probably, yes

I understand your point. I think the only issue here is that there was no backup here and if the engine failed in some way, those guys were doomed. The airbag deploying is important but not necessarily critical to survival in a crash (depending on the crash, of course)

[AZCat]

185. Again, this is just an engineering issue.

Reliability is a fairly common concept in engineering. I didn't take any classes directly focusing on reliability, but several of my friends did. For an example of a similar situation and a brief analysis, see here.

[AZCat]

188. More info on reliability.

The local university (University of Arizona) has a Master's Degree program in reliability. I'm sure there are other programs, but this is the only one I'm aware of (because I have friends who took some of the courses).

[jberryhill]

189. "there was no backup here and if the engine failed in some way, those guys were doomed"

Yep, that's right.

That's why this thing exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Mirror_Memorial

And, yes, your airbag can mean the difference between life and death in an accident.

[AZCat]

38. Worth a read? Not really.

Just another wall of text from a layperson who expects his arguments from incredulity to have merit.

[jberryhill]

42. Observation 1 - Misleading Quote

It is interesting how your hero starts right off at the top with an intentionally misleading quote. I can see why you like him.

The piece starts with a passage from Von Braun beginning:

"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."

Von Braun is, of course, absolutely correct, even today. It would be thoroughly impractical to travel directly from the earth to the moon. That's why the Apollo craft did NOT fly "directly from the earth to the moon" - or directly back from the moon, for that matter.



But McGowan and his gullible readers are either too dumb or too dishonest to grasp what Von Braun is saying in that passage.

Hence, leading the essay with that passage is an act of dishonesty. The idea is to set a context suggesting that the Von Braun quote is some sort of "admission", when in fact it is merely a correct observation which led to the solution of breaking out of orbital acceleration to "slingshot" the craft toward their respective targets.

It is, as even the particularly dense can observe, why a baseball pitcher doesn't simply push the ball at home plate, but instead starts with his arm behind him and swings his arm in an arc before releasing it.

Use of this headquote as an introduction for this purpose strongly indicates that McGowan doesn't have the slightest inkling of what he is talking about or, for that matter, what Von Braun is talking about in the quoted passage.

[spooked911]

61. fine

except I didn't see where McGowan made that quote the basis for his whole argument-- or even where he said it disproved the missions

[jberryhill]

74. Then what is it doing there?

[spooked911]

85. it's an interesting quote

but are you really saying that McGowan makes it a key part of his case?

[jberryhill]

110. Jabberwocky Is An Interesting Quote, Too

But, oddly, McGowan doesn't quote that.

Instead, he uses a heading quote to set up a straw man about fuel consumption during spaceflight - which requires no fuel after initial thrust and orbital dynamics.

[spooked911]

115. but he didn't argue that the Saturn rockets didn't have enough fuel to get to the moon

I believe his only point on this, which came later, was that if most of the fuel required to go to the moon is spend getting out of earth's orbit, then why can't the shuttle do a quick flyby of the moon, fuel-wise.

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. at least two problems arise here

One is that if that is his only point, then -- as jberryhill pointed out to begin with -- it's very hard to understand why McGowan opened with the Werner von Braun quotation.

A second is that this "point" isn't really a point. It looks like a rhetorical question, but a really incoherent one. Is it intended to suggest that most of the fuel required to go to the moon isn't spent getting out of orbit? Is it meant to suggest that if it were possible to go to the moon, the space shuttle would have gone there?

[spooked911]

127. maybe he just thought it was an amusing quote

you know, I'm not sure why you guys are so hung up on this quote. he wasn't writing a scientific treatise obviously, and maybe just put it in there for fun.

"Is it intended to suggest that most of the fuel required to go to the moon isn't spent getting out of orbit?"

No, I don't think that was his point.

"Is it meant to suggest that if it were possible to go to the moon, the space shuttle would have gone there?"

Hmmm, not sure what you mean by "if it were possible to go to the moon".

I thought his logic was pretty clear.

[terrafirma]

128. Reading through these forums...

... it seems as though you rely heavily on photographic evidence when it comes to your various theories on 9/11 Spooked.

What video or photographic evidence do you have to support your belief that aliens have us quarantined?

[spooked911]

131. Welcome to DU!

Funny you should pick this as your first post, but whatev.

To answer your question: there aren't obvious pics or vids that show the quarantine. There are videos, like the top secret video that showed the missile being shot into space and an ET craft disabling it; there is a wild NASA vid of the space shuttle tether breaking that seems to show lots of ET craft.

But ultimately the quarantine idea rests of lots and lots of evidence best explained here:
http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

To a certain extent, of course, the bogus Apollo photos show that the moon landings were a hoax, which is part of the evidence for the quarantine.

[terrafirma]

135. Thanks for the welcome

I'd been reading through these boards (9/11 in particular), and this was a question I had and being that the topic was at the top of the list, I figured I'd post it.

My follow up question would be, as you and other folks (labeled "no-planers") are quick to point out, many, if not all, of the videos from 9/11 were faked or staged somehow. Being that NASA is a government agency, how can you be certain that their videos that apparently show ET craft were not also altered as part of some elaborate psy-op? Or if NASA was trying to hide the fact that aliens have us surrounded, wouldn't that be a relatively easy fix for them to just blot out the craft??

[spooked911]

155. well, the easy answer is that officially there are no NASA videos that show ETs

the one with the missile was a military video, I believe.

The one with the space shuttle tether breaking didn't officially show ET craft-- and of course they had debunkers with alternative explanations.

Of course, the ET/UFO field is riddled with disinfo and there are undoubtedly UFO videos that are part of a psy-op from the powers that be.

The evidence for the quarantine does not rest on videos, though.

[OnTheOtherHand]

137. some of what McGowan has to say about his purpose:

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.

...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.

So I was under the impression that McGowan was trying to make the most persuasive case possible. Opening with a quotation that, you now speculate, he may have "put... in there for fun" seems like a notably odd decision, don't you think?

I thought his logic was pretty clear.

Yet you refuse to explain it. You simply paraphrase his question (along the lines of "why don't space shuttles go to the moon?"). Just any rhetorical(?) question does not constitute "logic."

[spooked911]

153. I "refuse to explain it"?

"Refuse"? Really? Did I say I wouldn't explain it?

What don't you understand here, exactly?

Also, McGowan clearly says he is making a "far better case"-- not "the most persuasive case possible".

[OnTheOtherHand]

163. I'll try to state this in small words

You think McGowan has a point. What is it?

Hint: your answer should be in the form of a point, not a question.

McGowan's case here might indeed be "far better" than whatever he wrote before, but that's an appalling thought. There's no evidence that McGowan has persuaded anyone. I doubt that he persuaded you.

[spooked911]

165. the point, again--

if most of the fuel required to go to the moon is spent getting out of earth's orbit, then why can't the shuttle do a quick trip around the moon, as it shouldn't take take much extra fuel-- you know, they sling shot around the moon. This was a major premise for the Apollo missions, fuel-wise, wasn't it?

And really, I posted the link to the articles because I enjoyed them and thought they made some good points. I am not sure why I am expected to defend every single point made in them.

Thinking about it some more, there are other points in favor of the landings being bogus, that he didn't touch on at all, things that I have discussed on my blog.

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. "Hint: your answer should be in the form of a point, not a question."

I can't force you to read my posts, but golly.

Very much against my better judgment, I will elaborate again. Is he (or are you) denying that most of the fuel required to go to the moon is spent leaving earth orbit? Is he (or are you) suggesting that the space shuttle should actually do a trip around the moon? Why is it that when you are asked to present a point, you ask a question instead?

No one expects you to defend every point McGowan makes. The trouble is that (1) we're having trouble finding points, and (2) the points we do find, seem to be bogus. This has been explained to you.

[spooked911]

182. All right, sorry

here:

If you assume that most of the fuel required to go to the moon is spent getting out of earth's orbit, it seems like the shuttle could then go to the moon, orbit around it, sling shot back, as it shouldn't take take much extra fuel for that trip.

"Is he (or are you) denying that most of the fuel required to go to the moon is spent leaving earth orbit?"

No.


"Is he (or are you) suggesting that the space shuttle should actually do a trip around the moon?"

Yes, essentially.


"Why is it that when you are asked to present a point, you ask a question instead?"

My point was phrased as a rhetorical question. I apologize for the inconvenience.

[OnTheOtherHand]

183. OK, you can probably anticipate my follow-up:

why should the space shuttle do a trip around the moon? Just for the sake of rebutting your hypothesis that extraterrestrials are trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening?

Now, I did a crazy thing just now: I Googled <"space shuttle" moon">, and found an article called "Why We Won't Fly a Space Shuttle to the Moon." The "We" here isn't the United States, and I haven't vetted the specifics. But it seems to me that if you are interested in this question, you might manifest that interest to at least the extent that I did.

(I'm manifesting one of my familiar pet peeves: as curious as I am, I'm tired of being more interested in people's questions than they seem to be themselves.)

[spooked911]

207. why should the space shuttle do a trip around the moon?

It seems like people on this planet are still interested in going to the moon, that's why. And the shuttle is a proven spacecraft.

This article, I assume is the one you found:
http://www.asi.org/adb/05/sts-to-the-moon.html

Indeed it talks about the shuttle going to the moon, but indicates that modifications would need to be made. It's unfortunately not written for the layman.

[OnTheOtherHand]

208. shrug

It's sort of odd that you post the link, but don't mention the title ("Why We Won't Fly a Space Shuttle to the Moon") or any of the content.

It's unfortunately not written for the layman.

LOL. Let's take a look: "...the fuel required to decelerate a 250,000-lb Orbiter is bodaciously more than what we need for that little LTV." Yeah, "bodaciously" is a term of art that would sail over a lot of laymen's heads. :)

I don't know what to say. Your 'point' about the space shuttle isn't going anywhere, and you seem uninterested in thinking about why it isn't going anywhere. One could take a look at the design of and debate over the Constellation program, but the problem is that you have a prior commitment to believing that the United States cannot actually have a manned moon program, so we can't really expect you to pay much attention to the details. And you're presumably convinced that we're the ones whose minds are closed. So, stalemate.

[spooked911]

216. I never really had a major point about the space shuttle

It was definitely a side issue.

About the article-- it clearly used many terms that were for insiders, that was what I meant by not being for a layperson.

It's funny you bring up the Constellation program and my supposed bias.

I would say that the demise of the Constellation program helps proves my whole point.

[OnTheOtherHand]

218. well, of course you would

Never mind that the Constellation program isn't even dead yet. In your belief system, I suppose, Obama's stated rationale for zeroing it out in his budget is manifestly silly, and some sort of briefing about the quarantine (or would it be a direct communication from the keepers?) is a more likely rationale. Although I don't quite understand, then, why W. went ahead with Constellation, or why Obama would bother to cut it. Basically it seems that almost anything that happened would tend to confirm your prior. If there were a manned moon landing, you would still doubt the photos.

It's fine to say that this, that, and the other are side issues. The thing is, you characterized McGowan's pieces as "great stuff," and they really aren't. Almost at random I came across a passage (in #9, maybe?) where he is mocking the assertion that the Apollo 13 astronauts were low on water and food. Why, he asks, would they be low on water and food? So, on a hunch, I Googled the same passage he quoted, and found an explanation of why the Apollo 13 astronauts would be low on water and food. I can't directly confirm that the explanation is correct, but I can say that it's either remarkably lazy or remarkably dishonest of him (maybe both) to pose the question without taking another 30 seconds to look for an answer. Not great stuff, unless it's intended as satire.

[spooked911]

222. so what is the explanation for them being low on food and water?

please tell.

[OnTheOtherHand]

225. a revealing request n/t

[AZCat]

228. Perhaps you need to make use of the following tool:

www.lmgtfy.com

[OnTheOtherHand]

239. wow... that just revolutionized my experience of the net! n/t

[sgsmith]

234. Water is made on spacecraft

Water wasn't carried onboard the Apollo spacecraft, but was made as a by-product of the fuel cells. And the fuel cells require oxygen and hydrogen, which is stored in high pressure tanks. And it was one of those tanks which exploded, causing the problem.

They probably had enough food, but since it was dehydrated and required water for rehydration, the food probably wasn't edible.

[spooked911]

250. ok, thanks

i guess that makes sense

[spooked911]

223. as far as the articles being "great"

I enjoyed them, but I can see how someone who isn't predisposed to thinking the landings were a hoax would not enjoy them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

240. at the risk of seeming polemical, are you suggesting

...that the appropriate criterion for evaluating arguments about past events is their entertainment value?

So, if you read a particularly engrossing Harry Turtledove alternative history, you'd post it as if it were a contribution to empirical research?

Or only if you thought you had reason to believe that the alternative history actually was correct -- that, say, the South during the Civil War really did have access to machine guns from South Africa in the future?

[spooked911]

251. Not exactly

more like they are funnier if you agree with the POV.... such as how liberal jokes about conservatives amuse liberals but fail to amuse conservatives.

[OnTheOtherHand]

253. fair enough, that is quite true, as far as it goes

My trouble with it with respect to McGowan is that it makes it harder to tell what the actual argument is. It appears to be an argument from incredulity ("obviously that didn't happen"), but with some plausible deniability ("hey, I didn't say it was impossible, I was just being kind of, y'know, humorous about it").

I think it's almost certain that McGowan spent more time writing his snarky question about food and water on Apollo 13 than it would have taken him to find an answer. Then, even if he wanted to argue that the answer was wrong, at least he would be engaging the subject.

Although in general I agree with your comment, I think some of McGowan might be funnier (or differently funny) to those of us who think he's pretty much in the Delta Quadrant.

[spooked911]

224. the truly hilarious thing about the Constellation program was the timeframe they set for going "back

I mean, come on. And the fact that they acted like they needed to reinvent everything to go back to the moon. It's manifestly absurd, given the huge leaps in technology in the past 40 years.

[zappaman]

242. Spooked, you are right

That is FAR more absurd than the idea of an alien race quarantining Earth!

[jberryhill]

246. A question for you

Color televisions are no longer made in the United States.

Color televisions were made in the United States 40 years ago.

If you were going to build a factory to make color televisions, how much of your technology would resemble what was used 40 years ago?

And, would you actually build color televisions that resembled those made 40 years ago?

[zappaman]

123. Where's the worry?

Spooked, shouldn't you be worried that the aliens that have Earth quarantined, know you are on to them?
I know I would be.
And do you know which alien race it is?
Klingons or Predators?

[jberryhill]

43. Observation 2 - Why McGowan Lied

As noted in Observation 1, McGowan starts with a false proposition, i.e. that the Apollo missions flew "directly" from the earth to the moon.

The first 2/3 of his essay is a plausibility argument for the missions being a hoax, and is devoid of any factual assertions. Finally, he gets to the first major factual premise:

"To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life."

Well, I can see why he started with the Von Braun quote about the impracticality of flying directly from the earth to the moon.

McGowan is absolutely correct - the Apollo main thrusters, engines, and fuel are incapable of propelling a craft from the earth to the moon, and are only sufficient to reach an orbital profile. This is, of course, exactly what the Apollo propulsion system was designed to do - and did. In order to obtain a trajectory to the moon, the craft was first shot into an orbital profile, and then only needed to be nudged out of that profile. Here's a bigger picture:



(note the translunar injection burn)

Now, after spending all of that time asking me to "think independently", my independent thought process leads me to believe that McGowan doesn't have the foggiest idea how the flight worked, or what the rockets were designed to do. Instead, he says the shuttle - which isn't designed to go anywhere except into orbit - doesn't go as far away as the Apollo missions. It's not at all clear where he wants the shuttle to go, or what useful purpose would be served by going to the undefined "farther" point in space he wants it to go.

So, instead, he bases his premise on the strawman that the Apollo engines and fuel were insufficient for a directly flight to the moon. Well, of course, they were insufficient for that purpose, which is why the Apollo missions did not involve a direct transit from the earth to the moon but used an initial orbital profile to slingshot into a translunar trajectory.

[spooked911]

62. Reply

"So, instead, he bases his premise on the strawman that the Apollo engines and fuel were insufficient for a directly flight to the moon"

No, he didn't. Or certainly, this was NOT a major premise for his essays.

In any case, an Apollo debunker had written that something like 90% of fuel is spent breaking out of earth's gravity. So McGowan wonders why the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon too, since the shuttle rockets break it out of earth's pull.

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. huh?

First of all, if you're going to respond to every rebuttal of McGowan by saying that it doesn't address a "major premise," maybe you can help us out by stating what you perceive to be the major premises. Otherwise, we're just chasing the goalposts.

In any case, an Apollo debunker had written that something like 90% of fuel is spent breaking out of earth's gravity. So McGowan wonders why the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon too, since the shuttle rockets break it out of earth's pull.

For one thing, the space shuttle doesn't have a lunar module. But surely that wasn't your point. Do you have a point? For instance, are you suggesting that the "Apollo debunker" must be wrong because if he were right, space shuttles would go to the moon?

If you concede that the Apollo debunker is correct, or even approximately correct, then I think you have to concede that McGowan's analogy based on miles traveled is wildly misleading. If not, why not? Or does it just not matter whether McGowan writes wildly misleading things?

[William Seger]

67. LOL, there ISN'T any "major premise for his essays"

He uses the David Ray Griffin "cumulative argument" approach. :eyes:

If "McGowan wonders why the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon too," why wouldn't he first ask someone who would know before using his own ignorance and imaginary physics as a reason for his readers to doubt that Apollo could? Gee, could it be that just like most "truthers," he's not really interested in any answers? Why does he include so many things in his "argument" pile that HAVE been explained -- by people who know what they're talking about -- and just fart in their general direction?

McGowan says he doesn't care about being called crazy. Hopefully, he's just as insensitive to being called ignorant and stupid.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. "con-silly-ence"? n/t

[William Seger]

104. LOL (n/t)

[jberryhill]

75. McGowan wonders why the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon

Because it is not supposed to go to the moon.

If you can get something into the right orbit, you can easily nudge it out and slingshot it out of orbit. Newton's laws of motion take care of the rest. That's how the deep space and planetary probes get where they are going with NO FUEL AT ALL.

If you did that with the shuttle, you'd have a bunch of seriously pissed off folks, including the ones aboard. The trick with the shuttle is getting it BACK instead of having it bounce off the atmosphere into space. If they don't have the attitude right on re-entry, they'll go a lot further away than the moon.

The entire point he is making about fuel is sheer idiocy. A 1939 Ford will go a million miles with no fuel, once given a push in space.

[jberryhill]

77. "this was NOT a major premise"

Oh... I see.

Please list the major premises before asking people to comment on this horseshit.

[spooked911]

87. here's four

1) no country has even tried to go there with men in the past 40 years despite sending unmanned probes and vastly improved technology
2) NASA had a crappy record before the wildly successful moon missions
3) the lunar module was ridiculous in every aspect
4) there are multiple problems with the photos from the moon

[LARED]

94. Your kidding, right?

1) So what? This is evidence of nothing. Is there a reason anyone should go to the moon?

2) So let me see if I understand. Some failures, leading up to improved performance, is an indication of a hoax. If that makes any sense Thomas Edison never existed.

3) I have to admit I did not make it all the way to McGowan's dribble about the lunar module or photos. It's hard to imagine anyone with a fully functional intellect subjecting themselves to his nonsense without a really good reason. Anyway if the previous long winded, snarky, bloviations is in any way an indication of the sensibility of his analysis, it is reason enough to discount 3 and 4 as having no merit.

[spooked911]

116. someone asked for some of his major premises

and I responded. He has many more, this was a quick list.

In terms of your rebuttal-- well I didn't expect much from you-- but it is severely lacking in any convincing points.

Yes, there is obviously still reason to go to the moon.

etc.

[LARED]

120. Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of a long winded and

detailed rebuttal to McGowens nonsense. It's just not worth the effort.

Anyone that believes this.....

Govt's don't want people to know that ET's have a quarantine around the earth and are preventing humans from leaving earth. That's why we never went to the moon and no one else has tried.

.... will not be persuaded by anything sensible or based in reality anyway so other than posting for the amusement, I'm just enjoying the spectacle of you getting your butt handed to you from multiple fronts.

[spooked911]

124. ah, here we go

you pretend not to understand and mock me instead. SOP.

[OnTheOtherHand]

125. :facepalm: n/t

[LARED]

126. I'm not pretending

What is it I don't understand?

[spooked911]

132. you mean

what don't you pretend to understand?

[OnTheOtherHand]

139. could you at least go through the motions of discussion, spooked?

Between your annoyance that people ask you to explain yourself, and your annoyance that people don't ask you to explain yourself (#133), it's all a bit much.

[spooked911]

156. well, it was in fact LARED who decided not to discuss the issues

I don't mind if people want explanations! I just don't like people saying I "refuse" to answer something or that I am avoiding something when I have time constraints. I generally go out of my way to answer things, time permitting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

177. I've asked repeatedly; you haven't answered

You're welcome to parse about whether you're "refusing" or just blowing me off or whatever. Or maybe you really don't understand the difference between a question and a point. I doubt it has to do with time constraints, since you've repeatedly posted non-responsive responses.

Considering that back in post #65 you alluded darkly to truths that people probably aren't ready for, I'm mystified that you think LARED is just pretending not to understand. Didn't you predict that we wouldn't understand?

[spooked911]

180. what haven't I answered from you?

Honestly, I am dealing with so many people here it is hard to keep track.

And no, I didn't predict that you wouldn't understand about the quarantine, I predicted that you would mock the idea without even trying to ask for my evidence.

[OnTheOtherHand]

184. now you have answered

Yes, I understand that it is hard to keep track of all parts of a thread.

And no, I didn't predict that you wouldn't understand about the quarantine, I predicted that you would mock the idea without even trying to ask for my evidence.

Personally, I've mostly tried to ignore the idea. This thread is enough of a mess as it is, methinks.

If you think your distinction here is salient, I think you're spending too much time talking to yourself. It was pretty darn predictable that an unsupported assertion along those lines would be greeted with a "WTF?" -- call it incomprehension, mockery, or anything else. You chose to present the assertion without support, so for practical purposes, you chose the response you would get. If you see what I mean. But that's just my POV; I'm actually not that interested in talking about quarantines.

[LARED]

141. Spooked, I asked you to explain what I

pretend not to understand after you accused me of pretending to not understand. I clearly stated I was not pretending.

So why not answer the question?

[spooked911]

157. obviously you pretend to not understand what I was saying about the quarantine

and ridicule it instead.

I was clarifying the question back there.

[jberryhill]

186. "NASA had a crappy record before the wildly successful moon missions"

You are kidding, right?

Look, quit watching The Right Stuff on Netflix, and take a look at the Mercury and Gemini programs. The Mercury program was quite successful at accomplishing the first step of manned orbital flight, required for the first step. The Gemini program was quite successful at working out docking and undocking maneuvers required for lunar landing and recovery. The earlier Apollo missions, up to the landing, worked out the problem of translunar injection, lunar orbit and return.

The pre-Apollo programs were a smashing success, and the Apollo program built upon know-how obtained during them.

WTF "crappy record" are you talking about?

[jberryhill]

45. Observation 3 - Another False Comparison

I like this one:

"Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that shit back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!"

McGowan seems to believe that the problem of transmitting a VHF signal in a straight interrupted line from point to point is comparable to gettting it from one place to another when there is a planet in the way.

Of course, in order to get live footage from the moon to the facing side of the earth is simpler than getting it from one side of the earth to the other. But since McGowan doesn't understand that basic fact, it's mysterious to him.

Equally mysterious to him is the notion that not only could NASA receive the signal, but so could anyone else - and they did. Hence, whatever dust he wants to kick up from how an underfunded government agency manages non-archival quality video recordings, NASA is certainly not the only party with "original recordings" of signals from earth to moon. To maintain contact with the Apollo astronauts in view of the fact that the earth rotates, the cooperation of several other countries was required for the operation of receiving stations around the planet, since mission control in Houston was only receiving a direct signal some of the time. McGowan is completely oblivious to that obvious fact, and somehow believes that Houston was receiving a direct signal at all times in the first place.

It wasn't.

The primary downlink being used at the time of the first moonwalk was in fact in Australia, not the US, and was operated by Australians:

http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr1999/MoonLanding.htm

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2ou.html

"Long-time Parkes resident David Cooke was the senior receiver engineer at the telescope during the time of the Apollo 11 landing in July 1969."

And this is typical of why one feels insulted by McGowan's invitation to "think for yourself" about these events, since McGowan doesn't seem to have even basic aspects of these events nailed down. By the time the signal made it to Houston, it had been re-transmitted several times in order to get it there from Australia, but - a-ha! - Houston doesn't have an "original" tape of this multiply re-transmitted signal. The thing is, the feed to the BBC was more direct than the feed to Houston. It was a radio signal coming in from space that anyone with a big enough antenna could pick up at the proper time of day when they were facing the moon, and it was indeed picked up at several receiver stations at any given time - there is no signal that is any more "original" than any other.

It would be like you and I tuning our radios to a particular station and then argue about which of us is getting the "original" signal. We both are. And at that time, and even presently, NASA missions include transmission components that are intended for and received by amateur radio equipment operators. But McGowan doesn't want you to understand that with his fixation on the "one true signal" which inexplicably could only have been received at mission control in Houston.

Looping back to the overall theme, McGowan poo-poos the common objection that a lot of people need to be "in on it" in order to pull this off as a hoax, but he conveniently airbrushes out the fact that a fair degree of international cooperation was needed merely to receive the signal, and apparently the Australian radio engineers decided for no particular reason to play along with the hoax to this day.

[jberryhill]

46. And a bonus observation for Spooked

Remarkably, while anyone with a big enough antenna and receiver could - and did - receive and localize signals being sent from the moon, which is why ordinary Australians in their living rooms were actually watching the first moonwalk 300 milliseconds ahead of mission control in Houston, you can bet some others were certainly watching as well.

The Russians and Chinese, both with their own quite capable rocket scientists and other engineers, seem to have believed this hoax as well, even though they had the independent ability to obtain, capture, and record live signals being broadcast from the moon.

Oddly, at no point do we have the Russians or Chinese calling shenanigans on this whole thing.

Were their scientists in on it too, Spooked?

Or was the Russian Luna 15 mission also a hoax?

Wait, wait, don't tell me. Two nations which were facing off in a game of nuclear chess to maintain mutually assured destruction, were secretly cooperating to get gobs of money from the NASA program which was instead diverted to secret weapons programs.

So, I have to ask - weapons to fight whom?

[spooked911]

65. the answer to this involves some deeper truths that probably you aren't ready for

but let me ask you-- why haven't the Russians or Chinese sent their own manned mission to the moon?

[William Seger]

71. Robert L. Park's observation about the space station

Not all scientists see any scientific value to manned space programs. Now that we can build all sorts of robots and data acquisition devices, we can do a lot more science for less money, and don't have to worry about killing anyone to do it. As Park says, "Putting astronauts on space stations is like putting little human tellers inside ATM machines."

[spooked911]

89. but amazingly, we did this INCREDIBLY RISKY thing with 60's technology SIX TIMES!

Apparently all our technological advancements are for naught.

And please-- there's GOT to be plenty of people willing to take the risk for the chance to go to the moon. *I* would.

[sgsmith]

93. Counting is a good thing - leads to facts.

The US Apollo program went to the moon nine times. Working backwards -
Apollo 17 (landed)(1), 16 (landed)(2), 15 (landed) (3), 14 (landed)(4), 13 (did not land, but circled the moon) (5), 12 (landed) (6), 11 (landed) (7), 10 (orbited, but did not land) (8), 8 (orbited, but did not land) (9). Apollo 9 was a Earth orbiting flight, which was used to test the LEM.

The fact that the technology was leading edge for the time seems to escape you. And any decision on human space exploration seems to become a political issue more than anything else. Apollo ended because people didn't want to spend money "in" space. Of course, any money was actually spent on Earth, and enabled employees of NASA and it's contractors to put food on the table and a roof over their head.

[William Seger]

96. Yes, it was amazing

... but you're forgetting the couple of times that it didn't work out so well: Apollo 1 and 13. Damn right it was incredibly risky.

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. did you see what McGowan had to say about Apollo 1?

But they were troublemakers anyway who probably wouldn’t have wanted to go along with the Moon landing fable.

(Part III)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. At moments like this, I think the whole thing must be very dark satire. Argumentum ad snark. Whatever.

[William Seger]

102. Good grief; no, I didn't get that far

Some of his drivel is amusingly idiotic, but that's just disgusting.

[spooked911]

117. certainly that is a commonly held view

that they were "troublemakers".

[hack89]

151. Commonly held by who? nt

[zappaman]

152. Commonly held by people

who think Earth has been quarantined by an alien race.

[apocalypsehow]

72. Non-responsive. You were asked several direct, unambiguous questions which you are unable/unwilling

to answer. You then go on to ask a question in lieu of your own answer, a diversionary question that is irrelevant to the topic at hand and the asking of which is done for the sole reason, apparently, of wanting to change the subject.

And you wonder why just about no one - not even a few other "Truthers" from what I've seen - takes the content of your OP's/Replies all that seriously. You shouldn't.

[spooked911]

90. I've answered plenty of questions and generally always answer questions.

I don't need a fucking lecture from you.

The answer to this one is more complicated and I wasn't willing to write it all out.

[apocalypsehow]

99. And you wonder why your credibility pegs the 'ole Zilch meter. Let's try this slow:

1. You posted an OP.

2. You were asked legitimate questions pertaining to the veracity/credibility of that OP.

3. You have not only refused to answer those questions, you have complained about being asked them in the first place and further offered laughable excuses at to why you will not answer them ("I wasn't willing to write it all out" :eyes:)

The intellectually honest and honorable thing to do at this point - since you refuse to tend to your own OP and/or answer legitimate questions concerning it - would be to ask the Mods to lock your OP. If you ever do decide that you're willing to participate in your own OP's in the future regarding this topic, you could always repost a new OP with the same content.

As I said, that would be the intellectually honest and honorable thing to do for a person in your current position vis-a-vis your OP: how about it? :shrug:

[spooked911]

112. how many thousands of posts on DU have gone the same way as this one?

I post something I thought was interesting, people responded to it. I then respond as best I could given my personal time constraints. End of story.

Locking the OP because I didn't have time to respond in full (though actually I did now)?

You're insane.

[jberryhill]

78. Because there is little practical value in it

The scientific data obtained from the lunar missions is freely shared.

China didn't even have a manned space program until 1967.

But please, how about you answer my questions and tell me "what I'm not prepared for".

Share what you know - that's the point of a discussion, no?

[spooked911]

92. So much for US and Soviets and Chinese being adversaries, then, right?

If they share all the data, that is.

And it's been 43 years since 1967, and we've made huge leaps in technology since then.

But the bigger issue -- the answer to your question-- has to do with the secret that govt's don't want people to know about.

Govt's don't want people to know that ET's have a quarantine around the earth and are preventing humans from leaving earth. That's why we never went to the moon and no one else has tried.

[SDuderstadt]

95. "Govt's don't want people to know that ET's have a quarantine around the earth and are preventing..

humans from leaving earth".

Wow. Okay, Spooked. There's no easy way to say this, but you're too far out there to try to reason with.

P.S. I also don't believe you have a PhD in Biology or whatever. I do know where you can find people more sympathetic to your cause, though. Call into "Coast to Coast".

[LARED]

108. This can only mean one of two things

1. Spooked is engaged in an Internet experiment to see how much nonsense people will respond to, or
2. Spooked is much further in the deep end of the imaginary pool than I suspected.

[jberryhill]

173. I found a clue on his blog....

"Finally I wish to relate some more details of my massive, mercury poisoning."

Among his meanderings, I'm inclined to believe he may have suffered mercury poisoning.

[AZCat]

174. I've read something of this before.

If I remember correctly, he claims to have been the victim of a lengthy (as in years) conspiracy to poison him with mercury.

[OnTheOtherHand]

175. that refers to The Anonymous Physicist

Whatever the relationship between TAP and spooked might be, it's outside the scope of this board.

[LARED]

176. Humm, well there may be an explanation regarding

TAP's rantings, but how to explain Spooked's seemingly belief in utter nonsense is still a mystery.

[William Seger]

103. Wow, I suspect you're right....

... jberryhill probably wasn't ready for THAT!

[jberryhill]

106. Actually...

I can understand how thoughts of being confined and prevented from leaving may well be a common theme of his mental landscape.

[William Seger]

107. All in all...

... you're just another brick in the wall.

[zappaman]

111. Finally Spooked makes sense

You admit the truth. I posted earlier about how there is no moon. I just couldn't figure out why there was such an elaborate charade. But, I think you are on to something here. I think the aliens who are quarantining us have worked out a deal with the heads of government around the world. They have given them the technology to show us "the moon", when really no such thing exists. It keeps us calm and gives us hope that there is something else out there. If we really knew what was out there, there would be chaos in the streets!
Now, I'm no expert, so I won't claim to know where the aliens are from, but I can assure you that they are not benevolent. And I bet there is a "trip to Mars" soon. Of course, the technology today is so advanced, it will make the "moon landing" look even faker than it really is.
I still don't buy your "no planes" theory Spooked, but you've really outdone yourself here.
Good job!
Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there.

[sylvi]

219. "That's no moon...

...it's a space station."

[spooked911]

133. funny how no one bothers to ask why I would think such a thing

heaven forbid you try to understand a new concept

[LARED]

140. Spooked, I'm all ears regarding the

explanation of ET's controlling aspects of the government.

[spooked911]

158. it's complicated and I would ask you to read the articles here first

http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

[LARED]

168. There are about thirty of forty articles I could waste my time on

Please point me to the one that is material to ET's.

[spooked911]

181. try this one

http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/2008/12/ultimate-truths-part-xv-on-nature-of.html

[LARED]

190. Got this far and called it quits

I have cited the Quarantine many times here: anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com. The Quarantiners created the Quarantine to entrap Mankind’s Cosmic Criminal Creators (CCC) as I have called them. The Quarantiners either chased the alien race who created us here, or found them here. They saw what our CCCs were doing here which they likely have done elsewhere--creating, enslaving, and periodically exterminating billions of sentient beings. We are the latest. The two sets of aliens may have had a galactic war, with Earth being one of the last holdouts of our CCCs. The Quarantiners would love to wipe out our CCCs, but did not because of all the life here on Earth, including us sometimes, sentient beings. Despite countless escape attempts, some perhaps in ways we humans may not realize or comprehend, all such attempts have failed. Some of these attempts may have involved the great catastrophic events of the last 50,000 or more years.

I love a good science fiction novel, but not this one.

[jberryhill]

146. Oh, please go on...

By all means tell us about the ET's confining us to earth and its importance as an issue to the Democratic Party

[zappaman]

148. Tell us Spooked

Please start another thread and outline the whole "earth under quarantine by aliens" theory!
Please!!!!

[spooked911]

166. it's not really a new idea--- it's actually ancient

Michael Tsarion has written a lot about it recently, and Anonymous Physicist has embellished the idea with extra findings.

You can read about it here:
http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com

[sylvi]

220. "embellished"

Good term. Quite apt.

Tell me, is the Anonymous Physicist anything like the Unknown Comic?

[SDuderstadt]

221. The Anonymous Physicist gets more laughs than...

the Unknown Comic.

[spooked911]

159. it's an important issue to EVERYONE including the Dems

the truth is it explains much of the evil in the world, and why things are so fucked up.

http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

[SDuderstadt]

162. "the truth is it explains much of the evil in the world, and why things are so fucked up"

Spooked..thanks for answering my question:

There is NO conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it.

Keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there!

[spooked911]

63. very funny

you write that getting a signal from one part of earth to another part is actually the tricky part, and that's the part that we couldn't do in 1990 very well.

But then you go on to write that beaming the signal from one part of earth to another part is *exactly what we did in 1969*-- repeated retransmissions over and over, without any problem.

Funny.

Furthermore, only the primary receiving station would need to be in on it, depending on exactly how the transmissions were done, and there are clearly ways to ensure the right people are in the right place.

[jberryhill]

76. Pure BS

We could do live TV from anywhere to anywhere in 1990 quite well. I don't even understand that part of his criticism, really, unless he was making some references to mobile devices using limited bandwidth for remote reporting.

What is your basis for the assertion it couldn't be done in 1990 in the first place? That's one of the stupider things he says in that passage to begin with.

The point is that it is easier to receive a VHF signal from the moon than to get it from one side of the planet to the other. Both could be done quite nicely in the 1960's and the 1990's. The cost of doing so was enormous in 1960, because the transponders couldn't carry as much bandwidth. But you have no point here.

Telstar was launched in 1962, and by 1969, there were quite a few up and running.

"there are clearly ways to ensure the right people are in the right place"

Yes, and we know who exactly who they were, if you read the links. They were a bunch of engineers in Australia with a receiving antenna pointed at the moon.

And, you utterly neglect that there was no "primary receiving station" since anyone with the right equipment could - and did - get their own signal by the expedient of POINTING THEIR ANTENNA AT THE MOON.

You seem to think I believe there was an obstacle to live satellite TV transmissions in 1990. There wasn't. The first live satellite TV transmission was done using Telstar in 1962.

[spooked911]

129. Fair enough

to be perfectly honest, I don't know what he was referring to about the transmissions ca 1990.

Regardless of how easy it may have been to broadcast a signal from the moon, this is not a key point for why the missions were bogus.

[William Seger]

98. BS with a slice of baloney

Actually, three stations received the SSTV transmissions and people in all three watched the original videos live. Perth was just the strongest, so that's the one that got televised.

What I find, um, "interesting" about McGowan's version of the story is that he tries to cast doubt by subtly implying that NASA lost ALL of the Apollo mission video tapes. Actually, Apollo 11 was the last mission that used the low-bandwidth SSTV format that needed to be converted; subsequent Apollo missions used standard NTSC cameras, and those tapes with Lunar activity are still around. They're even better quality than the SSTV tapes that were lost -- 30 frames per second with 520 scan lines instead of 10 fps with 380 scan lines -- so if McGowan would like to imply that the missing Apollo 11 tapes would reveal the "obvious fraud," then the tapes from subsequent missions would reveal it even more clearly. Fuzzy thinking or deliberate deception?

[conscious evolution]

243. When I was a kid

one of my dads buddys did just that.
He rigged up a parabolic dish with a antennae tied to a short wave radio.We could lsiten to the transmissions as long as we had it pointed at the moon.
He did this for Apollo's 12 and 14.

[Ohio Joe]

53. Well.. I went about half way...

And the fucker had yet to actually get to presenting anything. If you feel like it, consolidate any actual evidence he might think he has and post it, then I'll look. I have no interest in wasting my time reading some douchebags ramblings.

[jberryhill]

54. That's the weird thing about spooked liking it

Spooked is usually big on factually rich stuff, but teasing factual assertions out of that thing is work.

I'm not done with it yet, but it is clear that Mcgowan doesn't understand Newtonian mechanics or radio propagation so far.

[spooked911]

64. actually I am working on a summary

I'll post it when I am done.

Though obviously you're a little biased, so I'm not sure there is any point for you.

[William Seger]

70. Then, please:

When you have completed your summary, please indicate a few that you consider most compelling so we can examine those before slogging any farther.

[Ohio Joe]

86. Biased?

Some douchebag wants to spout off a bunch of bullshit and try to tarnish the deeds of some very brave men, but of course first he has to drone on and on about how great he is for doing it... fuck him, he's an asshole. The least he could do is get to his fucking point and put his bullshit out.

Yeah, you could say I'm biased but at least I admit my bias. You are incorrect about there being no point for me though, I always see a point in pointing out an asshole.

[jberryhill]

147. Yes, biased

Why are you defending the extraterrestrials?

[jberryhill]

79. Observation 4

Ah, the shadows.

McGowan, like most moon hoaxers, has no idea why the chair is visible in this photograph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FS5LxiBrzpE/SlwKRUzLcMI/AAAAAAAAAmA/Mg_ow228Q9k/s400/beach+umbrella+350w.jpg

or why we can see a girl in this one:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_tzdSU8LbQ4k/R9fakel9V-I/AAAAAAAAAuQ/_7Hxv4y-v88/s400/Beach+Umbrella.jpg

I'm sorry, Spooked, but you are going to have to list what you think are "main premises" here, because this stuff is lame.

[apocalypsehow]

80. Both faked on a Hollywood sound stage, obviously...

I've never understood the Moon Hoaxer's take on the bit about the shadows, but it's a consistent theme.

[spooked911]

134. You're totally wrong there

he understands that, and explains this issue well.

"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. What that means is that anything that falls in the shadows will be in virtually complete darkness. It also means that all shadows will be cast in the same direction. And it means that the sky is always black, and, with no atmosphere filtering the view, that sky will be filled at all times with a dazzling display of stars unlike anything ever before seen by man."
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html

[AZCat]

136. Nope, he's incorrect.

Apparently he doesn't know anything about light or geometry, because not only is light not "reflected back in the same direction" (that only happens if surfaces have a normal that is parallel to the direction of incident light) but there are plenty of other things that scatter light other than the atmosphere, including the surface of the moon itself.

[spooked911]

161. you are right that he phrased it improperly

his general point is still correct.

[LARED]

142. Spooked, a physics question for you

if; 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

how is it possible we see the moon on earth.

[jberryhill]

144. Lol - good one

Of course, if spooked is right, there is no way that we can see a full moon, since light hitting most of the convex surface will no reflect toward earth.

Good question, and one I hope spooked tries to answer

[zappaman]

145. your question makes no sense

obviously, the aliens that have us under quarantine are messing with the lights and shadows.
Duh.

[LARED]

149. Personally, I'm hoping that

holograms (provided by ET's of course) is the answer.

If holograms could be used to fake planes impacting the WTC, then it is a small matter to project the phases of the moon to keep the Apollo hoax buried.

[zappaman]

150. yes, but

you are assuming there IS a moon...

[spooked911]

160. that's not any sort of contradiction

isn't the moon we see due to light reflected back from its surface?

[jberryhill]

164. Is the moon flat?

The moon is not a flat disk - it is approximately spherical.

If reflected light from the surface of the moon only travels in straight lines, and since we are not standing on the sun, why do we seek an entire hemisphere of it.

Not grasping the relevance of this question demonstrates that you are not at all going to understand why we can see things "in shadows" in the pictures on the moon, or on a beach for that matter.

[spooked911]

167. as I said above, McGowan didn't phrase that properly

yes, the reflected light will go in different directions.

But look at this pic:


I could see maybe some reflected light hitting the upper part of the astronauts body, but the shiny reflection on his boot and on the LEM leg coming from low angle reflection off lunar dust in that huge shadow? No way.

[jberryhill]

170. Yes, I've looked at that photo

And I don't see anything remarkable about it, spooked.

In fact, the specular reflection from the metallized mylar, versus the diffuse reflection from the suit, pretty much nails down that the illumination in the shadow region is scattered surface light. His boot is inches from a brilliantly lit grey particulate surface, and the higher you go - e.g. comparing his leg to his arm - the brighter it is.

Notice what light you are NOT seeing.

Your premise is that the astronaut is being illuminated from the side, yes?

Now, follow the rim of the lander pad around. Do you see how the back interior of the lander pad is NOT reflecting light from your hypothetical source of illumination? That's because the interior of the lander pad is shadowed from BOTH the direct light (because it is in the shadow of the LEM) AND from the indirect scattered surface light. If your hypothetical illumination source was there, then the interior of the lander pad would also be illuminated.

See what you want to see, spooked, but the picture itself demonstrates the astronaut is lit by scattered surface light. You don't see the counterclues, because you only see what you've been told to look for, and do not independently think about it.

Here's another clue for you - take a close look at his shoulder area.

[spooked911]

178. One premise is that there is a secondary light source

Another is that the gray dust there is not THAT reflective-- certainly not "brilliantly lit".

Another premise is that even if the dust were reflecting the sun from the right hand side, hardly any light would reflect at that low angle to hit the leg pad and the boot.

This photo is also revealing:


Note, under earth light conditions, how strong of an exposure they need to get the astronaut just partially lit! This is fairly damning to me.

from here:
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo9.html

[jberryhill]

187. "how strong of an exposure they need to get the astronaut just partially lit!"

Go out and stand in the desert in Arizona during the summer solstice.

The light on the moon is significantly brighter than that.

Yes, duplicating daylight in a studio requires a heck of a lot of light. Duplicating lighting conditions on the moon requires even more (which, if you think about it, reinforces the point here).

The illuminated surface of the moon is indeed brilliantly lit - it receives more light than the brightest place on earth.

The other thing that can't be duplicated in a studio is that the light is being scattered by that surface over a larger area than can be practically duplicated in a studio (i.e. scattered light all the way from the horizon is contributing to the horizontal component).

This is precisely why some people who do not use sunscreen, but stay under beach umbrellas all day, are surprised to get sunburned.

And, finally, are you REALLY going to compare a video frame with a film still?

[spooked911]

217. Thanks... but

it seems to me that if light was really scattered that much and the light so brilliant on the moon, the shadows wouldn't be so damn dark.

And obviously I am comparing a still with a video frame. Didn't Mythbusters do just that to make their point? Is the relative intensity of light between the ground and the astronaut really going to change that much from a photo to a video?

[jberryhill]

237. Yes, the relative intensity IS going to change that much from a photo to a video

Because film has more dynamic range.

But, you have got to be kidding me. Moon landing deniers use the fact that the astronaut is lit - AT ALL - as "proof" of some other kind of lighting, and your complaint is the level of brightness? That's just sad.

[spooked911]

249. I'm not sure the dynamic range argument works here

since the video is showing more contrast between the soil and the astronaut.

Anyway, wasn't Mythbusters using video to make their point?

I don't know why it's "sad" to complain about the level of brightness... the fact is, Mythbusters, under earth atmosphere conditions and with a single bright light source, couldn't get the same level of lighting of the astronaut as supposedly occurred on the moon. I don't think the hoax argument is that the astronaut should be completely in shadow, but that he is clearly too well lit, including shiny boot highlights.

[LARED]

169. Well of course it is

and if we can see the moon it is because light is scattered by the surface of the moon. That same light makes it possible to see objects in the shadow.

[jberryhill]

143. Light travels in a straight line all over the place...

However, yes, on the moon there is no atmospheric scattering.

Bunt that is not what is illuminating the things in those shadows, nor in the moon pictures. The surface of the moon is granular and grey, and scatters reflected light in all directions. It is exactly the type of grey reflector that photographers use to provide that sort of indirect illumination....



His thing about the unknown lighting conditions is pretty funny. Of course the light intensity level can be known without going there, that's a very basic calculation. But neither he, nor you apparently, haven't the foggiest notion of what happens when you are in a shadow next to a brilliantly lit grey particulate reflecting surface.

[spooked911]

118. Notice

I have to go do some things and won't be able to respond to your queries until later tonight or tomorrow.

I know how upset some of you get if I don't answer your points in a timely matter.

[Gravel Democrat]

191. Thanks for posting. Fascinating reading.

Funny (or, not), lots of people are apparently worked up about
a little free speech. That author raises some very good questions.

And the photos are very interesting, in the context.

This:


When I have some more time, I'm going to cut and paste some
others that I found particularly...uhhh....special.

Just to kick the thread and cause lost sleep.

Don't let these debbie downers get to you. Real Americans
Always question authority! I think you're more than patient.
Don't know if I could hang around, whilst being bashed every other post.

Well done.

[Ohio Joe]

192. No one objects to questioning authority

It's questioning reality that amuses the locals.

[Gravel Democrat]

194. What is going on in that photo?

Just a goof?

And this is very interesting too, don't you think?

Am I correct in my interpretation, that this is exactly
where this 6000 lb (per author, is he right?) craft
landed? No dust on the pads? Did an astronaut have
a little compressed air to dust them off for the cameras?



That's a clean landing. Isn't it.
Is it ok to question photos? Or is that unAmerican?

[SDuderstadt]

195. Why not just stick to the facts...

and quit questioning motivation? Have you seen anyone here call anyone "unamerican" for questioning a photograph?

Nice strawman, dude.

[Ohio Joe]

196. Question whatever you feel like

I really don't give a shit, in fact I encourage it when the amusement factor gets this high.

[Gravel Democrat]

199. Do you have a theory on why the antennas in that photo are obscured by the land below?

I'd be really interested. Thanks!
:hi:

[William Seger]

201. Pretty simple, actually, and it's not a theory

That's what those antennas really looked like, and there isn't anything "obscured by the land below." The problem comes from assuming that they "should" be complete disks and not bothering to check that assumption. Of course, high-caliber "researchers" like McGowan and Spooky are much too busy for such mundane tasks as hunting down another photo to compare it to.



There's nothing wrong with "questioning" photos or anything else. The mark of a Moon hoax crackpot and other "conspiracy theorists" is their contempt for rational answers to their loaded "questions."

[Ohio Joe]

202. No, no theories for you

I can think of none to explain your fantasy as there is nothing obscuring the antenna's.

[jberryhill]

211. Yes, they are not round, and are not "obscured"

You think they are "obscured" because you assume they are round.

No, they are really shaped that way.



Doh!

http://www.joecodegood.net/files/nasa/apollo/operations_handbook_volume_1/Telecommunication%20System.pdf

[Gravel Democrat]

226. It's interesting that the pdf linked shows both round and cutout or whatever it's called

This is on page 56:



I've been around antennas before, having installed over
a hundred during the big dish boom times and seen uplink
stations etc but I can't remember seeing this cutout kind of dish.

I couldn't find any during the limited time I had to search.

Could you point out a link to one? Thanks.

Oh, seems there aren't too many different pictures of the CSM in space.
The few I've seen have what seems to be an obvious edit. And it's not
the dishes. Also, it seems to me that if the dishes were made to be cutout
like that they would have a more finished look, like that black border would
be attached or..something

But then I don't have hours to search.

[William Seger]

236. Uh....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=285791&mesg_id=286252

[cherokeeprogressive]

247. Another CSM picture showing cut dishes for you.

[jberryhill]

254. Even Revell Got It Right On Their Plastic Model

http://www.amazon.com/Revell-Rocket-Hero-Apollo-Spacecraft/dp/B0024FA8FQ

Pretty funny. Use the Zoom function to take a look at the antenna array.

Revell is "in on it".

[cherokeeprogressive]

255. Well, SOMEONE had to make the models used in the fakery, right? I heard NASA contacted Monogram

too, but their CEO knew it was a hoax and would have no part of it. Notice that their list of models includes no spacecraft whatsoever. I know it's not an all-inclusive list, but you'd think there would be SOMETHING on it relevent to space flight. He reportedly died in a small-plane crash a few months after NASA reached out to him. I understand there was no evidence of any foul play in the accident, which happened in clear weather, in the middle of the day, near a municipal airport (how's THAT for coincidence?). Hoaxer legend has it that no evidence of foul play is evidence of a cover-up.

It's what I heard anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram_models

[jberryhill]

209. How would dust get on the pads?

You do understand that:

1. there was no "cloud of dust" kicked up by the landing, since there is no atmosphere in which to suspend said cloud; and

2. there is no moisture

[Gravel Democrat]

227. You should correct Wikipedia then

"...The Moon appears to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion. The term "Moon fountain" has been used to describe this effect by analogy with the stream of molecules of water in a fountain following a ballistic trajectory but appearing static due to the constancy of the stream. According to the model recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,<1> this is caused by electrostatic levitation.

On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micrometre and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from metres to kilometres high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again. On the night side the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind.





Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes.<2> This effect could be further enhanced during the portion of the Moon's orbit where it passes through Earth's magnetotail; see Magnetic field of the Moon for more detail.<3> On the terminator there could be significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm".<2><4>..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil

[jberryhill]

245. Pretty amazing that we can see details on the moon with the naked eye

...given all that dust blowing around.

But there is not a lot of dust moving around.

Question for you...

Is there more dust circulating in:

the room you are sitting or the region about the moon's surface?

[SDuderstadt]

193. Please point to anyone here opposed to...

"challenging authority". Take your time.

[Gravel Democrat]

197. Dude!

How's it goin?


The Shadow Knows!
Maybe Babylon 5 was helping with the light,
before it was sent to save humanity.

You are as tenacious as a pit bulldog.
I mean that in the Most Complementary way.
And it's nice to see people with lots of free time.

Trust fund?

[SDuderstadt]

198. Nevermind, dude.....n/t

[terrafirma]

205. I'm not a Moon Landing scholar...

... but I really don't see how that photo would be plausible in either scenario, real or faked.

Looks like a photoshop intended to discredit the landings by being totally "obvious".

But perhaps you can explain what studio light source would only effect one particular object on the set.

[William Seger]

206. What do you not understand about the photo?

McGowan seems to be confused by the angle of the shadows being different, which is pretty laughable.

[terrafirma]

212. Maybe I'm just missing it...

How would light cast a shadow on one object, but not others?

[William Seger]

213. Well, first...

... where do you see "light cast(ing) a shadow on one object, but not others?"

[terrafirma]

215. Nevermind...

... I'm an idiot. :)

[SDuderstadt]

214. Sounds like Spooked has not explained the...

"E.T. quarantine" to you yet. Ask him...it'll bring everything into much sharper focus.

I would explain it to you myself but I am under "special observation" right now on the heels of the latest anal probe and, if I so much as LOOK like I'm talking to you, I would be zapped to a crisp!

Nictu, nictu...may the Force be with you!

[Gravel Democrat]

229. please explain how one shadow points north north east and the others point WWN n/t

[AZCat]

230. Sacred geometry.

Seriously - do you not understand how shadows are cast from objects that are not normal to the ground plane?

[Gravel Democrat]

233. I said: please explain how one shadow points north north east and the others point ENE

If you could do it that would be great.

Anyone can, and does, come on these threads
acting like they and the rest of the educated world
know they're dealing with descendants of Granny
and or people from the movie Deliverance.

Many many people are way too smart for the rest of us.

Yup. That's why they've saddled their grandchildrens children
with debt. High IQ. Way up.

[AZCat]

244. It's just geometry.

Surely you learned about that in school? Perhaps in between posting meaningless blather on the internet you could sit down, consider the angles involved, and figure it out yourself by drawing a simple diagram.

[OnTheOtherHand]

248. or, as Seger suggested, about 10 seconds w/a pencil and light source

I guess it's awfully elitist of us to suggest that someone should spend 10 seconds with a pencil.

[AZCat]

252. Yes, that would be much simpler. n/t

[William Seger]

235. Hint

I think it's pretty obvious just looking at it, but if either you or McGowan or Spooky were to spend a few minutes experimenting with, say, a pencil and a flashlight or desk lamp, you could probably quickly solve this "mystery." Then, you wouldn't look so foolish going out on the net claiming that your own inability to figure it out is evidence that the photo must be fake. Here's your hint: The apparent angle on the ground will of course depend on the position of the sun, which of course should be the same for both objects, but what else does it depend on?

So, do you wanna give it another try first, or do I really need to show you?

[apocalypsehow]

200. No one is worked up about a "little free speech" - I find people who believe the moon landings were

faked to be a lot of things - self-deluding; willfully ignorant; given to deliberate distortion of evidence to support their "cause" - but I haven't seen anyone getting "worked up" about them, or their fact-free assertions.

That photo, BTW, what do you find "interesting" about it? Do you think it somehow "proves" the moon landings were faked? How so? Be specific.

I won't be holding my breath...

[Gravel Democrat]

231. no

I thought some of those photos were interesting.

Sheesh.

At no time have I said that I thought "The Moon Landings Were Faked".

I can begin to understand how people like Galileo must have felt.

Don't ever hold your breath for strangers on an internet discussion board.

it's a bad idea

[OnTheOtherHand]

241. could you walk me through the analogy to Galileo?

No offense, but I'm just not feeling it. Did Galileo communicate primarily in short bursts of snark?

[sgsmith]

203. What's so special about that picture?

Oh - I get it, there's part of the antenna dishes missing and you think it's a sign that the photo is faked.

Check out this:
http://www.joecodegood.net/files/nasa/apollo/operations_handbook_volume_1/Telecommunication%20System.pdf and go look at the diagram on pdf pages 56 and 58. Sure looks to me that the antenna is drawn with straight edges.

[Gravel Democrat]

232. page 56

has 2 versions.

See upthread. If you clould provide a link to a cutout dish I'd be
really happy.

[William Seger]

238. Post #201

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=285791&mesg_id=286252

So, you're happy now?

[jberryhill]

210. That picture proves that McGowan is a leading nitwit

In case you were too lazy to look at page 58 of the Apollo telecommunications manual linked in the post above this one:

http://www.joecodegood.net/files/nasa/apollo/operations_handbook_volume_1/Telecommunication%20System.pdf

[LARED]

204. Spooked, I want to thank you

this has been a most entertaining OP. Best in a long time.

Keep up the good work.