McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie"

[jimbot]

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

[PetersCreek]

If one applies a very, very loose definition of "spanked"...well...still, no. There is so much wrong with that rambling screed, it's hard to know where to start.

Before we do start, do you intend to defend this position here?

[Torsten]

I guess I'll start at a random spot:

Regarding the laser reflectors, David McGowan wrote:

In the image above, the surrounding footprints tell us that the target is roughly the size of the computer monitor you are now staring at. Does anyone truly believe – and I’m including all the True Believers out there – that we had the technology in the late 1960s and early 1970s to hit a target of that size with a laser beam from at least 234,000 miles away? Does anyone believe that we have the technology to do it now?

Jimbot: Do you think McGowan's questions are valid? Why or why not?

ETA: Perhaps I should have waited for a response to PetersCreeks' question, but it's difficult to hold off when seeing yet another website repeating the same old unresearched and idiotic claims, after stating: "While suffering through the numbing uniformity of the various websites on both sides of the aisle, it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need of a fresh approach and some new insights. So I began writing again. Feverishly."

[JayUtah]

I echo PetersCreek's question. Since the referenced site also attempts to take me personally to task, do you (jimbot) intend to stand in the site author's place and defend his claims against me?

[pzkpfw]

I'd suggest^* no one else respond until the OP makes clear that he or she intends to actually participate in a discussion.

Otherwise we all go through the same motions again, to a seagull post that's best left to drift away. Anyone searching, will find plenty of rebuttal to the hoax claims.


^* This post (which disobeys it's own suggestion) is not in blue.

[iquestor]

Not much new here. The arguments are all emotional based, or recycled garbage.

"Russia was kicking our butt in the space race, so we were motivated to lie..."
"Since we didn't go back, we must not have gone..."
"Since there were 6 perfect launches from the moon, which can't be tested on Earth, we must not have gone..."
"no other country has even put a probe in lunar orbit, it must not be possible..."
(Sorry Japan, Russia and India, you must not count. ;()
"Wow, thats a small laser target. Do you think we can hit that with 1960's/70 technology? "

Question: Was there even a mention of the recent direct photographs made of the various apollo landing sites by LRO?

[Fazor]

I'll just say that his scientific method is on par with his web page design skills.

[Metricyard]

After glancing at the web site in question, I have to wonder what planet some of these people come from.

As far as I'm concerned, when anyone invokes Hitlers name to prove their point, they've lost all credibility.

And talk about failing jr. high physics. Epic fail

Sad. Very sad.

[ToSeek]

The website demonstrates a combination of ignorance and arrogance that pretty much defines hoax proponents. Lest I be accused of ad homs, let me point out some factually incorrect statements on the website:

"As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it."

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

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

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

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

"To be perfectly honest, I’m not really sure why we have to pack the **** rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the Moon"

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

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

I don't think I need to document the arrogance.

He does have one perplexing image (for which he unfortunately does not tell us the NASA id for, so it's hard to tell where it came from) here in that the lunar crater appears to obscure the CSM high-gain antenna.

[ToSeek]

Question: Was there even a mention of the recent direct photographs made of the various apollo landing sites by LRO?

Yes. He says it would have been easy to Photoshop them.

[Swift]

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

jimbot,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, though others have mentioned this, I'm going to make it very official. Posts such as yours, with a link and a "look at this" are highly frowned upon here. If you believe you have something to discuss, you need to state very clearly what it is, and what evidence you have to support it. And, even if your evidence is contained on that website, you need to state in your own words what it is.

If you next post does not address this, I will close the tread.

Consider this an official warning.

[slang]

"Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency?"

*glares at iquestor*

[Metricyard]

He does have one perplexing image (for which he unfortunately does not tell us the NASA id for, so it's hard to tell where it came from) here in that the lunar crater appears to obscure the CSM high-gain antenna.

This image always seems to baffle me.

Not sure which why the shadows are supposed to lie. But if you stare at it long enough, it starts to make sense. I think.

[JayUtah]

Yes. He says it would have been easy to Photoshop them.

Yes, and it would be easy for someone accused of murder to fabricate the receipts and credit charges from his trip to Tokyo when he was allegedly murdering someone in Chicago. The question is not can they be faked, but were they faked.

People simply don't understand what it means to prove something.

[PetersCreek]

He does have one perplexing image (for which he unfortunately does not tell us the NASA id for, so it's hard to tell where it came from) here in that the lunar crater appears to obscure the CSM high-gain antenna.

Jay will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the high gain antenna dishes are indeed cut square in order to clear the mast. The image appears to be a cropped and re-oriented version of an image from Apollo 15, magazine 88. I haven't nailed down the exact one yet.

ETA: I believe it's AS15-88-11963.

[NGCHunter]

He does have one perplexing image (for which he unfortunately does not tell us the NASA id for, so it's hard to tell where it came from) here in that the lunar crater appears to obscure the CSM high-gain antenna.

I believe that's just how the high-gain is shaped. All the images I can find of it look like that.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11974HR.jpg

[JayUtah]

The parabolic reflectors of the high-gain antenna are indeed not full circles. They are cut to clear the antenna structure when stowed. In the photo in question, the line of sight makes the cut-up roughly coincide with a feature in the background.

[Fazor]

People simply don't understand what it means to prove something.

I love that line. I just redid my sig line recently though, so instead I'm just quoting it here to repeat it.

[ZappBrannigan]

I believe that's just how the high-gain is shaped. All the images I can find of it look like that.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11974HR.jpg

Okay, OT, but wow, I'm surprised at how much burn damage there is from the upwards-pointing thruster right beneath the CM/SM connector. (Someone please correct my completely wrong labeling of parts.)

Was that normal, or unique to 15? And is there actually damage there, or is it merely "soot?"

[ToSeek]

I believe that's just how the high-gain is shaped. All the images I can find of it look like that.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11974HR.jpg

Man, I've been reading up on Apollo for years, and I'm still learning stuff!

[Extravoice]

That's the slilver lining to these CT threads. I usually learn something...but rarely from the OP

[JayUtah]

...

Someone please correct my completely wrong labeling of parts.

CSM umbilical fairing. Whatever. As long as we know what you're talking about. If you want to get uber-picky, there will be a part number for it.

And is there actually damage there, or is it merely "soot?"

Heat tinting. No soot from hydrazine motors. It's not necessarily damage. Clearly the plume has impinged on the metal, but many alloys respond to heat by changing color. It won't drastically affect the mechanical properties of the material.

The nozzles of the Marqhardt motors themselves become heat-tinted in operation -- they exhibit a very beautiful post-firing palette of blues and yellows that shimmer under varying light.

[ZappBrannigan]

Thanks, Jay!

What I know about metals couldn't even fill the heat-tinted portion of a CSM umbilical fairing.

[Garrison]

Before I signed up to this site I spent a few weeks browsing through threads, which in the conspiracy section was both fascinating and amusing. I just wonder why CT's like Jimbot don't seem to? I mean this website's stuff has been covered to death in earlier threads so why repost the same old same old? Can any CT imagine they can repeat the same actions as their predecessors and get a different result?

[Swift]

Before I signed up to this site I spent a few weeks browsing through threads, which in the conspiracy section was both fascinating and amusing. I just wonder why CT's like Jimbot don't seem to?

I don't know, especially for any specific person, but I suspect it is because they really don't want to know what other people think. They know X (whatever X is) and gosh darn it, they are going to tell everyone else about it. You either agree with them, or you must be part of the THEM that is opposing them.

Can any CT imagine they can repeat the same actions as their predecessors and get a different result?

I think there is abundant evidence to support the idea that yes, that is exactly what they imagine.

[ToSeek]

Can any CT imagine they can repeat the same actions as their predecessors and get a different result?

The author of the referenced website specifically notes the weakness of most of the other HB websites, then turns around and uses most of the same arguments.

[LaurelHS]

(From the site in the OP)
"And what guy, given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to spend some time in a reduced gravity environment, isn’t going to want to see how high he can jump?"

Charlie Duke did try that and quickly realized it was a bad idea. See this ALSJ page.

(Sarcastically referring to the LM) "But we’ll get to all that a little later. I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, aerodynamic, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability."

Okay, I am not a technical person. I can't claim to be an expert on spacecraft design. I wasn't alive during the Apollo program. But even I know the LM didn't have to be aerodynamic. This is sad.

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

Completely untested? Even I know about Apollos 5, 9 and 10. You'd think people would be embarrassed to get things so wrong.

"Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!"

If the Apollo 11 LM worked perfectly, why did it have computer program alarms during the descent? That does not sound like perfection to me.

"And so it is that on April 11th, 1970, Apollo 13 blasts off with Tom Hanks and a couple of somewhat lesser known actors on board, but unlike the first two missions, this Apollo spacecraft fails to reach the Moon and instead drifts about for the next six days with the crew in mortal danger of being forever lost in space."

He doesn't know the names of the real Apollo 13 astronauts? Yeah, it's so hard to look up things like that. And technically Apollo 13 did reach the Moon, they just didn't land on it.

"As other skeptics have noted, none of the photos supposedly brought home from the Moon show a single star in the sky."

Apollo 16 UV photographs showing stars.

These conspiracy theorists are so arrogant and they don't even know basic facts about Apollo. It's ridiculous.

[R.A.F.]

My favorite part of that site is the mislabeling of the LRRR...he calls it the Lunar Laser Ranger experiment.

For some reason that really cracked me up.

[Neverfly]

My favorite part of that site is the mislabeling of the LRRR...he calls it the Lunar Laser Ranger experiment.

For some reason that really cracked me up.

I don't see what's so funny about it.

Everyone knows that the Lunar Rangers were all armed with lasers.

[BertL]

I wonder if the jimbot and jayben are connected.