[Firestarter]

Dave McGowan - Wagging the Moondoggie

This post is abou the 14 part essay on the moon landing hoax, by the late Dave McGowan - "Wagging the Moondoggie": http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

McGowan didn’t spend nearly as much time as Ralph Rene to “research” this nonsense, but McGowan is easily the better writer. The big advantage in reading this next to Ralph Rene’s “NASA mooned America” is that there is hardly an overlap between their stories.
McGowan also takes aim at the (lying) “debunkers” that harass anybody that tries to expose NASA for the fraud it is.
Following are some highlights from the “Moondoggie” articles...

Strangely in the overhead pictures, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting long shadows on the moon...


NASA once contemplated using “force fields” to repel the radiation, an interesting idea (for a science fiction movie), but certainly not available to NASA in the 1960s. The lunar modules didn’t have any type of physical shielding…

See the image below of one of the landing pods of the 33,000 pounds Apollo 11 lunar module, that left no craters nor sink into the surface…


Several pictures show unequivocally that more than one light source was used. See for example the following famous picture of the Apollo 11 movie.
The surface of the moon is unevenly lit.
Notice the lack of shadow on Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit (that should be in the shadow). Because on the moon there is no atmosphere shadows would be much darker.
Notice that Buzz’s spacesuit isn’t pressurised.


In the final photo, the lunar module suddenly appears much closer to the “mountains”.
It’s also strange that the mountains in the background look very similar to the second photo. Notice the tracks: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
(archived here: http://archive.is/WLqXx)


See a NASA image of the moon rover folded up (to save space in the lunar module) and ready to go.


The following picture shows a Soviet Lunokhod rover that was supposedly used in the late 1960s and 1970s and had an “ingenious method” to generate enough power to operate for up to 11 months.


The very smart NASA “scientists” made up a story including astronauts landing on the moon. The Soviets came up with another story about dropping their own “rover” to “research” the moon. Maybe this could be considered “easier”, as they wouldn't need a story on lifting off from the moon and flying back to earth.
They would need some heavy duty computers to be able to perform this feat. Back in the 1960s and 1970s computers weren’t what they are now. See for example the specifications for the 2012 iPhone 5 compared to the 1969 Apollo “guidance computer”: http://ibb.co/cCQQnH


Apollo 13
On 13 April 1970, Apollo 13’s command and service modules were made powerless by an explosion that seriously damaged the exterior of the craft while cruising some 200,000 miles from home. The oxygen tank explosion was strangely not powerful enough to alter the course of the ship.
The 3-man crew retreated to the 2-man lunar module. How could they find enough room in that tight module? The lunar module’s descent engine was used to “slingshot” the module around the moon and successfully back to Earth again!


Part 8 ends with the following conclusion:

As we already know, their cockiness was entirely justified since that aluminum foil capsule provided all the protection the astronauts needed to get home safely. No fewer than eight lunar modules allegedly made the hazardous voyage to the Moon, and all of them arrived in immaculate condition. The Apollo 13 lunar module was exposed throughout virtually the entire mission – all the way to the Moon and all the way back. In all, the eight LEMS allegedly logged some 2,000,000 miles of unprotected space flight and not one of them suffered so much as a scratch. That, my friends, is 1960’s technology at its finest.

I’ve spent some time thinking about these magical engines in the lunar module used to make a soft landing and lift off from the moon.
Dave McGowan shares my idea that this is a major impossibility in the official story: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-8/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LlGL6)


I won’t limit myself to McGowan’s arguments though...

1 – No testing possible
Because it’s impossible to make a large vacuum testing site, the lunar engines couldn’t effectively be tested at all (besides “simulation” exercises). Because the engines couldn’t be tested, they couldn’t be designed. It’s that simple!
Because the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive the engines could only be used once, so they needed an engine for the descend AND for the ascend, and they couldn’t test-fire the engine prior to flight.

2 – No possibility to get enough thrust in vacuum
In vacuum the only way to slow down (or accelerate) a space ship is by “shooting” out objects. Just imagine throwing down rocks to slow down after jumping from a skyscraper. You could also try to shoot a machine gun at the ground to go “flying like an eagle”...
You probably know that this is preposterous, but this would be a feasible method to make a relatively minor change (correction) in the direction of the space ship.

To use this for the amount of power needed to descend to and ascend from the moon is impossible. Completely impossible amongst others because they would have to carry all of the mass needed to “shoot” the amount of power needed.
In “rocket science” the only feasible solutions are lightweight...

According to Newton’s Action = Reaction law the “thrust” would come from “shooting” the exhausted gasses from the combustion chamber in a certain direction.
The following image shows that in vacuum the lunar module engines could at best work at a very low efficiency because in vacuum you can’t “shoot” out the air in 1 direction because it will automatically spread out in different directions (free expansion).

If a nozzle couldn’t "exhausts" in only one direction in very low pressure, this would be even worse in vacuum. This shows that the "rocket engines" in vacuum couldn't work efficiently...
The following picture is based on a picture from the following Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle


3 – Engine burning in closed compartment
The only way to have an ignition where there is no oxygen is to provide it. But because there’s vacuum, the oxygen would immediately disappear in thin air (quite literally). So they could only make the engine fire in a closed off compartment.
Here’s a NASA picture of the lunar engine.


This leads to the following impossibilities.
The engine would get very hot (much hotter than boiling water). Cooling down wouldn’t be possible.
Even “more impossible” is how to somehow transfer the massive amount of energy needed (to “shoot down” the needed mass that couldn’t be carried along in the lunar module) from the closed off engine to the outside.
As there is no fire outside the (closed off) engine this wouldn’t even look like the burning fire we would see in the lift off from the moon Apollo movies.

4 – The spinning lunar module
Descending to the moon would need an engine that could stop the very fast movement of the module in front of the movement.


Even if they could build an engine with the huge power to make a “soft landing” on the moon possible, there is nothing designed that would prevent the rocket from spinning. In vacuum that would be an even bigger problem than in earth’s atmosphere.

5 - 100% success rate
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.
This is statistically impossible.

6 – Design story
What I was looking for was a science fiction story on the design of the lunar module that would explain the amazing discoveries by a group of genius “rocket scientists” by accident.
The official story reads like they were designing a new version of an engine of proven technology.

NASA asked several money laundering arms companies to come up with a “plausible” story of designing (parts of) the engine.
The descend engine was especially impossible to design as they would need a “throttleable engine ... new to manned spacecraft” and “Very little advanced research had been done in variable-thrust rocket engines”.
And this couldn’t be tested!

Even though there was no way of real-life testing and this was completely new, NASA later said that they could have chosen both companies - STL and Rocketdyne – as both of their stories were “plausible” enough to sell to the gullible public.


Here’s a link to information from the “independent” Wikipedia on the Lunar Module Engine for the lift off and reconnection with the main module: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_P...ion_System

Here’s a story from the “reliable” NASA: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo...ch6-5.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/QuQS)