WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE

Video Transcript:

Wagon the Moon Doggy Part 1 by Dave McGowan. As read from the Center for an Enformed America's website, which is Center for an Enformed America dot com. Follow the tab for Wagon the Moon Doggy under Features I believe and you can read along as well. Thank you today who passed last year after a very brief but tragic battle with small cell lung cancer, prolific researcher, voracious reader, our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. Wagon the Moon Doggy Part 1 by Dave McGowan. 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. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone but a minimum of three. Each rocket ship would be taller than the New York's Empire State Building, almost a quarter mile high and weigh about 10 times the tonnage of the Queen Mary or some 800,000 tons. Werner Von Braun, father of the Apollo Space Program writing and Congress of the Moon. This is Red Straight from his website. Go to centerforminformamerica.com, jump down to the moon doggy tab and click on part 2 and follow along. So jump in right back in wagging the moon doggy part 2 by David McGowan. Well you now say, what about all those cool moon rocks? How did they get those? The moon is you know, the only source of moon rocks. So it doesn't have proof that we went there. You know as a matter of fact, it does not prove that we went there. As odd as that may sound, the moon is not the only source of moon rocks. As it turns out, authentic moon rocks are available right here on earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. Because the moon lacks a protective atmosphere, you see it gets smacked around quite a bit, which is why it's heavily crater. One thing is smash into it to form those craters, lots of bits and pieces of the moon fly off into space. Some of them end up right here on earth. By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica. Where they are most plentiful and due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. That is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Werner von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that with the demanding task of perfecting the usually complex Saturn V rockets that von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently it was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition. Some skeptics have said that it is possible that moon rocks could have been gathered from the moon with robotic probes, but while it isn't being argued here that unmanned craft haven't reached the moon, it seems virtually inconceivable that any unmanned spacecraft could have landed on and then been brought back from the surface of the moon in the 1960s or 1970s. There's no indication that it can even be done today. It's been more than three decades since anyone has claimed to do it, and that claim by the Soviets is highly suspect. What is known for sure is that even some of the debunking websites have, albeit reluctantly, acknowledged that meteorite samples gathered from Antarctica are virtually indistinguishable from NASA's collection of moon rocks. Of course, as we have very recently learned, that is not true of all of NASA's moon rocks. Some of them apparently bear no resemblance at all to lunar meteor sites. Instead, they look an awful lot like petrified wood from the Arizona desert. Such was the case with a quote, moon rock that the Dutch National Museum has been carefully safeguarding for many years now before discovering in August of 2009 that they were in reality the proud owners of the most overinsured piece of petrified wood on the planet. The quote moon rock had been a gift to the Dutch from the US State Department, and its authenticity had reportedly been verified through a phone call to NASA. I'm guessing the NASA was probably running low on meteorite fragments and figured the Dutch wouldn't know the difference anyway. Or maybe Washington was a little peved over the fact that the Dutch newspapers reportedly called NASA's bluff at the time of the first alleged moon landing. And you can see photos of these things guys over on the website. I'd recommend go check in that out. This is not just suggest of course that all of the moon rocks passed out by NASA and the State Department are obvious fakes. Most presumably are of lunar origin, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were gathered by American astronauts walking on the surface of the moon. It could have just as easily come to earth as meteorites. It is also possible that they are of otherworldly origin, but not from the moon at all, such as meteorites from other sources that have been collected here on earth. The only way to know for sure what NASA's moon rocks are of course would be to compare them to a quote control rock that is known to be from the moon. The problem alas is the only known source for authenticated moon rocks is NASA. The very same folks who are known occasionally to hand out chunks of petrified wood. The other problem it turns out is that most of the moon rocks are missing. Does anyone see a pattern developing here? Since the discovery of the fake moon rock in the Dutch museum quote debunkers have claimed that the fact that no other moon rocks have been declared fake proves that the Dutch case is an isolated one. Quote after that announcement goes the argument, wouldn't every other country and possession of a moon rock have a brush to have them authenticated? And since no other country has made a similar announcement doesn't that prove that the moon rocks are real? At first glance that would appear to be a valid argument. The problem however is that the vast majority of those countries can't test their quote moon rocks because shockingly enough no one knows where they are. As the Associated Press reported on September 13, 2009 quote nearly 270 rocks scooped up by US astronauts were given to foreign countries by the Nixon administration of 135 rocks from the Apollo 17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have been located by collectspace.com, a website for space history buffs that is long attempted to compile a list. The outlook for tracking the estimated 134 of Apollo 11 rocks is even bleaker. The locations of fewer than a dozen are known. It appears then that having a control rock really wouldn't be much of a help at all, since nearly 90% of the alleged moon rocks that we would want to test don't seem to be around anymore. But I've also heard, you now say, that photos have been taken of the equipment left behind by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the moon, like the descent stages of the lunar modules. How do you account for that? It's certainly true that there have been numerous claims over the years that various satellites are unmanned space probes or space telescopes were going to capture images that would definitely prove that man walked on the moon, thus settling the controversy once and for all. And in recent years, the debunkers have openly gloated whenever such an announcement has been made, boldly proclaiming that all the quote hopes believers will soon be exposed as the ignorant buffoons that they are. Despite all the promises, however, no such images have ever been produced, a fact that the debunkers seem to conveniently overlook while forever rushing to announce that the hopes theories are about to be discredited. 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, the Hubble technology, needless to say, never managed to deliver. More recently in 2002, the European Southern Observatories' very large telescope, whose inventor apparently coined the name while watching Sesame Street, was also supposed to deliver the promised images. And seven years later, the fabled images have yet to materialize. In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that quote, a European spacecraft now orbiting the moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored. New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots from the smart one probe might put to rest in spiritual thoughts that US astronauts didn't go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the moon in that time period. 1969 through 1972, fringe theorists have said that NASA never really went to the moon. I'm guessing that most quote, fringe theorists will continue to harbor quote, conspiratorial thoughts for as long as pompous websites like Space.com continue making arrogant proclamation such as that. And then not following them up was so much as a single image in well over four years. Who knew by the way that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft to orbit the moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously had the technology to send spacecraft to the moon, why haven't they sent any manned missions there? I mean, 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 of seats to the spacecraft design that they already have. They should be ready to go. Here's another thing that I sometimes wonder about. Why is it that in the 1960s, we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land man on the moon? But in the 21st century, we only had the technology required to get an unmanned aircraft close enough to the moon to take usable photographs? Or could it be that there's just nothing there to photograph? Just this year, NASA itself boldly announced that its lunar reconnaissance orbiter or LRO has returned its first imagery of the Apollo Moon landing sites. The picture showed the Apollo missions lunar module descent stage is sitting on the moon's surface as long shadows from a low-sunning will make the module's locations evident. The Elrock team anxiously awaited each image, said Elrock principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. We were very interested in getting our first peak at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill, and to see how well the cameras had come into focus, indeed the images are fantastic and so is the focus. Sounds promising, doesn't it? The images, however, hardly live up to the billing. They are, in fact, completely worthless. All they depict are tiny white dots of the lunar surface that could be just about anything that would be barely visible at all without those handy, quote, long shadows from the low-sunning. And the weird thing is about those shadows is that at the very same NASA article it says that quote, because the sun was so low to the horizon when the images were made even subtle variations into the topography create long shadows, unquote. And yet while it's perfectly obvious that there are more than just quote subtle variations in the lunar topography in the images, and you can see the images on this website, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting the long shadows. Even if we give NASA every benefit of the doubt and assume that the images have not been amateurishly photoshopped and that the indesertable white dots are indeed something of man-made origin, the most likely culprit would be those Soviet robotic probes mentioned by space.com, which presumably did land on the moon. A number of those probes, which were part of the Apollo era lunar program, were very similar in size and shape to the lunar modules. Certainly enough so that images of much higher resolution would be required to make a definitive judgment. Usually after studying the image above, you have to see this image. One of the alleged lunar probes, I'm going to have to say that the Soviets were lying their asses off almost as much as NASA was. There's no way I'm going to bind to the notion that the Soviets sent a freeform abstract sculpture, which appears to have been constructed by Fred Sanford and Granny Clampet on a 234,000 mile journey from Earth to the moon. Careful study of the central area of the photo however does reveal why the spacecraft were known as probes. According to NASA, Japan and India have also sent unmanned orbiting spacecraft to the moon in recent years, as has China. As with the ESA and NASA's orbiters, they too have failed to return any images of earthly artifacts left behind on the surface of the moon. If the hoax debunking websites are to be believed, by the way, the reason that no one has returned to the moon in 37 years is because we pretty much already tapped that celestial body for all the information it had to offer. There's really you see nothing much left to see there. A quote debunking article posted by ABCNews.com for example quoted Val German, the president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association, is saying, quote, there's no reason to go back. Quite frankly, the moon is a giant parking lot. There's just not much there. I wonder why it is then that just about everyone wants to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the moon's surface. What could they possibly learn about the quote, parking lot, from those distances that our astronauts didn't already discover by actually being there? Some true believers also claim that what was dubbed the lunar laser-ranging experiment also proves that we really went to the moon. As the story goes, the astronauts on Apollo 11, Apollo 14 and Apollo 15, all allegedly left small laser targets sitting on the lunar terrain. One of them can be seen in the official NASA photograph reproduced below, so that scientists back home could then bounce lasers off the targets to precisely gauge the distance from the Earth to the moon. According to the debunkers, the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo mission succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically, most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser up the surface of the moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963. There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules. As anyone, by the way, ever really taking a good look at one of those contraptions, I mean a detailed up close look, I'm guessing the vast majority of people have not. But luckily, we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have a really good high resolution image that comes directly from the good people at NASA. While what is depicted in the images may initially appear to the untrained eye to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I could assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the moon and flying 69 miles back up into the lunar orbit. Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft. The lower half, the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with mylar and a little Christmas wrapping paper. Being the descent stage in the upper half, the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air-conditioning ductwork is primarily held together as can be seen in the close-up with zippers and gold tape being the descent stage. The other half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the moon's gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possess sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate literally out of the middle of frickin' nowhere the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour. But we'll get to all that a little later. I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision, and stability. There is one thing that appears to be a problem though. How did they get everything on board these modules that they were going to need to successfully complete their missions? According to NASA, the modules were excluding the landing pads were only about 12 feet in diameter. That is obviously not a whole lot of space to work with. So let's try to think of everything that we would need if we were astronauts venturing off on a little journey to the moon. First of all, of course, we would have to account for the space taking up by the various components of the ship itself. There is the framework and the, let's call it the fuselage of the craft. We will need a lot of various sophisticated navigation and guidance communications equipment, all of which took up a whole lot more space back in the 60s than it would today. And then needless to say, there is the power supply or rather multiple power supplies. For the descent stage, there is the reverse thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make soft landing on the moon. And then for the ascent stage, there is a more powerful rocket to propel the random bundle of sheet metal into lunar orbit. There are also additional rockets to allegedly stabilize the vessel in flight, the random clusters of what look like bicycle horns. Next up is the massive amount of fuel that would be required to power all of those rockets. For both the ascent and descent stages of the mission, the ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the moon's gravity as a formidable challenge to save at least. Though it might only have one six-thig gravitational pull of the earth, keep in mind that it's still a four strong enough to create the tides here on Earth, 234,000 miles away. I'm not a rocket scientist by the way, so I'm sure that there are quite a few components that I'm leaving off my lunar module. But that's okay, because our spaceship is already feeling really cramped just with the stuff listed so far, and we're just getting started. Next we'll have to include everything required to keep ourselves alive and well. We aren't going to be there very long, of course, in spaces obviously limited, but we will still require some basic amenities. We will, after all, have to have somewhere to sleep in the ship, won't we? Or will we just unfold cats on the lunar surface? We'll also require a sanitation-sepic system of some kind, or do those missions bring about another first that NASA has been reluctant to brag about? Anyway, getting back to our packing list, in addition to a sanitation system, it is imperative that we bring along an adequate supply of food, water, and oxygen, and not just enough to last for the planned duration of our visit, but enough to supply a small safety cushion should anything go wrong, because what I've heard running out of food, water, and oxygen, while on the moon, can really mess up and otherwise perfectly good trip. The oxygen is especially important, so we're going to need a really good reliable system to deliver that oxygen, and to, you know, recharge the oxygen tanks in our spacesuit, so we can walk around on the moon and jump like eight or nine inches high, like the Apollo guys did. And a backup oxygen system probably wouldn't be a bad idea. We're also going to need to install a top-of-the-line heating and cooling system, probably several of them actually, because the, quote, weather on the moon, so to speak, can be a bit unpleasant. According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average of all may 260 degrees Fahrenheit, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of minus 280 Fahrenheit. So if you're looking for anything between those two extremes, you really won't find it on the moon. It's pretty much one or the other. If you're in the sun, you're going to be boiled alive, and if you're out of the sun, you're going to be flash frozen. I'm not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of, and please stop me if I'm stating the obvious here, air, and the moon really doesn't have a lot of that. It would help, of course, for a spacecraft was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn't appear to be the case, so we'll need a really good heating and cooling system and plenty of free-on, but whatever it is that will need to keep it running. And so now, add up all of the following to our already crowded spacecraft, ourselves, a minimal amount of room to sleep, and otherwise take care of basic necessities of life, some type of plumbing and sewage system, really good heating and cooling system, a considerable food supply, water, oxygen, and we're still not done packing for our trip. Now we have to add all the equipment that will be required to maintain the ship and complete our planned missions. First of all, we definitely need to pack an exhaustive supply of spare parts and wide variety of tools. That's an absolute must. There are lots of things that can go wrong with our spaceship, and the only thing harder than finding a good mechanic here on Earth is finding one on the moon. And then of course, we'll have to bring all the fancy testing equipment that will use to pretend to conduct experiments. Some of it is quite bulky, so we'll need to set aside some storage space for all of that, and we're going to need some additional storage to bring back all those petrified wood samples. But we should have room for that after we jettison most of the fake testing equipment. Our spaceship is now so ridiculously overloaded that we may have had to add a roof rack and we still aren't even quite done yet. We still have a couple more items to pack, and we probably should have gotten them on sooner because they're going to require a lot of space, since this is one of the later Apollo flights you see. And we also have to back a dune buggy, otherwise known as a lunar rover, and the picture is down here guys, and the rovers according to NASA are a full 10 feet long, just 2 feet less than the diameter of our craft. But not to worry, according to NASA the rovers, pictured below, folded up to the size of a large suitcase. When released, they would just sort of magically unfold and snap into place, ready to room the lunar terrain. To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure why we have to pack the damn rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the moon, except for the fact that they make for good TV, and that seems to be of paramount importance. And so, as can be seen below, it should easily fit into our spaceship. One last thing you're going to need is a whole lot of batteries, lots and lots of batteries. That's going to be the only way to power this ship while we're on the moon, and we'll definitely need to run the communication systems and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling systems, and the cabin lights, and the TV cameras, and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and the damn rover. And we won't build and reach charge any of the various batteries, so we're going to need like a lot of backups, especially the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship, just to carry all the batteries that we're going to need. By the way, I can't possibly be the only one who's disappointed that we never followed up on that breakthrough folding vehicle technology. If we had folding moonbuggies back in the early 70s, then how far behind could folding automobiles have been had we chosen to stay the course? Had NASA's pioneering vision been followed up, we could all be folding up our cars and tucking them away under our office desks, but as with all the Apollo technology, it existed only in that specific period of time and is now sadly then lost to the ages. NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to Marble-Ad. It has stepped it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature spacesuits. The module may be scaled slightly larger than the real modules that allegedly landed on the moon. I wonder why they would do that? I'm pretty sure that Buzz and Neil were of normal stature. So the only reason that I could think that they would use miniature astronauts would be to portray the modules as larger than what they actually were. In better condition, too, did they pick up the ones they sent to the moon at a used car lot? Before moving on, I need to emphasize here just how sophisticated the lunar modules actually were. These were remarkable spacecraft, and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this because I'm just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists. Managed to make six perfect takeoffs from the surface of the moon, and understand here people that they did that amazingly enough with completely untested technology. We can't duplicate the conditions on the moon here at home you see or even provide a rough approximation, and since no one had ever been to the moon, they didn't exactly know what to replicate anyways, but this part of the mission was pretty much of a crap shoot. Conditions on the moon are, to say the least, a bit different than here on Earth. The gravitational pull is only about one sixth of what it is here, and then there is that whole lack of atmosphere thing, and it decidedly unearthly temperatures, and then of course there are high levels of space radiation. I'm quite sure that we had the best minds available working on the Apollo project, but none of them could have accurately predicted and compensated for how all those unearthly conditions would combine to affect the flight potential of the lunar modules. So the ability of the modules to actually blast off from the moon and fly was at best a theoretical concept. It is also important to remember that, unlike the initial blast off from Earth, seen above, which involved the collective efforts of thousands of people and the use of all types of peripheral equipment, the astronauts taking off from the moon only had themselves and a strange vessel that looked like it had been salvaged from the set of lost in space. What would you be thinking by the way if you suddenly found yourself on the surface of the moon with what looked like a cheap movie prop is your only way home. Would you feel comfortable hanging around for a few days doing experiments confident that when the time came, the untested contraption behind you would actually get you back home from the moon, or would the words bad career choice be running through your head. But as it turns out, America kicked aspect in, and those lunar modules performed like champions every single time they didn't even need modifications, despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the first time every time thereafter. On Earth it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low earth orbit. But on the moon? We nailed that the very first time. Today, of course, we can't even launch a space shuttle from right here on the planet without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have loader sites considerably. After all, sitting spacecraft into low earth orbit is considerably easier than sitting spacecraft all the way to the friggin moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion. Although technology is advanced in measurably since the first Apollo moon landing, and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can't come close to matching the kick-ass safety record we had in the Apollo days. The thing is that back in the frontier days, we didn't need all that fancy technology and book learned to send buzz in the boys to the moon and back. But then back then we had that American can do spirit, we just cowboyed up and megabird those spaceships to the moon. All we needed was an old Volkswagen engine, some duct tape and a roll of baling wire. Though a little toilet paper and tang on board and you're good to go. How about the speed with which we cranked out those Apollo spacecraft? Once we figured out how to make them, we were stamping them out like coat cans. We fired off seven of them in just under three and a half years, or about one every six months. Given the extreme complexity of those vessels and the fact that every component had to perform flawlessly under largely unknown conditions, that's a pretty impressive production schedule. America, I think it's safe to say, totally rock back then. And that's the end of part two of Wagon the Moon Doggie by David McGowan. Follow the links over in the blog post or head over to center4informtamerica.com and head down to the Moon Doggie tab and check it out. It goes support Dave and his family with a purchase of a book or a donation and thank you for joining me. Catch you next time. Hello everyone, welcome back. Today we're going to pick up and wagging the Moon Doggie with part three by David McGowan head over to center4informtamerica.com and scroll down to the features tab and once again run part three. Feel free to pick up and join us. Let's jump right in. If the Moon Landings were fake, then one question that naturally arises is why would the government go to such extreme links to Mountsage and Elaborate Hoax? The most obvious answer and the one most frequently cited by skeptics is to reclaim a sense of national pride that had been stripped away by America's having played follow the leader with the Soviets for an entire decade. While this undoubtedly played a large role, there are other factors as well, factors that haven't been as fully explored. But before we look at those, we must first deal with the question of whether it would have even been possible to pull off such an enormous hoax. Could so many people have really been duped into believing such an outrageous lie? If that in fact was what it was? To answer that question we have to keep in mind that we're talking about the summer of 1969 here. Those old enough to have been there will recall that they, along with the vast majority of politically active people in the country, spent that particular period of time primarily engaged in tripping on some really good acid, most likely from the lab of Mr. Ausley. In truth, not everyone was fooled by the alleged Moon Landings. Though it has rarely discussed these days, a significant number of people gave NASA's television productions A Thumbs Down. His wired magazine is reported, quote, when night newspapers pulled 1,721 US residents one year after the first Moon landing, it found that more than 30% of the respondents were suspicious of NASA's trips to the Moon. Given that overall trust in government was considerably higher in those pre-water gate days, the fact that nearly a third of Americans doubted what they were quote, witnessing through their television sets is rather remarkable. When Fox ran a special on the Moon landing some years back and reported that one in five Americans had doubts about the Apollo missions, various, quote, debunking websites cried foul and claimed that the actual percentage was much lower. Badestronomy.com for example claims that the actual figure is about 6%, and that roughly that many people will agree quote, with almost any question that is asked of them. Hence there are only a relative handful of coups who don't believe that we've ever been to the Moon. All of those websites failed to mention of course that among the people who experienced the events as they were occurring, nearly one in three had doubts, a number considerably higher than the number that Fox used. An endless to save the debunkers also failed to mention that one in four young Americans, a number also higher than the figure Fox used, have doubts about the Moon landings. Returning then to the question of why such a ruse would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the year 1969. Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our brand new president, and his ascension to the throne is in part due to his promises to the American people that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. But Ricky Dick has a bit of a problem on his hands and that he has absolutely no intention of ending that war. In fact he would really like to escalate the conflict as much as possible, but to do so he needs to set up a diversion. Some means of stoking the patriotic fervor of the American people so that they will blindly rally behind him. In short he needs to wag the dog. This has of course traditionally been done by embarking on some short term low-risk military endeavor. The problem for Dick however is that a military mission is exactly what he is trying to divert attention away from. What then is a beleaguered president to do? Why? Sin, Neil, and Buzz to the moon of course. Instead of wagging the dog, it's time to try something new, wagging the moon doggy. Nixon's actions from the very moment he takes office belies his campaign pledges to the American people. In May of 1969 with Nixon just a few months into his term, the press begins publicizing the illegal B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia engineered by irrepressible war criminal Henry Kissinger. By June Nixon is scrambling to announce what is dubbed the quote, Vietnamization of the war, which comes with a concomitant withdrawal of US troops. In truth however, only 25,000 of the 540,000 US troops then deployed will be brought home. This ruse is therefore transparently thin and it will buy the president little time. To make matters worse on July 14th, Francis Wright-Meier's granted conscientious objector status on the basis of a petition his attorney has filed which explicitly details the training and instruction he has just received in assassination and torture techniques in conjunction with his assignment in the CIA's Phoenix program. With these documents entering the public domain, the full horrors of the war are beginning to emerge. Just in time to save the day however Apollo 11 blast off on July 16th on its allegedly historic mission and with the entire nation enthralled, four days later the eagle purportedly makes its landing on the pristine lunar surface. Vietnam is temporarily forgotten as America swells with patriotic pride for having beaten the evil empire to the moon. There's little time to worry about the brutality of war when Neil is taking that quote, one giant leap from mankind. The honeymoon is short lived however, for just four months later in November of 1969, Seymour Hirsch publishes a story about the massacre of 504 civilians in the village of My Lie, bringing home to America the full savagery of the war in Southeast Asia. This time then for another moon launch, and Apollo 12 doodifully lifts off on November 14th, making another picture perfect lunar landing before returning on November 24th. The country is once again entranced by the exploits of America's new breed of hero, and suddenly every kid in the country wants to grow up to be an astronaut. All is well again until March of 1970 at which time a US-backed coup deposes Prince Siano King Cambodia and Lawn-Nol is handpicked by the CIA to replace him. Cambodia then immediately jumps in the fray by committing troops to the US war effort. The war is further escalated the next month when Nixon authorizes an invasion of Cambodia by US and ARVN ground forces, another move engineered by Henry Kissinger. Nixon has been in office just over a year and the war, far from winding down, has now expanded into Cambodia both in the air and on the ground. Meanwhile, it's time for yet another moon launch, but this one is not going to be just any moon launch, this one you see is going to introduce the element of danger. With the first you haven't gone off without a hitch, the American people, known for having notoriously short attention spans, are already adopting a bin there done that attitude. The problem in a nutshell is that it just looks a little too damn easy. In order to regain the attention of the American people, it has to be impressed upon them that our brave astronauts are placing themselves in grave danger. And so it is that on April 11th, 1970, a Apollo 13 blast 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. Now that gets our attention. So much so that when three Vietnam vets hold a multi-city press conference in New York, San Francisco and Rome on April 14 attempting to publicize the ongoing Phoenix program, in which they have participated and have firsthand knowledge, nobody can really be bothered with paying much attention. It's hard to be too concerned with the fate of Vietnamese villagers you see when Tom and the boys are clearly in trouble. awaiting news of the fate of the Apollo 13 crew, we all have our eyes glued to the TV just though we're watching post-mortem coverage of Michael Jackson. When our heroes somehow make it back alive, defying seemingly impossible odds, we're also damn proud of them that we decide to award Tom another Oscar and all is well again for the remainder of the year. I really have to repeat here by the way that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, America really did rock. I mean how about the Apollo's safety record? Seven manned moon launches with seven perfect takeoffs. Tom and the boys obviously never did make it to the moon, but the other six crews sure as hell did. And all six set those lunar modules down like the consummate professionals that they were. And all six used that untested technology to successfully blast off from the moon and attain lunar orbit. And then all six successfully docked with the orbiting command modules, and all seven of those command modules, even Apollo 13s, returned intact with their crews, happy and healthy. That was just an awesome time to be an American and especially to be an American astronaut, well except for three guys, Virgil Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffey, who were burned alive during a test procedure in the command module of what was to be Apollo 1, but they were troublemakers anyway who probably wouldn't have wanted to go along with the moon landing fable. And then there was that Thomas Barron guy who was a safety inspector for NASA and who delivered highly critical testimony and a 1500 page report to Congress only to then be killed a week later. That report seems to have been sucked into the same black hole that swelled up all the other Apollo evidence. Anyway, returning now to our timeline, the dawn of 1971 brings the trial of Lieutenant William Calle on charges that he personally ordered and oversaw the mass murder of the inhabitants of the village of My Lie. And on January 31, Apollo 14 is launched and once again makes a flawless lunar landing. On February 9, the Apollo team returns just a few weeks before Cali is convicted of murder, he served in absurdly short sentence under house arrest and none of his subperiers were ever held accountable. A few months after that the New York Times begins publication of the infamous Pentagon papers revealing American policy and Vietnam to be a complex web of lies. Publication is quickly stopped by the Justice Department but resumes once again as June turns to July. This has quickly followed on July 26 by the launch of Apollo 15. Four days later, yet another flawless lunar landing clearly demonstrates that America is the most badass nation on Earth. But Moonwalking has become a bit of a bore for the American people, so a new element is introduced, and from now on our beloved astronauts will roam the lunar surface in dune boggies. The lunar modules haven't gotten any bigger, but now they can transport vehicles to the moon. Cool. Back on Earth, the astronauts return on August 7 and the rest of the year passes uneventfully. On March 30, 1972, North Vietnamese troops mount a massive offensive across the DMZ into Kangtree Province, revealing as lies the pompous statements by numerous Washington Hacks that victory is close at hand. Nixon and company respond to the offensive with deep penetration bombing of North Vietnam and for good measure the illegal mining of North Vietnam's ports. They also respond by launching on April 16 another rocket and another dune buggy to the moon. On April 27, the crew of Apollo 16, once again, returned to a hero's welcome. By the end of the year a ceasefire is finally looming on their horizon, beginning in October. Kissinger and David Bruce, a member of the infamous Nellin family, are secretly negotiating peace terms with Gliddokto of North Vietnam. In December however those talks break down, but not before Apollo 17 is launched on December 7 in a most spectacular way. It's the first night launch of a Saturn V rocket. With the latest Apollo mission still a few days away from returning, the talks cease and Dick and Henry unleash a final ruthless carpet bombing campaign against North Vietnam snuffing out countless thousands of civilian lives. Meanwhile, America warmly greets its returning astronauts. Just five weeks later the talks having resumed a peace agreement is announced. Within a few days a ceasefire is in effect, thereby officially ending America's involvement in Southeast Asia. Though the CIA will remain to continue directing the war by proxy, America's men and women in uniform come home. And the Apollo program, despite several additional missions having been planned and discussed, and despite the additional funding that should have been available with the war drawing to a close, will never be heard from again. In addition to restoring national pride and providing a diversion from the Savage Colonial War being waged in Southeast Asia, the Apollo program undoubtedly served another function as well, covert funding of that war effort. Needless to say, faking moonlinings is less expensive than actually making moonlinings, and a whole lot of money was funneled NASA's way during the Vietnam years to accomplish the latter. It stands to reason that a considerable amount of that money could well have been diverted into covert operations being conducted in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. In addition, a portion of the Apollo funding likely financed the early stages of the militarization of space. There's no shortage of moonhokes debunking sites out there on the wild and willy worldwide web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued, and yet they tend to be rather smug and self-congratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to debunking the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so. One thing they'd like to talk a lot about is the Van Ellen radiation belts. The moonhokesites talk a lot about them as well. Hopters will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection. Protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And a debunker's claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed right through the belts quickly enough that given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hokers say debunkers are just being girly men. As it turns out, both sides are wrong. The debunkers shockingly enough are completely full of shit, and the hokers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself, wounded debunkers like to treat as virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except apparently when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven't actually been to the moon, as told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low Earth orbit on any future space flights our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as, and once again this comes directly from NASA while working on the surface of the moon. On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission, quote, NASA's vision for space exploration calls for a return to the moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper, radiation. Space beyond low Earth orbit is a wash with intense radiation from the sun, and deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Back in the 1960s of course, we didn't let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the russkes to the moon, but now I guess, being that we're more cultured and sophisticated, we want to do it the right way so we need to come up with a way of shielding our spaceships, and our temporary moon bases, and figure out how to do that according to NASA, could be a real, quote, showstopper. As NASA notes, the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as that they concrete around a nuclear reactor does, but making spaceships from concrete is not an option. Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding, but lead also isn't very popular with spaceship design. In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons a Soviet's never made it to the moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn't fly all that well, when clad with four feet of lead. Now NASA is thinking outside the box and contemplating using force fields to repel the radiation, a seemingly ridiculous idea that whether workable in the future or not certainly wasn't available to NASA in the 1960s. Below is NASA's own artist rendering of a proposed force field radiation shield that would allow astronauts to work safely on the moon. As you may have noticed, in the earlier photos of lunar modules, our guys didn't bring anything like that with them on their earlier missions to the moon. And you might have also noticed that the modules didn't have any type of physical shielding. You've got the pictures up here, guys, you have to check it out on the website. How then did they do it? My guess is that the answer lies in that gold foil wrap, while it may look like an amateurish attempt to make the modules appear more high-tech, I have a hunch that what we're looking at is another example of that lost 1960s technology. This time in the form of a highly advanced super-potimer that provided maximum radiation shielding while adding virtually no weight. So all we have to do is track down a few leftover rolls of that stuff, and we should be well on our way to sending guys back to the moon. According to Charles Bueller, an NASA scientist currently working on the force field concept, quote, using electric fields to repel radiation was one of the first ideas back in the 1950s when scientists started to look at the problem of protecting astronauts from radiation. They quickly dropped the idea though because it seemed like the high voltages needed and the awkward designs that they thought would be necessary would make such an electric shield impractical. What a real journalist would have asked here, of course, is quote, after dropping the electric shield concept, what exactly did they decide to use to get our astronauts safely to the moon and back on the Apollo missions? And why can't we do the same thing now rather than reinventing the wheel? Don't you guys have some of that gold foil in a closet somewhere? No one in the American media, of course. Bueller to ask such painfully obvious questions, the 2005 report from NASA ends as follows. Quote, but who knows perhaps one day astronauts on the moon will work safely? Unglue. Yes, and while we're dreaming the impossible dream, let's add a few more things to our wish list as well, like perhaps one day we'll be able to listen to music on 8-track tape players and talk to people on rotary dial phones and carry portable transistor radios and use cameras that shoot pictures on special film that develop us right before our eyes. Only time will tell, I suppose. The Van Allen belts, by the way, trap most earthbound radiation, thus making it safe for us mortals down here on the surface of planet Earth, as well as for astronauts in low Earth orbit. The belts extend from 1000 to 25,000 miles above the surface of the Earth. The danger is incending men through and beyond the belts, which apart from the Apollo missions has never been attempted. Well, actually there was that one time, but I think we all remember how badly that turned out. In case anyone has forgotten, the astronauts return to a world dominated by extremely poor acting, apes speaking with British accents and a shirtless Charlottes in Heston. And I don't think anyone wants to see that happen again. The 2005 report was not the first time that NASA had openly discussed the high levels of radiation that existed beyond the Van Allen belts. In February 2001, the space agency posted a debunking article that argued that the rocks allegedly brought back from the moon were so distinctive in nature that they proved definitively that man had gone to the moon. The problem though with maintaining a lie of the magnitude of the moon landing lie is that there was always the danger in that defending one part of the lie and other part will be exposed. Such was the case with NASA's Ilkenseef, the great moon hoax post, in which it was acknowledged that what it referred to as cosmic rays have a tendency to quote constantly bombard the moon and they leave their fingerprints on moon rocks. NASA scientists David McKay explained that quote, there are isotopes in moon rocks. isotopes we don't normally find on Earth that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest energy cosmic rays. The article went on to explain how quote, Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a moon rock by say bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blast waves, and in the violent cores of galaxies. So one of the reasons that we know that the moon rocks are real UC is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the moon. And our astronauts one would assume would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA's attempt at a debunking article, they apparently would prefer that you don't spend too much time analyzing what they have to say. How exactly are we to reconcile NASA's current position on space radiation with the same agency simultaneous claim that we've already sent men to the moon? There are a few different possibilities that come to mind, the first of which is that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we simply threw caution into the wind and sent our boys off to the moon with no protection of what so ever from space radiation. If that were true, however, then the question that would naturally be raised is, why not just do it again? After all, all of our moonwalkers made it home safe and sound and most have lived long healthy cancer-free lives. So while the fuss over space radiation, NASA could, I suppose, take the position that space radiation is a recent problem, perhaps in the 60s and 70s, space was relatively free of radiation, allowing unshielded Apollo rockets to cruise about without a care in the world. It was just a different solar system back in those days. As aging hippies like to say, if you remember the solar system of the 60s, you weren't really flying around in it. It proves to be the case that this space radiation quote, showstopper is a new development than I suppose that the only explanation that we are left with is that we did indeed have the technology to shield our astronauts from radiation back in the 60s, but at some time during the last four decades that technology was simply lost. What probably happened was an overzealous night custodian through the data away. The conversation around the NASA water cooler the next day probably went something like this. As anyone seemed to folder I left them at this last night, it contained the only copy of the secret formula that I devised for building a weightless space radiation shield. It could be 40 years or more before someone else can duplicate it. My ass is so fired. And that's the end of wagging the moon doggy, Park 3. Once again, head over to centerforminformdamerica.com and follow the feature tab down to moon doggy and feel free to follow along as we continue in this interesting and entertaining read. Thanks again for joining me. Look forward to catching you next time. Take care. Hello everyone, welcome back. I hope you're enjoying this reading of wagging the moon doggy by Dave McGowan. But today we're going to pick up in part 4, which is a part that I really like because it's very heavily centered in photography and it's a topic that I have a background and interest in. Dave has a strong background in photography, which is evident in his breakdown and analysis of this particular issue, which he really moves through quickly and he provides tons of examples straight from the source. So let's jump right in wagging the moon doggy, Park 4 by Dave and McGowan. Once on the moon, on the lunar surface in the dress, in the life support system, you couldn't see the camera. They couldn't bend their head that far down to see the scale. They had no viewfinder. They had to aim by moving their body. John Lundberg, chief designer of the Hasselblad cameras, allegedly used by the Apollo astronauts. They had to effectively guess where they were pointing the camera. H.J.P. Arnold, the codec executive who supplied the ectochrome film for the missions. The issue that most of the moon hoax and debunking sites spend the most time on by far is the photographic anomalies. And that I suppose is to be expected with the original videotapes, telemetry tapes and blueprints all having conveniently disappeared. And with most of the moon rocks missing on their legitimacy being unbearable, there isn't much else in the way of physical evidence to examine. Skeptics have identified a number of problems with NASA's official photographs of the alleged moon landings, including flags appearing to wave despite the lack of atmosphere, non-parallel shadows suggesting multiple light sources. Objects in the shadows that are clearly visible wouldn't they shouldn't be, again indicating multiple light sources. The complete lack of stars in the lunar sky, identical backgrounds and photos that NASA claim were shot at different locations, and inconsistency with the crosshair reference marks. We'll look at each of these in some detail. Well, we'll actually look at most of them in some detail because as it turns out, and I know that this will come as a huge disappointment to all the debunkers, but I don't really give a shit whether the flag is waving or not. Many of the debunking websites devote an inordinate amount of time to the issue, as though it were the primary plank on which the quote conspiracy theories rested. They do this because the videos and photos are ambiguous and open to interpretation, and the debunkers realize that people are going to see in them what they want to see. The truth though, is that it doesn't matter in the least whether the flag is waving, that is just one tiny drop of potential evidence in an overflowing bucket. Some of the other problems with the images are considerably less ambiguous, but before we even get to those, we must first discuss the fact that the very existence of the photographs is a technical impossibility. Simply stated, it would not have been possible to capture any of the images allegedly shot on the moon in the manner that NASA says they were captured. Back in the day you see, and younger readers may again want to cover their eyes, cameras weren't all that smart, so everything had to be done manually. The photographer had to manually focus each shot by peering through the viewfinder and rotating the lens until the scene came into focus. The proper aperture and shutter speeds had to be manually selected for each shot as well, to ensure a proper exposure, that required peering through the viewfinder as well, to meter the shot. Finally, each shot had to be properly composed and framed, which obviously also required looking through the viewfinder. The problem for the astronauts is that the cameras were mounted through their chests, which made it impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame, and focus the shots. Everything, therefore, was pretty much of a guess. Focusing would have been entirely guesswork, as with the framing of each shot. An experienced photographer can accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked such experience and they were also handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seeing was not what the camera was seeing. To add to their troubles, they were wearing space elements that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with enormously bulky, pressurized gloves that severely limited their manual dexterity. The odds of them getting even one of the three elements exposure, focus, and framing, correct under those conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low. And yet amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right. A rather self-important gent by the name of Jay-Winley, one of the most prominent of the NASA approved debunkers, attempts to spin all this away on his website, clavius.org. According to Winley, quote, the exposures were worked out ahead of time, based on experimentation. The ASA ISO rating of the film was known, and NASA photographers pre-computed the necessary exposures. In many cases, the camera settings for planned photos were given in the astronaut's cuff checklists. Did they send an advanced team to the moon to do that experimentation? Because the lighting conditions on the moon are pretty unique, as you well know, and nobody had ever been there before. So I'm not really seeing how NASA's photographers were able to work out the exposures quote, ahead of time. And what quote, planned photos are you referring to? How did they know what they were going to photograph before they even knew what was there? They knew they were going to take photos of each other, I suppose, end of the flag and the lander. But they would have had no clue how those things were going to be lit, and it's the lighting, not the subject, that primarily determines the exposure settings. Winley, of course, knows that since he claims on his site that he has quote, an experienced photographer who has worked professionally in that area from time to time. He must also know then that his comments about the unimportance of properly focusing a shot are intentionally misleading. He starts off on the right track more or less, advising readers that an increased depth of field quote means that when the lenses set to focus at a certain distance, objects somewhat nearer and farther from this ideal distance are also sharply focused. The narrower the aperture, the greater the depth of field. It is certainly true that the smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field will be, and the greater the depth of field, the more the background and foreground will be in focus, assuming that the subject is in proper focus. Winley, like the rest of the debunkers, would like us to believe that all of the photos shot on the lunar surface were shot with a very small aperture setting, which supposedly explains the lack of stars in the lunar sky, but we'll get to that soon enough, which would maximize the depth of field. And the greater the depth of field according to Winley, the sloppier the photographer can be about his focus settings, unquote. I might jump in really quick and add a couple of notes just for those that really are unfamiliar with photography. The word aperture, think of the iris and your pupil of your eye. When you are outside on a bright sunny day, the pupil dilates to a very small opening to effectively stop light from coming in. Only so much light is required to light a scene. The pupil of the eye adjusts to the proper setting every time. And as we all know, you step out of a brightly lit day into a dark room, the pupil of the eye dilates now to a large aperture. In photography, the larger the number, the smaller the aperture, maybe a bright sunny day, the smaller the number, the larger the aperture, it's just the opposite of what one would intuitively think. So in effect, the larger the number, the more light you're stopping from entering the scene. Landscape and architectural photographers tend to work in a wide angle environment with a wide depth of field. If an individual is in doubt, they can set the aperture to F8, it's called the F8 rule for street photography, you're just walking around and you want to shoot. And if you're focused ring is somewhere in the middle or maybe even set to infinity, you most likely get a clean shot of something. Portrait photographers will work in a shallow depth of field to isolate their subject, to throw the background or the foreground out of focus. You know, the eyes are usually the focal points of a portrait. And so that's usually where you locate a text sharp focus and let everything else fall out as need be. Some of the images that Dave shows here that are provided by NASA are captured with a shallow depth of field. The more open the lens is, the faster it is that one can shoot. And when that occurs, when one is shooting at a fast aperture, not even a very long shutter speed is required to really bring in a lot of stars in the sky. If the image is stopped down to like say, F16, which is a very small opening, it's going to require a much longer shutter speed. You're going to require a tripod every time if you're going to shoot in a broad depth of field, a tripod is almost always required. In today's cameras, the ISO, which was the former ASA, the film speed is now the sensor sensitivity being able to see real time in today's mirrorless cameras. The camera that I use will actually show me what's in focus. They didn't have that luxury back in the day. And they were shooting with rangefinder cameras to Mr. Windley and to the NASA photography team's credit rangefinder cameras can be calculated based on distance. They don't function as a 35 millimeter SLR usually. A rangefinder camera has a lens assembly that is acquiring the image and the viewer is not looking through an image that's bounced, which is what a single lens reflex is. An SLR, it's bouncing the image that you're seeing from the lens. It's bouncing it through two mirror assemblies up into your eye through the viewfinder, whereas a rangefinder camera doesn't do that. It's off to the side. And it's just there for a distance calculation. So if they have their distances calculated, they can, guess, and point and shoot, whether they're looking through or not doesn't matter. All they're going to be seeing is something that is a tool there to help them calculate the distance. And usually rangefinder photography requires the use of peripheral tools to help you really dial in and accurately shot. So photographically speaking, it's not an altogether beyond the pale impossibility, but the likelihood of such imagery coming back in such fashion is just as fantastic as anything else when looked at in detail. Continuing. So the greater the depth of field, according to Windley, the sloppier the photographer can be about his focus settings. That last statement for those who may have missed it is the part that actually isn't true. An increased depth of field most certainly does not mean that you can use the close enough technique to focus your camera. Depth of field has nothing to do with whether your subject is sharply focused or not. If your subject is sharply focused, then Dept