[Note to readers: This post was published by accident and prematurely. What follows below differs in many parts from the original. My fat fingers hit the wrong button.]
Petra Liverani is the object of this post. While so, I want to keep it objective as possible, and to resist personal insult. I bear no ill will, maintain no posture of superior wisdom. She and I suffer the same shortcoming, resistance to reading anything we are not predisposed to agree with. She challenged me to read a long treatment by a professional “debunker” of Dave McGowan’s Moondoggie series. I have done so, even knowing she has not read McGowan’s work. I have done my due diligence.
McGowan (fake death 11/22/15, currently alive and well in LA) took us as far as allowed, and as with all limited hangouts, hid more than he revealed. but this is the public platter, and that is where this matter will center.
There is, in formal logic, a fallacy known as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”. Literally translated, it is “after this thing, therefore because of this thing.” One can see it clearly in the example of shark attacks on humans increasing as ice cream sales increase. The fallacy would be to claim that sale of ice cream causes shark attacks. More logically, ice cream sales increase in the summer, as do people swimming in the ocean.
The professional “Debunkers” have at their disposal an array of authoritative sources schooled in rocketry, and the Apollo Saturn V was real. It is logical therefore to conclude that these very skilled people put men on the moon. I see the rockets, I saw them take off. Did they manage to put men on the moon using them? No! One does not lead to the other. We only know rockets took off, but not where they went, really. They were doing something, and whatever it was, they are not telling. But the answer can be found in the two quotations I used with my piece called Moon Landings Again:
“Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control Earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change the climates …” (Lyndon Johnson, 1958)
“In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course …” (McGowan, Moondoggie)
So yes, they did rocketry and got very good at it, but IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that they went to the moon. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
My biggest problem with “debunkers” is that they suck on the teats of power and blandly repeat official truth, their only real job being to distort and confuse, layering enough technobabble on top of official lies to fool ordinary observers. Thus, I want nothing to do with this jackass other than to cast him in the shadows of professional liars.
This link will take you to the debunking piece, “part 1.” The boldfaced headings are his, the responses mine. For me to reprint everything he wrote and then to respond is too much. You can read his words yourself and switch back here for a response if you are so inclined.
Comparison of Apollo to transatlantic travel
No one claims that going to the moon, if that happened, was not far more difficult than earthly activities. Debunker is answering a question not asked, a standard political ploy. The point made by McGowan was that given that the technology supposedly worked, forty years should not have gone by before it was duplicated. The first trans-Atlantic flight in 1919 and within a decade was a routine occurrence. THAT is the point.
Comparison of Apollo to a 500mph early automobile.
This answer is a non-sequitur. McGowan was not talking about any gaps, but only that remarkable accomplishment, his equivalent of a car going 500mph, and no follow-up thereafter even with the technological breakthrough,
The Soviets’ space budget was half of the USA’s.
I would give debunker this small point if we knew how much the two countries actually spent on their programs, and that they really were competing. I think McGowan thinks there was actual competition, so that should indeed be debunked. Indeed, landing people on the moon would be far more difficult than putting them in space, and that is the point. Debunker assumes that happened, McGowan knows it did not.
The Apollo landings were about geopolitics, not science.
By the way, our Debunker is British if one endeavors to read closely. Debunker is making McGowan’s points for him. The cost/benefit of the Apollo program was not there. The Apollo missions were a “symbolic” demonstration of American superiority over Russia. That’s as far a reach as anyone has ever made in justifying Apollo. Burden of proof: Were the US and USSR really embittered enemies? Given the divvying up of German scientists postwar it appears that far from enemies, there were agreements between the two countries on what was to be done. They were cooperating. There was a division of labor. The Soviets could work in secrecy, while the Americans were obligated to place their lies in layers of seeming truth. That is the great shortcoming of democratic governance, that while public opinion must officially be treated with respect, it is rarely heeded. Americans space research was no more transparent than that of the Soviets, only layered in disinformation and misdirection.
The price of the moon landings.
The presumptions behind this bit of “debunking” is that we have a true accounting of the space program, and that even if it were accurate, that the funds were used for rocketry and moon landings, and nothing else. There’s a great burden on Debunker here to counter McGowan’s words early on in his series: “In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents*make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.” (*Link now dead.)
The technology of the 1960s.
“Clearly space technology hasn’t advanced as fast as McGowan thinks”, says Debunker. Is this not McGowan’s point, restated? McGowan nowhere says that NASA should revert to 1960s technology to repeat the accomplishments of that era. This is, again, a non-sequitur, answering questions not asked.
Smaller distances travelled by modern astronauts.
Debunker: “McGowan makes the point that modern astronauts travel much smaller distances than the Apollo astronauts travelled, as if this proved that travelling further must be impossible. All it actually proves is that NASA has been concentrating on things other than the moon since the Apollo era. As discussed earlier, the moon landings were primarily symbolic. Once they were over NASA was able to turn its attention to less expensive, more practical, and more scientifically beneficial projects, which is why it started work on the space shuttles, with the intention of establishing a space station (now the International Space Station). The idea of the space shuttle was that it would bring down the cost of reaching space by being reusable and flying on a regular basis. Without the distorting influence of the desire to beat Russia to the Moon, crewed space exploration reverted to the course it would probably have followed had the Cold War not happened, concentrating on the far more easily-accessible environment closer to the Earth.”
Again, Debunker relies on the repeated but never actually proven shibboleth that the US and USSR were deadly enemies in competition with each other, when evidence points to the contrary. That is central to his premise, that competition between two superpowers drove the US to make a public display of its superiority. But were they? Confident allies in World War II, after that they divvied up scientists and each undertook study of rocketry. It was not until 1961 that talk of going to the moon became the norm, the Soviets never getting on that ship. It appears that the Soviets and Americans were involved in a joint venture, and that travel to the moon became misdirection, the Americans being much more advanced in the science of propaganda than the Soviets (who were rather ham-handed in that area).
Debunker: “’Is there no military advantage to be gained by sending men to the Moon?’ McGowan asks, but doesn’t delve into any specifics. Establishing a manned military base would likely take up a large part of the US military budget over the course of decades, assuming it could even be done, all for an advantage so poorly defined McGowan doesn’t even hazard a guess as to what it might be. It’s probably safe to assume conventional military spending provides better value for money.”
Debunker says that the Moon landings had no scientific purpose, and now no military value. Can it be made clearer than that that we had no reason to go to the Moon, and so probably did not?
Single-stage versus multi-stage rockets.
Debunker here misses the point made elsewhere by McGowan (and which will be addressed below in better detail) that the rockets were under-fueled, whether it was Saturn V or the Command and Lunar Landings, as those two vehicles had to go an additional 223,000 miles, most of which would be without escaping Earth’s gravity. Whether or not this was done with single stage or multiple stage rocketry is not the point. The question is how much fuel is required to get there, land, take off again and return. Debunker addresses this issue below. Did WvB ever comment on that other than his need for an 800,000 ton rocket statement, or did he go silent on us. If he went silent on us, does this mean he was in on the game? (Most likely.)
The missing tapes.
The ”double speed film” of astronauts on the moon – we have no way of knowing the speed of that video unless we can compare it to the original. They could be, probably is, 3 or 4 times original speed. How can we know without seeing them side by side in order to measure distances covered in time.
Indeed prior to the 1974 Arab oil boycott, when whale oil came in demand once more, whale oil was used to make magnetic recording tape. There was a period of time (1970s) when the synthetic substitute for whale oil caused degradation of tapes worldwide, but it is thought that the problem was rushing the technology to market as whale oil was outlawed. Anyway, I can find nothing about a shortage of magnetic tape in the 1980s, in fact what I learn is during that time was a movement towards cassettes and away from reels, but no shortage. Also, during that time occurred the digital revolution. So that part of Debunker’s argument is debunked. There was a change of technology in the 1970s, but in the 1980s advances were making use of magnetic tape easier. There would be no need to write over reel-to-reel tapes. Use of magnetic tape was on its way out.
I think it most likely that NASA did not destroy, nor did they write over Apollo tapes. Rather I think it far more likely that the tapes simply did not exist, and that this argument is misdirection, an American propaganda specialty.
Regarding use of a TV camera top film a TV screen of the supposed astronauts on the moon, I don’t care, that is, I would not make a fuss about that. Technology was so primitive at that time that no one was on the moon anyway. C’mon.
The amount of fuel needed to reach the moon.
This is a somewhat impressive body of information, all above my pay grade, but I have one question: What is it holds the Moon in Earth’s sphere if not the Earth’s gravity? I can see that when a rocket approaches the Moon, Earth’s gravitational pull lessens, and it will gradually come under the Moon’s gravitational pull. But Debunker here has the Earth’s gravitational pull on the Lunar and Command vehicles at 1/50th of surface gravity at only 1/10th of the way to the Moon. What if, however, that diminishing pull is massive at the start? Then 1/50th woudl still be significant. If Debunker is correct, by the time the spaceship is halfway to the moon, gravity has ceased to matter, and it is in essential free fall. But we know that not to be so. Again, I have to ask, what holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth?
This stuff is all beyond my comfort zone (and Petra’s expertise as well) so I leave it at that. I will say, however, that none of us knows the true amount of fuel that would be used in a hypothetical trip to the Moon, and that NASA has it within its power to publish any set of numbers, true or not, since so much evidence says we did not go there, but that other work was underway using Saturn V rockets. I would classify the charts on fuel use as misdirection, boldfaced lying, or a true rendition of LEO use of fuel during the Apollo program. I cannot know which.
The Lunar Rovers were, as far as I can tell, converted Willie’s Jeeps. I have seen superimposition of a Jeep frame on to the Rovers, done with known specifications for each, and it was a precise fit. That part of the hoax, the Rovers just turning up on the Moon, is an absurd proposition.
Saturn V rockets were indeed real, and used, I imagine, to transport weapons and other equipment into LEO, and not men to the moon. So there should indeed be blueprints for them, confirmed by Debunker.
OK, Petra: I’ve read your Debunkers Report. Now, get going on the 50 points of interest that I gleaned from the McGowan writings, point by point in my post called Moon Landings Again. You cannot hide away forever. Your future comments will automatically go to moderation, only those addressing the matters at hand seeing light of day. After all, there’s only so much Occam we can endure.