Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1, the clip show

Below are sections I lifted from Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1, by Dave McGowan. It is 23 pages in pdf but flows very fast as DM is a very good writer. I clipped those sections that seemed most pertinent. In part one he is questioning at great length why, if we had the technology in 1969, we never went back. The obvious answer, given that the original footage of the men on the moon has never been seen, and all of the technical data has been lost due to a whale oil shortage, is that we never went there in the first place.

It is my intention to do this for all 14 essays that comprise Moondoggie, interspersed with regular stuff that goes on here. By the way, it occurred to me as I was reading that what McGowan was giving us was something seldom seen … critical thinking. (Speaking of which, in the comments in the post below I meant to add that SpaceX has given us footage of rockets landing after having flown. That is utterly absurd and did not happen, so that even in this century we are still being hoaxed. But imagine that for six successful moon missions they pulled off this feat. The problem is that rocket engines produce uneven thrust, but when moving forward unite that thrust in one motion. Seeking to land with uneven thrust would most assuredly have stranded men in Playtex suits on the moon forever.)

Everything hereafter is DM’s words, not mine. I have underlined parts for emphasis.

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1

But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously [to belief in the moon landings], often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live [in]? … That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.

There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”

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.

Some readers will recall that (and younger readers might want to cover their eyes here, because the information to follow is quite shocking), in the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of a fuzzy, 13-channel, black-and-white television set with a rotary tuning dial, rabbit ears and no remote. Such cutting-edge technology as the pocket calculator was still five years away from hitting the consumer market.

Again, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat? Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon? Why has no other nation ever attempted to send a manned spacecraft anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit?

Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program – the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles.

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets [WVB] had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).

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. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?

Needless to say, if what has been proposed here is indeed how the ‘Moon landing’ footage in the public domain was created, then the highly incriminating original footage – which would have looked like any other footage shot here on Earth, except for the silly costumes and props – would have had to have been destroyed. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

28 thoughts on “Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1, the clip show

  1. ” ,,, if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.”

    Sure, they could, and they have but that doesn’t mean they lied about the moon landings.

    ” ,,, in the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of … :

    Not evidence. No one is denying that the moon landings were an extraordinary event and – in fact – from this extraordinary effort things were developed that changed what we had in our homes.

    Click to access 80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

    “According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them”

    Already been through the tape thing.

    I’m sticking to my hypothesis that Dave McGowan is/was an agent and Wagging the Moondoggie is a work of propaganda from start to finish whose purpose was to mislead those skeptical of the authorities and turn them into Boys-Who-Cried-Wolf.


    1. The 700 cartons were of moon walking footage, a different animal, video tape, easily preserved and duplicated. It going missing is evidence it never existed. We’ve never seen real footage from those 700 cartons. Interesting, no?

      And yes, McGowan is a spook, but you do not yet grasp his mission, It is not what you say. Keep at it.


      1. Actually, just one thing. I see where I was confused now. He’s saying the footage was destroyed but you’re saying it never existed. If you’re going to say it never existed that’s different from him and that’s a different debunking.


        1. Don’t be confused. I say that the footage being “missing” is EVIDENCE that it never existed. If real, it was some of the most valuable film footage in human history. And they just lost it? C’mon, Petra. You’re not even trying.

          PS: The word “debunk” grinds on me. Please say “refute” if you think something has been shown to be true or false or questionable.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. “https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
    From the Missing Tapes section at bottom of debunking

    McGowan’s theory is that the footage of astronauts in the low-gravity environment of the moon was created simply by playing back footage filmed on Earth at half the normal speed. He suggests that NASA cannot supply the original tapes because they contained the incriminating full-speed footage and were therefore destroyed. “If the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed,” he says, “the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth.” He fails to link to any video demonstrating his point, but this double-speed video of astronauts on the moon shows his claim to be false. The movement of the astronauts at this speed looks clearly absurd.

    The double-speed of the astronauts is pretty hilarious – if you accept Dave McGowan’s theory of double-speeding the original I really don’t know what to say. I accept SS’s debunking of McGowan’s destroyed footage theory. If you don’t, so be it.

    I have no more to say on the missing footage.


      1. No it’s not a storm-out, they’re not my thing. I go on and and on and on to the bitter end – Scott’ll testify to that. I just think we’re going around in circles and when that happens I’ll drop out. Also, I really just want to stop arguing but as I demanded so many times for evidence in WTM that contradicts the reality of the moon landings I’ll certainly engage on this.

        What we need to do, Mark, is establish clarity between what you say and what Dave says:

        You say the footage never existed but Dave says:

        — Astronauts were filmed at normal speed in a fake moon situation
        — This footage was sped up to double-speed and broadcast
        — “If the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed,” he says, “the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth.”

        — The original footage of the astronauts taken at normal speed was destroyed to hide the evidence of fakery.

        Actually, I’ve just noticed a problem here. He says “if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed” when what would make sense – if the footage was faked on earth – is to slow it down to make it look like they’re on the moon not speed it up. Whichever way you go, speed up or slow down, it doesn’t look like normal movement on earth. So the video below is at double-speed – if you slow it down to 0.25 which would be half the normal speed it still doesn’t look like normal movement.


        In response to your claim that the footage never existed, there is loads of footage that is entirely consistent with the unique lunar conditions so even if loads of footage was destroyed for whatever reason there is still loads of evidence remaining.

        But we’re not arguing your opinion on the footage what we’re arguing is WTM.

        Do you agree that the footage of the astronauts (sped up or slowed down) is not consistent with normal movement and thus Dave’s claim is false?


      2. Just to add:

        I think Dave’s saying “if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed” when what would make sense is to slow them down is a very deliberate “mistake”. As I say, it’s a work of propaganda from start to finish. It reminds me of Jeremy Rys’s “Conspiracy Solved” about all the suspicious companies located in the twin towers and how there were people targeted in the buildings, etc that had me totally sucked in. Just one of a number of pieces of propaganda that delayed my no-brainer epiphany that death and injury were staged.

        Anyone else sucked in by Jeremy Rys aka Alien Scientist?


        1. I do not have to and do not defend everything Dave says. Regarding speed of movement in the film footage, I have no idea.

          I will deal with all of this tomorrow, later in my morning. In the meantime, you are finally reading Wagging the Moondoggie. 13 installments to go. You are going to be a busy debunker.


        2. You really are dense.

          First of all, why are you derailing the subject with 9/11 crap from some dubious author?

          Secondly, if you believe that 1960’s technology was up to the task of perfect control of every single achievement allegedly done while flying to the moon and back, you need to reevaluate your knowledge in IT and robotics.

          This is a non-programmable “handheld” calculator from 1967, just 2 years before the alleged take off. Just THINK about it for a moment. Your belief is a romanticised idea of the possibility, that’s all. Yes, you can see some old footage of NASA’s mission control room full of staff and monitors, but what’s actually going under the hood is, I believe, even beyond your wildest imagination. Less than 400 command lines within a programme controlling 1st-ever-landing of the lunar module authored by a 20-something punk? And it doesn’t trigger any alarm in your head? Your octa-core android phone has more computing power than all the control room’s computers, for goodness’ sake. I find your naivety really astounding and your confidence while bloating the comment section unbelievable. No need to argue this, as you’re never gonna make me reevaluate my opinion that you’re clueless when it comes to digital realm.

          Thirdly, film footage lost or not, are you familiar with the technology of the recording devices of the era? The cameras used in alleged moon missions were using regular film tape, basically made of thin layer of plastic coated with flammable chemicals, so how would you explain this plastic surviving extreme heat, cold and radiation in an exposed camera lacking any insulation? I know, something along this line – “yeah, since the footage exists, Nasa’s engineers must have had thought of some ingenious way to cope with the challenge”. Sure they did, dear.

          I could go on and on with it, but I have no more patience left. You should know that sometimes it’s better to stay quiet when you have nothing (smart) to say.


          1. “First of all, why are you derailing the subject with 9/11 crap from some dubious author?”

            Dubious? Not merely dubious but clearly an agent just like Dave. It’s not derailing, it’s making a perfectly legitimate comparison.

            Yes, I’m clueless about lots of stuff MiniMe but where is the clear refutation of the computing used in the Apollo programme?

            Where is the refutation of this book? How many moonhoaxers are also computer experts? Quite a number, no? – expose this book as fraudulent and then I’ll pay attention.

            What I judge is what I know. What a lot of moonhoaxers judge is what they clearly are not expert in and they suffer massively from the Dunning-Kruger effect. They say, “Look at A, A means Z,” when there is no clear connection. A lot of leaps and bounds were made in the space prorgram shown in a document I linked to in a previous comment.


                1. Inability to actually read and process McGowan.

                  Inability to understand points of argumentation I have made with those that exist only in your mind, that is, halving film speed. I avoided that topic as I could not find any way to make a case one way or the other, while you parroted the “debunkers”.

                  Inability to distinguish between magnetic tapes containing data (supposedly) made on earth while rockets were supposedly on their journey to moon and cartons of processed film (supposedly) made while astronauts were on the moon. Inability to see that disappearance of each is strong evidence of fraud.

                  I’ll stop there.


            1. “Yes, I’m clueless about lots of stuff MiniMe but where is the clear refutation of the computing used in the Apollo programme?”

              It’s not needed as per my logic. Why? There’s a footage out there, where these same engineers couldn’t make any test-module land on Earth in one piece, repeatedly, over months and years of trying. That was the state of their engineering and programming capability just before the alleged moon mission. The first successful landing ever was, of course, achieved up there, on the Moon, as shown only on TV in crappy resolution. Do I need to go on? Then some 20 y.o. punk comes in with the perfectly written landing control programme and they test it on-the-fly, with people on board while attempting to land with it? I’m sure they did. So, having said all that, I trust you can see why I’m not going to further spend my time on examining some ancient guidance computer’s architecture and operation (btw, the written book above is not proof or evidence of the existence of any such computer). At the time this was all going on, they had no technological means of doing what they vehemently claim to have done, that’s my stance. The burden of proof is on you to present one piece of earth-bound technology capable of computer-operated flight/landing dating from 1960’s, powered by batteries as common in space. We can then talk about the specifics in programming terms if you’ll still wish to.


              1. “It’s not needed as per my logic.”

                Yes, that’s moonhoaxer thinking: “I know what’s what, whatever the actual evidence says is irrelevant.”

                Evidence is king. That book is right there waiting to be shown to be fraudulent. Demonstrate its fraudulence and I’ll pay attention.


            2. I have no way of speeding up or slowing down taped recordings of moon walking as transmitted to a black and white TV and then filmed. If you notice in my debunking of the debunking, I stayed away from everything technical, and focused on 1) the missing magnetic tapes, and 2) use of the Cold War as justification for the US effort. Technical issues, such as use of fuel and that book you keep putting forward could easily be technobabble. NASA has that capability the the resources necessary to order up any thing desired.

              However, in the coming thirteen installments, there will be plenty of evidence to debate. Stay tuned.

              I think you are misreading the nature of Dunning Kruger, which states that stupid people cannot know they are stupid because they are stupid. Wrestling with complicated evidence and trying to judge its credibility is another story.

              Anyway, why do you suppose that Sensiblesite focused on the magnetic data tape reels and ignored the cartons of photographic evidence? Both going missing is significant, but specifically the photographic evidence, which, by the way, has never been seen by anyone. The magnetic tapes perhaps were useless, but still, a valuable archive for future researchers who do not call themselves Sensiblesite.


              1. OK, Mark, I’m going to bow out now. As I said I am sick of arguing and while I asked for something in WTM that clearly contradicted the reality of the moon landings I’m not prepared to wait any longer. The point is that I see a number of things that show WTM is a fraudulent piece of work but as you don’t see that then we simply have different interpretations that I believe can never be reconciled.

                I am happy to read people’s posts and make the odd comment where it won’t result in continued argument but my resolution now is to give up constantly arguing with people and get a bit more of a proper life.


  3. And the double speed walking theory is a bit absurd.
    I mean I’ve never tried walking around in a ‘moon suit’ but I’m sure it not gonna be an easy walk – at any speed.


    1. That is all above my pay grade, that is, I have no means by which to measure such a thing and am not taking DM’s word on it. I do understand that they were filmed on the Earth side of things, in a massive warehouse of some kind, and that they could not solve the problem of correct placement of stars, so simply eliminated them. How they created the walking segments to look un-earthly, I do not know.


      1. Who knows. Probably the space suits were not the same which are on display in museums, maybe much lighter. When it comes to the warehouse, the elephant in the hall is the line separating the set from the projected background. Known as “Stanley Kubrick’s Front Screen Projection Technique” – Present in all footage! Like the missing stars, one should expect just one deep real landscape, plenty of missions, but there’s not a single one. The landscape is always behind a hill, the line is sometimes wild, done with effort and creativity, but it’s always there. You can’t unsee it. My brain immediately takes the footage apart.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s