Wagging the Moondoggie

[bdw000]

Some of the best (and recent) arguments for "we never went to the moon" that I've ever come across can be found here:

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

Some people here will want to read this material. Others will not of course.

There are currently 11 short articles, possibly more to come, under the heading at the top of the page called WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE.

I do not claim to know that NASA ("never a straight answer") faked the moon landings. But many of the arguments here give pause for thought, and cannot, in my opinion, be dismissed out of hand. I have seen many arguments claiming that "we never went to the moon" fall flat on their faces. But that does not in any way disprove other arguments.

There were two minor points in these articles that I either did not understand what the author was saying, or disagreed with him. But most of what this author says makes me shake my head and wonder what is really going on.

This guy is fun to read, if nothing else.

[junglelord]

This is the most damming evidence.
They were in near earth orbit, when they were supposed to be half way to the moon, monkeying around with a dark interior and a view which makes the earth look small and far away....how ingenious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM&NR=1

[bdw000]

Hey JL: I saw that DVD years ago, and was very convinced by it. And yet . . .

Here is a site that SEEMS to go some way to debunking Bart Sibrel's "Something Happened on the Way to the Moon" :

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/

I can't claim to "know" that either side is not faking photos or videos. But "if" this website is being honest (not using pics from some other situation and labelling them as "Apollo 11"), there may be problems with Sibrel's video.

Again, I can't claim to know either way. Bottom line: anything at all can be disinfo, even stuff we like.

Which is why I like WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE, which uses mostly logical analysis of the reported history to see if it all adds up.

[GaryN]

There must have been some landings of something, in order to place the retroreflectors on the moon. Wiki has 'third-party' evidence for the Moon landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-part ... n_landings

I'm sticking with my belief that they did go to the Moon, but there was a stage set on earth that they could switch to if something occurred on the Moon they didn't want us to see. Which I believe, did.

[bdw000]

There must have been some landings of something, in order to place the retroreflectors on the moon. Wiki has 'third-party' evidence for the Moon landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-part ... n_landings

I'm sticking with my belief that they did go to the Moon, but there was a stage set on earth that they could switch to if something occurred on the Moon they didn't want us to see. Which I believe, did.

Hey Gary.

In these articles, the author points out that, guess what, they were "reflecting" lasers off of the plain lunar surface before they even went to the moon. Therefore, the claim that reflecting lasers AFTER the moonshots doesn't really prove that there are retroreflectors there. I know that the issue could be way more complicated than that, but the omission of such a detail makes me think.

Also, the presence of NASA "stuff" on the moon in no way "proves" that it was set down there by MANNED missions: anything there could easily have been put down without any humans being on the craft: they were landing unmanned probes before 1969. I am not claiming to know that humans never set foot on the moon, just pointing out that logically, pointing to stuff on the moon simply does not prove that humans were there when it set down.

The Moondoggie articles also address the moonrocks: if this guy is correct (and I admit, maybe he isn't), moonrocks provide no evidence: most of them are mysteriously unavailable at this time, with at least one known fake.

Also, no photo will ever prove anything. They were faking photos more than 100 years ago. Surely NASA could fake any photo they wanted to. I'm not saying I know that's what has happened, this is just a logical argument. IN the Moondoggie articles the author also addresses some photos of "the evidence." My own opinion is that no photo taken in recent years can prove what happened 30 years ago. Would a photo of someone in a room today, prove that they killed someone in that room 30 years ago? To even suggest that current photos prove anything at all related to 1969 is an insult (in my opinion). I repeat that I do not claim to know that such photos have been faked, I am just irked that such logical flaws are thrown out as "proof."

I agree with your idea that they could well have gone to the moon, but may also have produced "fake" film for "public consumption" for whatever reason. I tend to lean to the idea that if they did go, they simply did not go in rockets, but used much more advanced (EM?) craft (just a guess) that they wanted to keep secret. The more I find out, the more unlikely the use of rockets seems to be (to me).

Anyway, I suggest that the articles are a good read. This is strictly an epistemological question: how do we KNOW anything about the moon landings? Isn't most of it other people telling us that it happened?

[StevenJay]

(Part ten ends with this question) [...] how come none of the space shuttles, during the more than a quarter-century that the program has been in operation, has ever done a fly-by of the Moon? The Apollo 13 crew allegedly made the flight in a lunar module composed of Popsicle sticks and Scotch tape, and yet the obviously vastly more sophisticated space shuttle can’t make it there and back? Really?!

Why couldn’t it, on any one of its missions, have just used the old ‘slingshot’ approach to go to the Moon and back? And please, let’s not trot out the old “there was no reason to do that as there was nothing to gain” excuse, because that is clearly a complete load of horseshit. The space shuttle is far better shielded than the Apollo craft were, it carries plenty of fuel and plenty of provisions to last for the duration of the trip. Indeed, today’s astronauts should be able to travel to the Moon and back in relative comfort.

So why has it never been done? Apollo 8 did it all the back in 1968 [...]

I have wondered the same thing for years. But, so far, I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

For what it's worth, Jay Weidner has published his own theories about the Apollo moon landings.

[junglelord]

Well I am glad somebody stated the ovbious.
Whats wrong with the Shuttle?
Simple, we never went to the moon on a manned mission.
We have yet to do that, at least publicly.