PDA

View Full Version : "Wagging The Moondoggie" by Dave McGowan



Magnificent Desolation
2002-Apr-04, 09:48 PM
URL: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/apollo.htm

This is a HB, who - even though he admits that the essay is written in a "tongue-in-cheek tone" - claims that Nixon created the Moon Hoax in order to divert attention from Vietnam.

A quote:

"But Tricky Dick has a bit of a problem on his hands: he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. In fact, he would really, 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 traditionally been done by, of course, embarking on some military endeavor. The problem for Big Dick 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, send Neil and Buzz to the moon, of course. Instead of wagging the dog, it's time to wag the moondoggie"

Dave McGowan appears to be a leftwinger with some pretty strange beliefs. Here´s his beliefs on 911:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com

"Magnificent Desolation"



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Magnificent Desolation on 2002-04-04 16:49 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-05, 02:19 AM
You know, why is it that every time I read an article that starts out, "I didn't know anything about the moon landings being a hoax until I read X's book (or saw X's video), but then I read the book (or saw the video), and I was immediately convinced..."

Anyway, why is it that EVERY time, the very first "proof" that the moon landings were a hoax is going to be "the Van Allen belts"?

Every time. I can predict it by now.

And, you know, in the early 1970s I was an adult, and I was watching the news during the invasion of Cambodia and the My Lai trials and the publication of the Pentagon papers and the ins and outs of the Vietnam War, and if the various Apollo missions were meant to distract me from them, then, Dave, dear, I'm here to tell you that Tricky Dick and his evil cohorts at NASA failed utterly.

The only reason I know anything about the Apollo missions other than, "the moon landing one, what was that--Eleven?" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif is because of reading about them later. At the time, they went WHOOOSH right over my head. The My Lai Massacre seemed much more important.

WHarris
2002-Apr-05, 10:49 AM
On 2002-04-04 21:19, Jigsaw wrote:
The only reason I know anything about the Apollo missions other than, "the moon landing one, what was that--Eleven?" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif is because of reading about them later. At the time, they went WHOOOSH right over my head. The My Lai Massacre seemed much more important.


Not to me. But then again, I was only six at the time. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-Apr-05, 03:44 PM
Besides the VanAllen belts killing astronauts as proof that the whole Apollo program was a hoax - the logic that drives me buggy is the continual statements that ‘everyone knows that the LM descent engine would cause big craters – even NASA’s artists drew the landings this way!’.

As for the moon landings being a diversion from Vietnam, If you lived throught the period, you know how foolish this statement is. – I followed Apollo with a passion but as a HS student at the time Vietnam, etc. was the main focus of our lives – Apollo was my escape from the stress of life, others escaped in other ways, but we were never “diverted”. If you came of age during those years, the LOTTERY was a very important part of your life! Also, remember that several moon landings were canceled because by ’70 & ‘71, the American public was focused on other things.

Jim
2002-Apr-05, 05:02 PM
Let me see if I have this theory straight...

Dick Nixon takes office in January 1969 and manages to pull off the Greatest Hoax in the History of the World just six months later? And then, a few years after that, completely botches the Watergate coverup?

Ri-i-i-ight.

(BTW, I recall two events from that period with great clarity. One was watching the Apollo 11 first step on my roommate's TV with the four female teachers from down the landing. The other was the night of The Lottery. They didn't list my b'day (I was 278) which meant I was safe. I went out on the landing to enjoy the evening and saw another fellow across the way, head rasied to the stars. "Two," he cried. "My God, I'm two!)

JayUtah
2002-Apr-05, 05:12 PM
I love how Bart Sibrel harps on Nixon as the biggest hoaxer of the century, someone surely capable of hoaxing the moon landings.

Okay, forget entirely that the whole thing was basically Lyndon Johnson's show which Nixon simply took over at the last minute. And forget that Apollo 8 -- which convinced the Russians we were going to get there first -- happened a mere handful of days after Nixon took office.

Concentrate instead on the fact that Watergate was a simple break-in -- a "smash and grab" job that is successfully accomplished hundreds of times a day by high-school dropouts without getting caught. To say, on this basis, that Nixon was the hoaxster of the century is simply ludicrous.

DaveC
2002-Apr-05, 05:56 PM
There must be tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people who made their living off the Apollo project. If they were simply paid for nothing in order to create the impression of a real program, where did the money come from to carry out the hoax - build the sets, create the hudreds of backdrop scenes, pay off the Russians, the amateur astronomers and radio operators, the geologists, Stanley Kubrick etc etc etc. Grumman and Noth American each had huge workforces, (allegedly) developing and building Apollo equipment. These people were presumably paid pretty good salaries, as were the NASA scientists and engineers.
If Nixon couldn't hide a break-in, how were he and his administration able to hide the most monumental cooking of the government's financial books imaginaable? How could it be that 33 years later no-one has found the multibillion dollar discreapancy that the secret parallel project would have created. How long did it take Enron to get caught fudging the books?

ToSeek
2002-Apr-05, 06:33 PM
On 2002-04-05 12:56, DaveC wrote:
There must be tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people who made their living off the Apollo project. If they were simply paid for nothing in order to create the impression of a real program, where did the money come from to carry out the hoax - build the sets, create the hudreds of backdrop scenes, pay off the Russians, the amateur astronomers and radio operators, the geologists, Stanley Kubrick etc etc etc. Grumman and Noth American each had huge workforces, (allegedly) developing and building Apollo equipment. These people were presumably paid pretty good salaries, as were the NASA scientists and engineers.
If Nixon couldn't hide a break-in, how were he and his administration able to hide the most monumental cooking of the government's financial books imaginaable? How could it be that 33 years later no-one has found the multibillion dollar discreapancy that the secret parallel project would have created. How long did it take Enron to get caught fudging the books?


That ties in with my point about the accusation that NASA saved billions by hoaxing the Moon landing. If they did, what did they save it on? All the equipment was built and tens of thousands of people were paid. That money was spent.

DaveC
2002-Apr-05, 06:43 PM
So a hoax would not only be technically more difficult to pull off than ctually going to the moon, it would have been more expensive to boot. And one would assume that most of the conspirators are still getting paid off today - else why would they keep the secret?

DJ
2002-Apr-05, 07:04 PM
I just really like dogs, and get extremely annoyed when they wind up in politics.

DJ

DaveC
2002-Apr-05, 08:31 PM
With all the dogs in politics the world over you must be more than annoyed. Actually, calling them dogs is a compliment - I really like dogs, too. Maybe Wag the Rat, or Wag the Cockroach would have been better.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-05, 09:16 PM
And one would assume that most of the conspirators are still getting paid off today - else why would they keep the secret?

Three ways to get people to do your will.

First, convert them ideologically. Convince them it's in the nation's best interest, good for their families, God's will, or some other noble goal. Inculcate them against anything that might erode that faith.

Okay, that never works completely. People change their minds, get confused, see through it. Therefore you have to resort to more compulsory means: threats and bribes.

You can either promise them a reward for doing what you ask, or threaten them with punishment if they don't.

The problem with a reward is that it's no good if you can't spend it. And it's very hard to spend a reward without drawing attention to it. Where are all the mansions, sports cars, flashy clothes, and other trappings of wealth among the engineers, scientists, and other people who allegedly took money to help the hoax?

And not everyone is coin-operated. You'll always have the malcontents, the ideologues, and people who just plain decide it's not enough money. And there will be the disgruntled employees who get fired from Grumman and decide they can get back at their former employers by ratting them out.

Therefore the threats. You can threaten the people directly, or threaten their families, friends, neighbors, dogs, goldfish, etc. But that isn't foolproof either. You'll have defectors -- people who would have happily gone to the Soviet Union and claimed political asylum from the oppressive American regime. Or maybe to Switzerland, and tell their story anonymously.

And you'll have people for whom threats mean little. People with no families, no friends, and nothing to lose. And you can't threaten the dead, which means you would normally have deathbed confessions and envelopes in Swiss banks, "To be opened in the event of my death," etc.

And we're supposed to believe that out of hundreds of thousands of people involved with Apollo, none of this has happened.

And we're also supposed to believe that a government which allegedly killed dozens of astronauts, one poor quality inspector from North American Aviation, and holds the threat of death over droves of people can't take care of Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel or any of the others.

See, it just doesn't add up.

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-05, 11:37 PM
On 2002-04-05 12:12, JayUtah wrote:
Okay, forget entirely that the whole thing was basically Lyndon Johnson's show which Nixon simply took over at the last minute. And forget that Apollo 8 -- which convinced the Russians we were going to get there first -- happened a mere handful of days after Nixon took office.


Jay,

It's rare that I find any nits to pick with you, so forgive me if I take sophomoric pleasure in this one... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Apollo 8 was launched on December 21, 1968; was in orbit around the Moon on Christmas Eve, and splashed down on December 27.

Richard Nixon was inaugurated on January 20, 1969.

True, he was elected on November 5, 1968, but it's pretty unusual for a new administration to accomplish much before it actually moves into the White House. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-06, 01:22 AM
Yeah, but I'm betting that if you were able to go back and ask Nixon when he "took office", he'd say, "Oh, November 6, 1968, at about noon, Eastern Standard Time." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Which would put Apollo 8 on his watch.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/110768-1.htm



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-04-05 20:26 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Apr-06, 03:20 AM
It's rare that I find any nits to pick with you, so forgive me if I take sophomoric pleasure in this one.

Go ahead, I actually knew this. See http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

I was in a hurry to go eat dinner. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-06, 11:36 PM
On 2002-04-05 20:22, Jigsaw wrote:
Yeah, but I'm betting that if you were able to go back and ask Nixon when he "took office", he'd say, "Oh, November 6, 1968, at about noon, Eastern Standard Time." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Hmmm... if you can get Richard Nixon to say that, or anything else, then... I've got a TV show for you!

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-06, 11:39 PM
By the way, I'm reading "Moon Lander", by Thomas Kelly. He led the development of the LM at Grumman.

I don't see how anybody could read that story (or the dozens more like it that cover the myriad of systems developed for Apollo) and still doubt that, at the very least, the hardware for the lunar missions was very real indeed.

But then, I don't have a very good grasp of the motivations of the HBers. Anti-government paranoia? Pure profit motive? Maybe for some, but... <shrug>

Ah well. I guess it takes all kinds.

The Rat
2002-Apr-07, 12:46 AM
On 2002-04-05 15:31, DaveC wrote:
With all the dogs in politics the world over you must be more than annoyed. Actually, calling them dogs is a compliment - I really like dogs, too. Maybe Wag the Rat, or Wag the Cockroach would have been better.


Hey, leave me outa this! ;^)

Actually, it might be better to realise that they are humans, and be a little humbled by that knowledge. We are far from perfect, and some of us are downright embarrasing. It's human ignorance we are fighting here, and the future is at stake.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-07, 01:02 AM
The perpetuation of superstition diminishes us as a species. Conspiracy theories are not universally harmless. As was said in another discussion on this point, "Behind every genocide is a conspiracy theory." Of course that doesn't mean that ahead of every conspiracy theory is a genocide, but I think the marketplace of ideas needs its consumer advocates.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-07, 02:10 AM
On 2002-04-05 20:22, Jigsaw wrote:
Yeah, but I'm betting that if you were able to go back and ask Nixon when he "took office", he'd say, "Oh, November 6, 1968, at about noon, Eastern Standard Time."

I'd take that bet. Nixon was a lawyer you know.

The Rusty Lander
2002-Apr-08, 05:46 AM
It may very well have been Nixon's plan to divert from the Vietnam War with the moon landings - just because it didn't work as he thought it might doesn't mean that it wasn't his intent. A lot of conpiracies don't necessarily reap the results that were expected, they don't all suceed because the people who plan them aren't God though no doubt they'd like to be.

As for bungling Watergate - so what? It's perfectly feasible to pull off many cunning schemes in life, for instance mastermind a war, hoaxing a moon landing, fixing an election and then still trip up over a stupid mistake. Pride comes before a fall.

How many swindlers and crooks have cunningly and craftily got away with so much pulling the wool over peoples eyes many a time but then got careless? Sometimes, it's the little things that catch them out in the end.

However, for all that, there is a train of thought that says that Nixon was deliberately set up to take the fall, "they" decided it was time for him to go. If it wasn't for the mysterious deepthroat, in all likelyhood, the whole thing would never have come to the surface. It had nothing to do with "skilled" reporters, and the burglary could very well have been deliberately bungled.

Tomblvd
2002-Apr-08, 11:26 AM
On 2002-04-08 01:46, The Rusty Lander wrote:
It may very well have been Nixon's plan to divert from the Vietnam War with the moon landings - just because it didn't work as he thought it might doesn't mean that it wasn't his intent. A lot of conpiracies don't necessarily reap the results that were expected, they don't all suceed because the people who plan them aren't God though no doubt they'd like to be.

As for bungling Watergate - so what? It's perfectly feasible to pull off many cunning schemes in life, for instance mastermind a war, hoaxing a moon landing, fixing an election and then still trip up over a stupid mistake. Pride comes before a fall.

How many swindlers and crooks have cunningly and craftily got away with so much pulling the wool over peoples eyes many a time but then got careless? Sometimes, it's the little things that catch them out in the end.

However, for all that, there is a train of thought that says that Nixon was deliberately set up to take the fall, "they" decided it was time for him to go. If it wasn't for the mysterious deepthroat, in all likelyhood, the whole thing would never have come to the surface. It had nothing to do with "skilled" reporters, and the burglary could very well have been deliberately bungled.




You failed to address the most significant point, which is, Nixon was only in office 6 months prior to the first landing. How did he manage to orchestrate a hoax of monumental proportions when most of it (the preparations), occurred prior to his being in office?

DaveC
2002-Apr-08, 11:57 AM
You failed to address the most significant point, which is, Nixon was only in office 6 months prior to the first landing. How did he manage to orchestrate a hoax of monumental proportions when most of it (the preparations), occurred prior to his being in office?

Planning and executing a hoax of the magnitude put forth by HBs would have take years. Even if I could believe it was possible to fake the whole thing (which I don't) I can't see how Nixon could have made it happen in six months. Time for a reality check here! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Jim
2002-Apr-08, 05:49 PM
On 2002-04-08 07:57, DaveC wrote:

You failed to address the most significant point, which is, Nixon was only in office 6 months prior to the first landing. How did he manage to orchestrate a hoax of monumental proportions when most of it (the preparations), occurred prior to his being in office?

Planning and executing a hoax of the magnitude put forth by HBs would have take years. Even if I could believe it was possible to fake the whole thing (which I don't) I can't see how Nixon could have made it happen in six months. Time for a reality check here! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Other points to consider...

At what point do you decide that the Apollo Program will fail and a "fake" must be perpetrated?

Nixon would have had to be involved before he announced his candidacy to be involved in the "murders" of the Apollo 1 crew.

Many HBers stake their claims of fake on the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts. For Nixon to have been behind the Apollo Hoax, he would have had to get involved before he took affice to "fake" Apollo 8 (December 1968).

Apollo 9 took place in March 1969, two months after Nixon took office. It successfully performed a rendezvous and docking with the LM, which many HBers said we couldn't do.

Apollo 10 took place in May 1969, four months after Nixon took office. The LM separated from the CM and made a close approach to the lunar surface. (Another trip through the belts.)

So, which missions were faked and when did Nixon get involved?

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

(Added the quote... sorry, couldn't resist.)
_________________
<font color=000099>Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.</font>
Anon.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-04-08 13:52 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Apr-08, 06:30 PM
You guys are all missing the point about His Trickiness--obviously, he started the whole conspiracy when he was Veep to "I Like Ike", ran it totally out of sight during Camelot/Great Society, only to reappear in control at the right time to garner all the plaudits for the non-landings. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

See, I told you he was Tricky! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

The (watch carefully, there is nothing in this hand that I'm waving over here to attract your attention) Curtmudgeon

JayUtah
2002-Apr-08, 07:11 PM
Clearly Nixon could have had nothing to do either the development of Apollo technology or the formulation of a plan to falsify Apollo landings.

There are two main variants in the hoaxsters' conjectural timetable. The first suggests that the entire thing was conceived from the beginning (i.e., 1961) as a hoax and that there never was any serious attempt to go to the moon.

The second suggests that NASA realized after the Apollo 1 fire in early 1967 that there was no way to meet Kennedy's deadline, so a Plan B was undertaken to falsify the missions with the existing hardware in earth orbit.

The first suffers from a lack of understanding of feasibility studies. They are always done on the basis of what technology exists and also what technology is expected to become available by the time the project is completed. So the state of computer engineering, for example, in 1961 should not be considered a limiting factor since the planners are thinking in terms of what computer engineers could produce in 1967 or 1968 at a specific rate of development.

The second hypothesis fails because the plans would have taken too much time to lay on. You can't argue that NASA didn't have enough time to fix the command module, but at the same time was able to put together the world's most flawless and complicated hoax.

Conspiracy theorists try to find middle ground. NASA tried earnestly to get to the moon, they say, but they had this sort of Plan B in the wings just in case they couldn't do it.

But think about what Kennedy said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and to do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are ..." Easy to fake? No, because they are hard.

Hoax believers focus on Kennedy's stipulation that it be done before the deadline, ignoring his stipulation that it be done for real.

garyb4n
2009-Dec-05, 10:53 PM
Newbie hear

What I don't like on threads is the "doctors on their rounds" routine discussing things in an aloof manner - as if it is some how accepted they are above the people or subject in question.

Once I hear this stuff I know any main stem of objectivity has left via the window

captain swoop
2009-Dec-05, 11:18 PM
garyb4n, Welcome to BAUT. Please read the rules for posting to this forum, they are linked at the bottom of this post.

ALso be aware that this thread was last posted to 7 years ago

Garrison
2009-Dec-05, 11:30 PM
Newbie hear

What I don't like on threads is the "doctors on their rounds" routine discussing things in an aloof manner - as if it is some how accepted they are above the people or subject in question.

Once I hear this stuff I know any main stem of objectivity has left via the window

Any particular reason for the thread necromancy, and posting the exact same thing in two threads?

moog
2009-Dec-06, 01:11 AM
Is this a record for thread necromancy?
Looks close.

Selenite
2009-Dec-06, 01:38 AM
Is this a record for thread necromancy?
Looks close.

Off-topic for a moment, but there was a eight year old thread resurrected a few weeks ago.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/220-blue-sky-through-apollo-windows.html

Spoons
2009-Dec-10, 02:36 AM
Yeah, the other thread started before this one, but the last post before it died was in 2003 in the window one, as opposed to 2002 in this one.

This one probably wins as far as longest dead. Though depending how stored, the other one might smell worse.

tusenfem
2009-Dec-10, 11:30 AM
Let's keep all the discussion in 1 thread, that is much easier.
Closing this one now, unless someone PMs me (or another mod) for it to be reopened.