From McGowan: Why is this so important to you?

[porphyry]

I spent over two hours on the phone with McGowan this morning. Overall the tone of the conversation was light-hearted and cordial, and I think he understood a lot of the points I was making, without necessarily agreeing with everything. I'm not sure what he's going to do in the future about any revisions to his posts.

One thing we are both wondering about.

McGowan has been operating his web page for at least 10 years now, and during that time he's also published three books, and covered a wide range of topics including: 9-11 "false flag" / "inside job" evidence; CIA mind control techniques employed on behalf of serial murderers and satanic cults; the corruption of academic psychology by corporate and government funding; the increasing commonality between the two major US political parties; and many other topics including (most recently) his "Laurel Canyon" series, showing the extent to which 1960's pop culture was controlled by the military-industrial complex.

With this sustained effort, Dave has slowly developed a small but dedicated audience. And he has never shied away from controversy. But never before has any article Dave has ever written, attracted anything like this sort of attention. Never before have multiple websites started up threads to discuss his writings, with hundreds of posts appearing in quick succession. Certainly never before has anything he's written attracted such scathing criticism.

And never before has his site attracted so much traffic that he can't afford to pay for the bandwidth!

Furthermore I would say, I don't recall every participating in a forum where such vehemence was combined with such a high level of technical expertise and careful, thorough analysis.

Also I think Dave would readily admit that this is the first time he's ventured into a field which is so highly technical, and involved so much with engineering and physics. (Perhaps one exception would be his writing on 911.)

Dave's day job is as a general contractor, he has a BA in psychology, and so of course he's writing with a layman's perspective about the moon landing. And he says that with other non-technical lay people, his writing has touched a nerve as well: he's heard from lots of everyday people who just don't believe anything the government says, especially regarding what appear to be "extraordinary claims" about flying to the moon.

So our question is this, and it's an essay question, not a technical question: why is this so important to you? Why choose to focus on this particular conspiracy theory, rather than, say, the JFK assassination, or the Murrah Center - Oklahoma City bombings, or 911, or perhaps something more recent like the Fruit-of-the-Kaboom Bomber?

In an odd sort of way, a website such as Apollohoax.net depends on the existence of skeptics like McGowan. When the last skeptic leaves the field, who would there be left to do battle against?

Is it possible that McGowan is the best excuse for a skeptic that has come this way for a long time? If so, perhaps victory is in your grasp. McGowan's article may have a lot of errors, but I've been looking around for any other examples of "HB"'s and McGowan makes the rest of them look pathetic. That's been a surprise to me -- when I took an interest in this Apollo hoax issue, I was expecting that there would be at least a few skeptics with valid academic credentials. As Jay pointed out, there just aren't any to be found.

Perhaps the rest of McGowan's writing is by-and-large correct, which is why no one comes out to do battle against him? And this has been so controversial because it's the first time he's been so screwed up?

Or perhaps you see all of these conspiracy theories as connected, and all of them as examples of the same types of erroneous thinking? If that's what you think, again, why put the emphasis on the Apollo project?

[scooter]

And he has never shied away from controversy.

But he certainly doesn't seem interested in a give and take with his critics in any sort of moderated environment.
The man spreads ignorance, encourages it. He depends on some presentation ability, along with the lazy research ability of his (unfortunately large) target audience, and there you go.

He makes so many mistakes in the series I have seen (there are others?)...and you seem to have nothing but admiration for him. He makes very basic errors on the fundamentals of Apollo, and you are impressed with him. He seems to have no real knowledge of Apollo, or any sort of space science.

I put him in the same league as Kaysing and Siebrel...though not as "infamous"...maybe that's his goal. Well, Kaysing died certainly not well off, and Siebrel has a cabbie job to cover his bills. It's not a lucrative enterprise.

Why do you defend this man's demonstrated ignorance???

[gillianren]

What I, personally, am battling are people who falsely claim the title of skeptic. Dave McGowan is not a skeptic. You have had shown to you many, many places where his information is flatly wrong. You have been told that he has been unwilling to listen to people who can show him where he is wrong. Personally, I have no doubt that Dave McGowan is just as wrong about his other ideas (and, yes, there's a lot of technical stuff to do with 9/11 which he doubtless doesn't understand either) as he is about Apollo, because it's quite obvious he only listens to what he wants to hear.

Why Apollo? Personally, I'm equally willing to argue any other damn fool conspiracy theory--and all the biggies really are damn fool conspiracy theories--to the best of my ability. It's just that all we get around here lately are people who argue in the misinformed belief that their hunches about Apollo are as good as the actual evidence presented by the other side. BAUT is now limited to astronomy-based CTs, which means Apollo and aliens. This place is small, so we don't much get visitors at all who aren't regulars.

If Dave McGowan has a BA in psychology, he should understand that being unprovokedly rude to someone is not the way to win that person's friends to his side, and claiming the moral high ground while simultaneously catering to the lowest common denominator isn't doing him any good anyway. If he has a BA in anything, he should have learned both how to do research and how not to argue ahead of his evidence. I have never seen him do either. And he is fooling people who don't know any better and don't do their own research. To me, that's unconscionable. Lying about history--which he is, at this point, doing--is a sin.

Okay, maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he legitimately doesn't understand. However, he's been given plenty of opportunities and plenty of resources, and that doesn't make him a better person for not following through on that, much less making pronouncements along those lines when he knows he doesn't understand the technical parts.

No. McGowan is not a skeptic. Automatic gainsaying of someone else's position is just contradiction.

[echnaton]

Perhaps the rest of McGowan's writing is by-and-large correct, which is why no one comes out to do battle against him?

It is a big leap to say that a guy that can get so much wrong on one topic must be right on others.

Or perhaps you see all of these conspiracy theories as connected, and all of them as examples of the same types of erroneous thinking? If that's what you think, again, why put the emphasis on the Apollo project?

That is the connection. I am interested in Apollo hoax claims because I am interested in Apollo. There is nothing equivalent with regard to 911. My reading on 911 and other conspiracies have satisfied me the proponents have little to offer. There is little to learn by arguing about hypothetical political conspiracies.

[LunarOrbit]

Feb 17, 2010 22:04:03 GMT -4 porphyry said:

why is this so important to you?

The hoax theory bothers me for the same reason vandalism such as graffiti bothers me. People like Bart Sibrel take something good like the Apollo Program and deface it with lies, and that is offensive to me.

You criticize me for allowing people to call the members of PFT idiots and liars, but hoax believers routinely call the thousands of people involved in the Apollo Program far worse. Hoax believers spit in the face of honourable men and women, and piss on history.

Why choose to focus on this particular conspiracy theory

I guess I find Apollo more interesting.

In an odd sort of way, a website such as Apollohoax.net depends on the existence of skeptics like McGowan.

I have said before that I would shut down the forum (or at least change it's focus) if there was no longer a need for it.

I make no money from this forum so I have no vested interested in keeping the hoax theory alive.

When the last skeptic leaves the field, who would there be left to do battle against?

There is always Jason.

If there were no more hoax believers I am sure we could find other things to talk about.

[PhantomWolf]

Or perhaps you see all of these conspiracy theories as connected, and all of them as examples of the same types of erroneous thinking? If that's what you think, again, why put the emphasis on the Apollo project?

I do tackle JFK and 9/11 on occasion (though it's really pretty stale for both as they just keep repeating the same old same old again and again) but prefer to work with Apollo because, well gosh darn it, I like space and space travel. Personally I wouldn't have even known about Dave's page had it not be raised by some HB's as a "wonderful example". It took me less than a page to see that Dave didn't have a clue about Apollo (and honestly if his 9/11 work is anything like his Apollo research, then I doubt he has anything there either because I have yet to see any 9/11 CT claim that stands up under the slightest scrutiny by experts in the field) which is rather sad.

In the Real World I am an educator, I teach Computing, but I tend to have a lot more knowledge than just computing, and the neat thing about knowledge is that you can give it away, and still have it, so why not. Having said that, and what really gets to me is people that say things as if they are true and have never bothered checking it out first. Dave and his ilk like to claim that they are trying to pierce the disinformation and find the truth, but in reality they are the ones spreading the disinformation. And in the case of Apollo, that disinformation can seriously affect future space projects. Kids that falsely believe NASA faked it won't dream of growing up and going in space. Parents that believe it was faked won't inspire their kids. Politicians that believe it was faked won't give funding, and over all the serious lack of true critical thinking and understanding of science that is impacted by the belief in the Hoax claims is detrimental to our society.

9/11 shares some of this too, though really as a non-USAer I don't have a lot of caring when it comes to American's trust in their Government, more I am interested in getting the science right and not having people believe that there really are some sort of sci-fi energy beams that can turn steel into dust or an anti-gravity thermite that can burn sideways. I do find it interesting though, and since 9/11 I have learnt far more about NORAD, NEADS, and the FAA ATCC that I thought was possible, just as I have learnt a lot about Apollo, and continue to do so.

One last thing. This site would continue even if every last HB gave up and admitted they were clueless. We might have to close this one section of the forum, but really for the most part, it's a forum of friends that like Apollo, that wouldn't change.

[porphyry]

Hi everyone, thanks for your answers.

I have to agree with you that Apollo is just plain interesting, at least for me. I was 13 years old in 1969, and my father worked at North American Aviation at that time, as manager of the EMC department for the command/service module design. Needless to say, I was thoroughly entranced by the adventure. Some of my earliest memories are of Saturn V coloring books. But having been so young at the time, I also didn't necessarily appreciate the depth and breadth of the information that came back. So this has been a learning experience for me, to look into some of this.

This is probably not the time or place to debate some of those other conspiracies -- but I'm not buying into any equivalence theory. For example, if you visit sites like Pilots for 911 Truth, Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, or Journal of 911 Studies, you'll find at this point in time, that there are many highly qualified individuals who are raising questions -- as well as a significant minority of "well poisoners" like John Lear. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions, I think there's a basic presumption of minimal competence that's been met.

I especially want to respond to this point from Lunar Orbit:

You criticize me for allowing people to call the members of PFT idiots and liars, but hoax believers routinely call the thousands of people involved in the Apollo Program far worse. Hoax believers spit in the face of honourable men and women, and piss on history.

In any conspiracy model, it's important that as few people as possible would know.

For me to enter a discussion here from the frame of view that an Apollo hoax is even conceivable, I would have to have some sort of model in my mind of how it could be carried out.

In my own imagination, I was picturing Richard Nixon meeting with E Howard Hunt, discussing the NASA scientists and how little chance they had of getting their spaceship working without blowing up more astronaut crews, and how expensive and embarrassing Jack Kennedy's white elephant project was becoming. Hunt would say, for less money, we can fake the whole thing, and no one will ever know because they're too distracted looking for JFK's assassin.

It would be tricky -- I imagine they would need to dummy-up the telemetry and radio systems to fool ground control. They would need a really good studio to fake all the photographs. At this point I don't even want to begin to discuss how they could make fake moon rocks. And they would need to get the astronauts on board.

I think it would be sufficient to point out to the astronauts that at the height of the cold war, it was essential for national security for the hoax to succeed. And also I might add (if I were trying to convince the astronauts to join a hoax) that it might well save their own skin, since no one could say if the rockets would actually work, or if the radiation outside the Van Allen belts was even survivable.

If you don't think the astronauts would do a thing like that, even to help win the cold war -- then the moon hoax theory is an insult to the astronauts. And McGowan's theory (which I don't agree with) is that the LM wasn't seriously intended to look like a space vehicle; which is a pretty serious insult to the many engineers who worked on it.

If there was a hoax (and speaking for myself, I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no hoax) -- if there was a hoax, the vast majority of the many thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project, were just as unaware as anyone else.

Defending McGowan is not going to be easy for me at this point, because I disagree with such a large percentage of what he has to say in his moondoggie series. But on the other hand, I understand his thought processes -- and I think that most of you here at this website are missing some of the nuances.

Besides, how boring would it be if there were no one left to take the "HB" side?

So (if you'll permit me to violate that rule against arguing in favor of points I don't actually agree with) -- I may make a post or two on behalf of McGowan's way of thinking as I understand him.

But if I do that, it will be a task for another night :-)

[PhantomWolf]

Feb 18, 2010 1:04:39 GMT -4 porphyry said:

For example, if you visit sites like Pilots for 911 Truth, Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, or Journal of 911 Studies, you'll find at this point in time, that there are many highly qualified individuals who are raising questions -- as well as a significant minority of "well poisoners" like John Lear. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions, I think there's a basic presumption of minimal competence that's been met.

I have, and I haven't found anyone that meets the requirements of minimal competence. At least no one willing to stand up and be counted in more than a name on a website. I look at the leaders of the movement and find pilots that have never flown jet airliners and have fewer hours than a decent commercial pilot has in just his training. I see people with physics degrees in sub-atomic particles and electrical engineering commenting on chemistry and structural engineering without a thought of their being outside of their areas of expertise. I see theologians and philosophers trying, and failing, to discuss military and FAA operations. I see a lot of ignorant claims, bad physics, and just plain dumber than dirt statements from a lot of people that have no idea what the "official story"^* even is.

I still have an outstanding challenge, for any Truther to give me one relevant and verifiable fact about 9/11 that the vast majority of the Truth Movement accepts as correct (other than the date). No one has managed it yet. When they can't agree on a single fact, how can they possible put forward a testable, self-consistent, and logical narrative to compete with that we can get from more expert and researched sources?


*I use this because Truthers do all the time despite there being no single "official" story or narrative, but rather a lot of documents, reports, new articles, and so on that build up the bulk of what actually happened on 9/11, much as there are no "blueprints" for the Apollo LM. If Truthers could get that sorted they might even start to learn, but most are too blinded with dislike for the US Government.

In my own imagination, I was picturing Richard Nixon meeting with E Howard Hunt, discussing the NASA scientists and how little chance they had of getting their spaceship working without blowing up more astronaut crews, and how expensive and embarrassing Jack Kennedy's white elephant project was becoming. Hunt would say, for a tenth the money, we can fake the whole thing, and no one will ever know because they're too distracted looking for JFK's assassin.

Sounds great, except that Apollo had already proven itself and reached the moon, orbiting it before Nixon was even in office. Apollo 8 flew in Dec 1968. Also Nixon didn't have to hide in a back office to can the Project; he did that quite openly and within months of becoming President. As to being distracted, if anything, Vietnam would have been a much bigger distraction, but the same people that were protesting that tended to be protesting Apollo too.

[JayUtah]

David McGowan may be a skeptic in an informal sense, but he is certainly no skeptic in the philosophical or scientific sense. He has a preconceived opinion formed according to a socio-political agenda, and he cherry-picks evidence and invents pseudo-facts to pretend to support that preconception. That is not science, nor history, nor skepticism.

I write about Apollo because that's what I know. I don't know much about Kennedy. I know a lot about engineering, but I've consciously decided not to talk about 9/11 because it simply takes too much of my time. Contrary to popular belief, I must make a living through a means other than answering conspiracy theories.

I know how to build and operate spacecraft. I've spend nearly 30 hears honing that expertise. And the Apollo missions and the spacecraft that flew them are not only valid instances of spacecraft, they are stellar examples. They were built and flown during a period we call the Golden Age of aerospace.

McGowan doesn't know a thing about them, the missions they flew, or the men who manned and operated them. He only wants to impress his loyal following regardless of what it takes. If he cared for the truth, he would demonstrate it by trying to discover it before casting meaningless doubt hither and yon.

As I said before, people will certainly form beliefs on the basis of tentative or inconclusive facts. And in the political world there are lots of opportunities to do that, often defensibly. But when less ambiguous truths are challenged in order to support those beliefs, one angers the guardians of those truths.

One can't simply pretend the lunar module won't fly simply because one has formed a belief that requires such a premise. The spaceworthiness of the LM is not a matter of legitimate difference of opinion. It either flew its mission or it did not. When all the available evidence and all the opinion of relevant expertise lies squarely and solidly on one side of the question, it's sheer insanity to propose otherwise.

I am an engineer by profession. I provide computational tools that aid my colleagues in the design of aircraft and spacecraft. I teach them how to design them better. I learned my craft from Apollo-era engineers. The engineer who taught me fixturing helped build the Apollo docking assembly. He has Apollo 14's backup DSKY in his office -- a present from a grateful crew who were able to finally dock their vehicle with his assistance.

I've crawled in, over, and through the Apollo spacecraft. I've studied their designs, as has every other engineer in my profession. I've seen the sheer genius they embody. I hope one day to be half as good as the giants of the industry who designed and built these vehicles. They are to engineering what Jonas Salk was to medicine, or Robert Shaw to choral music, or Vin Sculley to broadcasting.

Whether they succeeded is not a matter of legitimate difference of opinion. And when one comes along to crap on their achievements, he had better have his ducks in a row. David McGowan proposes to operate the Center for an Informed America. But on this point, instead of informing he is spreading ignorance. Arrogantly spreading it -- that's the problem.

He is wrong. Clearly wrong. Abysmally wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. And his arguments are sheer arguments from incredulity: he can't see how they did it, but he won't inform himself appropriately.

It is that combination of ignorance and arrogance that makes David McGowan a special subject of interest. It is the intellectual equivalent of a ten-car pileup with body parts strewn across the roadway. One simply can't look away.

I really have no opinion regarding McGowan's other writings. On the subject of 9/11 I just don't have the time. On the subject of CIA mind-control, I'm just frankly not that interested. He can call those babies ugly all he wants. But when he impugns the skill and honesty of my profession, he is calling my baby ugly -- and he'd better be ready to defend it.

[gillianren]

Feb 18, 2010 1:04:39 GMT -4 porphyry said:

Whether or not you agree with the conclusions, I think there's a basic presumption of minimal competence that's been met.

Except there hasn't. In any conspiracy theory I have yet encountered. HBs don't know the first thing about rocketry, telemetry, photogrammetry, and in many cases even history--I have experience with several people who really genuinely believe the Cold War was faked. JFK CTs don't understand ballistics, history (again), medicine, photogrammetry (again), or Lee Harvey Oswald the person. 9/11 CTs don't understand structural engineering, firefighting, controlled demolitions, or that you can't make buildings out of exploding rebar. If there's minimal competence, I've yet to see it.

In any conspiracy model, it's important that as few people as possible would know.

Which is why so few of them hold water.

For me to enter a discussion here from the frame of view that an Apollo hoax is even conceivable, I would have to have some sort of model in my mind of how it could be carried out.

That's a step very few CTs of any stripe manage.

In my own imagination, I was picturing Richard Nixon meeting with E Howard Hunt, discussing the NASA scientists and how little chance they had of getting their spaceship working without blowing up more astronaut crews, and how expensive and embarrassing Jack Kennedy's white elephant project was becoming. Hunt would say, for less money, we can fake the whole thing, and no one will ever know because they're too distracted looking for JFK's assassin.

Were any of the scientists involved? Because I'd say they'd have a better chance at knowing if the Apollo program could be successful than a lawyer and a novelist.

It would be tricky -- I imagine they would need to dummy-up the telemetry and radio systems to fool ground control. They would need a really good studio to fake all the photographs. At this point I don't even want to begin to discuss how they could make fake moon rocks. And they would need to get the astronauts on board.

Not just ground control, either. They'd have to fool all the not-NASA people--including within the Eastern Bloc--who tracked the missions through those same sources.

I think it would be sufficient to point out to the astronauts that at the height of the cold war, it was essential for national security for the hoax to succeed. And also I might add (if I were trying to convince the astronauts to join a hoax) that it might well save their own skin, since no one could say if the rockets would actually work, or if the radiation outside the Van Allen belts was even survivable.

Except they could say that. Because the Soviets sent animals around the Moon which came back alive. It's hardly as though the US was the only nation with the relevant data. Where's national security if the hoax fails--as it inevitably would?

If you don't think the astronauts would do a thing like that, even to help win the cold war -- then the moon hoax theory is an insult to the astronauts. And McGowan's theory (which I don't agree with) is that the LM wasn't seriously intended to look like a space vehicle; which is a pretty serious insult to the many engineers who worked on it.

I wouldn't do a thing like that. Intellectual dishonesty again.

If there was a hoax (and speaking for myself, I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no hoax) -- if there was a hoax, the vast majority of the many thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project, were just as unaware as anyone else.

It doesn't work that way, but I'll let the actual engineers tell you why.

Defending McGowan is not going to be easy for me at this point, because I disagree with such a large percentage of what he has to say in his moondoggie series. But on the other hand, I understand his thought processes -- and I think that most of you here at this website are missing some of the nuances.

Oh, I get a lot of the nuances. They're just indefensible.

Besides, how boring would it be if there were no one left to take the "HB" side?

I could talk about something else.

So (if you'll permit me to violate that rule against arguing in favor of points I don't actually agree with) -- I may make a post or two on behalf of McGowan's way of thinking as I understand him.

No, I think that, if he wants his points argued, he should do that himself instead of just insulting us and ignoring the evidence that he's wrong.

[Bob B.]

Feb 17, 2010 22:04:03 GMT -4 porphyry said:

Or perhaps you see all of these conspiracy theories as connected, and all of them as examples of the same types of erroneous thinking?

Yes.

If that's what you think, again, why put the emphasis on the Apollo project?

I have no desired to spend my time arguing against every crackpot theory out there, so I pick my battles. Space flight is something I’ve been interested in ever since I was a young child. My passion for it even compelled me to start a webpage. When I first heard about the moon landing hoax theory I was angered by the ignorant and disparaging claims of the hoax proponents, so I do what I can to set the record straight.

The only other conspiracy theory I’ve spent any time on is 9/11. As a civil engineer and general contractor, I had considerable expertise to lend to the discussion. I gave it up, however, because the whole idea of it disgusted me. I can’t deal with the 9/11 CTs without losing my patience and temper.

[JayUtah]

Feb 18, 2010 1:04:39 GMT -4 porphyry said:

...my father worked at North American Aviation at that time...

Did your father think it was fake?

In any conspiracy model, it's important that as few people as possible would know.

I agree. And so conspiracy theorists typically propose that only a few kingpins at the top knew anything. They simply ignore the evidence regarding the rank and file engineers, and invent their own alternate reality to accommodate their beliefs.

In my own imagination, I was picturing Richard Nixon meeting with E Howard Hunt, discussing the NASA scientists and how little chance they had of getting their spaceship working...

Nixon had nothing to do with Apollo except to shut it down as quickly as politically feasible. All the Apollo development and testing happened before he was elected.

Pop history likes to say that Kennedy up and challenged the nation to go to the Moon, and NASA was caught like a deer in the headlights. In fact, NASA through L.B. Johnson contacted Kennedy and tried to sell him on it. Kennedy initially refused, but Johnson helped von Braun and others put together a proposal that persuaded Kennedy it could really be done. Sorry, but the conspiracy-theory version of history is backwards.

It would be tricky -- I imagine they would need to dummy-up the telemetry and radio systems to fool ground control.

Yeah, tell me how they did that; because the professionals who run this equipment have already refuted all those in the current hoax theories.

They would need a really good studio to fake all the photographs.

Except that according to the conspiracy theorists they did a poor job. Why did they get so much so "wrong" when there was so much at stake?

...no one could say if the rockets would actually work

Statistically crab fishing is more dangerous than being an astronaut. These pilots were test pilots, a profession that already had a 25% mortality rate. Do you think a little uncertainty in rocket design is going to scare them?

...or if the radiation outside the Van Allen belts was even survivable.

Why do you think that was considered a show-stopping unknown?

...which is a pretty serious insult to the many engineers who worked on it.

Mind-bogglingly insulting. McGowan seems to know nothing about spacecraft design and operation. Yet he seems sure they wouldn't work.

...the vast majority of the many thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project, were just as unaware as anyone else.

And that too is an insult to the many engineers who tirelessly cross-trained for Apollo. It's also pretty ignorant of how engineers work -- indeed, how they must work.

If you're going to accuse people to the point of insult, you had better be prepared with the facts. McGowan's facts are not in order. What does that say?

Defending McGowan is not going to be easy for me at this point...

Then don't. Is your devotion to McGowan or to the truth?

Do you know that there is a running contest among the regulars here to see who can catch me in an error? Go read some of the other threads on such topics as politics and religion. Take a good look at how people behave when they are driven by facts rather than by attention-seeking.

But on the other hand, I understand his thought processes...

Explain how an argument from incredulity and factual bankruptcy qualify as thought processes that should interest anyone. McGowan has simply dusted off the same old tired conspiracy themes, given them a fresh coat of paint, and paraded them in front of a new generation of gullible authority-phobes for his own amusement and aggrandizement.

Sorry, that doesn't merit a medal.

...most of you here at this website are missing some of the nuances.

There was no nuance in McGowan's correspondence to me, which urged me to do something forceful and anatomically questionable.

I find his language and argument far from nuanced; I find it crass, brutish, clumsy, and just plain specious.

[Data Cable]

I realize you're just waxing hypothetical, so my response is tendered in that vein as well.

Feb 18, 2010 1:04:39 GMT -4 porphyry said:

In my own imagination, I was picturing Richard Nixon meeting with E Howard Hunt, discussing the NASA scientists and how little chance they had of getting their spaceship working without blowing up more astronaut crews
[...]
And also I might add (if I were trying to convince the astronauts to join a hoax) that it might well save their own skin, since no one could say if the rockets would actually work

The argument that the hoax was perpetrated in order to safeguard astronauts' lives doesn't hold water for at least one reason: The Capricorn One scenario. Imagine if you will a Saturn V rocket is launched with no crew aboard, but the public is told there is. Seconds into the flight, witnessed live by thousands of onlookers, the rocket catastrophically explodes, and clearly the CM is not jettisoned by the escape rocket. Lucky stroke that those astronauts weren't aboard, eh?

But wait... what happens to them now? As far as the world knows, they've just been killed in a tragic accident. Does NASA just whip back the curtain and admit the attempted fraud, but try to justify it with the spared lives of the crew? Send the astronauts into seclusion, never to see their families and friends again? (Especially difficult after making them into high-profile media celebrities.) Or, as in the above-referenced film, actually kill them.

Never mind the fact that most HB's also believe that the Apollo 1 fire was caused deliberately to silence "whistleblower" Gus Grissom (and, for no apparent reason, Ed White and Roger Chaffee.) So I find the waffling on concern for astronaut safety a little hard to swallow.

[gwiz]

Just to add my voice to what has already been said: I'm an aerospace engineer, now retired, and I followed the Apollo missions avidly in my younger days. I read a lot of NASA technical literature, I consider myself fairly well-versed in the technology involved and I was for a time professionally working on space-shuttle studies. When I first came across the hoax theories, I was able to find the flaws in the reasoning with little trouble.

As others have said, the hoax theory is pretty insulting to engineers in general, claiming that those involved in Apollo were either in on the hoax or incompetent to design the hardware to actually work, while those not involved were incompetent in not realising that the hardware could not work.

So I have both a motive to challenge the hoax theories and the technical ability to do so. Apart from that, I simply find it very interesting to delve ever deeper into the story of Apollo. The more I look, the more impressive I find it.

[PeterB]

Feb 18, 2010 0:09:03 GMT -4 PhantomWolf said:

...the neat thing about knowledge is that you can give it away, and still have it...

And that's a very neat statement.