why?

There's so much awfulness it's hard to pick out any one instance. I would have to say that what I hate most are the frequent arguments from (pig ignorant) incredulity, which run like: "I know nothing about the relevant scientific/technological/economic/whatever facts (and do not care to learn them), but this seems unbelievable to me in my state of ignorance. Therefore it must be false."

Just to take one example from the first page:

Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade as well as an even more expensive ‘hot’ war in Southeast Asia, and yet we still managed to finance no less than seven manned missions to the Moon, using a new, disposable, multi-sectioned spacecraft each time. And yet in the four decades since then, we are apparently supposed to believe that no other nation has been able to afford to do it even once.

And that's that. Of course, one could easily find out how much the US spent on the Apollo Program, what fraction of American GDP this represented, and see how much more or less affordable such spending would be for other major economies today. But he has no interest in objective facts.

Then just a few sentences later we are treated to this example:

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.

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

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 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).

To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

Again, the author presumably intends this devastating demonstration of his complete wilful ignorance to be some kind of argument. But doing some basic reading about the subject (i.e. orbital mechanics) would show you why what he has written is stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

https://xkcd.com/681/

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mission.php

And this one from earlier on the same page is really almost as bad:

The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.

Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal.

But it's more forgivable since fully understanding why the "smart money" was never on the Soviets achieving a manned moon landing would require relatively deeper research than the previous two examples.

This kind of crap is exactly why people don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. Only a sadly ignorant and gullible sheep-like mind could read that page and find the (non-)arguments presented remotely persuasive.

The "pictures" show absolutely nothing at all but shadows photographed at an extremely oblique angle.

That's a great video that I've seen a number of times.

McGowan brings up a LOT more points than this video--but that's ok--this video brings up points that McGowan does not conversely!

Nice. I love his series on Laurel Canyon and the birth of the hippie movement but haven't read any other yet.

Dave McGowan, certainly no slouch of a writer (I'm currently reading his book on Laurel Canyon after reading his book on Socialism), is dead on the money with his quite accurate assessment of why the moon landings could NEVER have taken place. The story is as much riddled with lies and inconsistencies as Sandy Hook.

Sure, we sent those Apollo missions up. They did NOT go to the moon though, and Mr. McGowan provides very compelling evidence as to why it would have been an impossible task--barring a two-foot-thick lead ship.

Don't even bother to comment on this unless you sit down for an hour and read the piece. If you DO...I will test you--rest assured that I have nearly every word of this piece memorized and I'm NOT the one to argue with.

If you'd like to argue, please address Mr. McGowan.