The Mythbusters are going to debunk NASA moon landing myths

Its on right now, pretty good stuff so far.

They built a small diorama of the landing site with a model of an astronaut and the LM, proper material to represent lunar regolith and a single light source. They took photos of the model astronaut leaving the LM with a Hasselblad camera and compared their photos to the NASA photos. They matched up very well and disproved the idea that the astronaut should have been invisible in the shadow of the LM.

I'm suprised this discussion isn't more lively. No one saw the episode?

Good show..
regardless of what you might think of the credibility of these guys, they proved their points very well..

the debate will of course continue..
but the main hoax arguments, have been convincingly discredited..

I watched this show tonight and i was left happy with some parts such as the shadows pointing in different directions. I wasn't happy at the flag part, that guy was really moving that flag, i don't recall the astronauts swaying it that much when they put it in place and the footprint was no where near like the Buz Aldrin one, also, i don't see how reflectors on the moon prove we've been there, there's man made rovers on mars but we haven't been there. I'm on the fence with the moonlanding but this show wasn't conclusive for me. Good watch all the same !!

Regards

satellite1

I know this is a little OT but I was wondering if anyone could provide a source for some research into how and why our moon has no spin....I mean doesnt it seem a bit odd that theres no spin on the moon? A bit peculiar to me and I was just wondering if there was some very logical causes for such a phenomenon.



Thanks peeps and sorry for distracting from the main topic.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


The easiest way to answer that is with a ATS search.
Why doesn’t the moon spin?

On Topic. I am looking forward to this episode coming to Australia. Unless some kind member can record it and send it to me…..

Originally posted by satellite1
I wasn't happy at the flag part, that guy was really moving that flag, i don't recall the astronauts swaying it that much when they put it in place

The astronauts motion was probably a bit shorter but just as hard as they had to plant the flag into the ground. The flag definately swayed the exact same way as in the apollo video, even when they initially moved it slowly, and that's in earth's gravity, which would cause a faster swinging motion and faster dissapation of energy through friction. Pretty conclusive evidence to me.

and the footprint was no where near like the Buz Aldrin one,

So what's your unreasonable level of proof then? They had a boot stomping in a tray with a small amount of regolith simulant, the point was just to prove that you can make a well-defined bootprint in a vacuum in lunar soil that's perfectly dry, not to recreate the photograph itself; that would have require a lot more simulant to work with, a much larger and steadier base for it than a cooking tray, better coloring on the simulant, much better lighting than you could fit in a vacuum chamber, and to help it become even better defined, you'd finally need to recreate lunar gravity. To me though, it was conclusive enough to see that you could make a good looking boot print in dry lunar soil in a vacuum.

also, i don't see how reflectors on the moon prove we've been there, there's man made rovers on mars but we haven't been there.

Non-sequitur, the mars rovers don't have carefully aligned retroreflectors. You can't just drop some retroreflectors onto the moon and expect them to work, you have to carefully align them to face back at earth exactly. The astronauts did this exceptionally better than a robot could have in 1969. Furthermore, the first pinging of the apollo 11 retroreflector occured during the mission, so it's not like they could have sent a robot to do the job at a later time when technology had advanced, or even on a separate mission at all. It coincided perfectly with Apollo 11's mission.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by satellite1
I wasn't happy at the flag part, that guy was really moving that flag, i don't recall the astronauts swaying it that much when they put it in place

The astronauts motion was probably a bit shorter but just as hard as they had to plant the flag into the ground. The flag definately swayed the exact same way as in the apollo video, even when they initially moved it slowly, and that's in earth's gravity, which would cause a faster swinging motion and faster dissapation of energy through friction. Pretty conclusive evidence to me.

and the footprint was no where near like the Buz Aldrin one,

So what's your unreasonable level of proof then? They had a boot stomping in a tray with a small amount of regolith simulant, the point was just to prove that you can make a well-defined bootprint in a vacuum in lunar soil that's perfectly dry, not to recreate the photograph itself; that would have require a lot more simulant to work with, a much larger and steadier base for it than a cooking tray, better coloring on the simulant, much better lighting than you could fit in a vacuum chamber, and to help it become even better defined, you'd finally need to recreate lunar gravity. To me though, it was conclusive enough to see that you could make a good looking boot print in dry lunar soil in a vacuum.

also, i don't see how reflectors on the moon prove we've been there, there's man made rovers on mars but we haven't been there.

Non-sequitur, the mars rovers don't have carefully aligned retroreflectors. You can't just drop some retroreflectors onto the moon and expect them to work, you have to carefully align them to face back at earth exactly. The astronauts did this exceptionally better than a robot could have in 1969. Furthermore, the first pinging of the apollo 11 retroreflector occured during the mission, so it's not like they could have sent a robot to do the job at a later time when technology had advanced, or even on a separate mission at all. It coincided perfectly with Apollo 11's mission.

The flag part, i just didn't like how they did their experiment, maybe they could have made a device to replicate the planting instead of swaying it like that but just my opinion but i understand the point was made. With the footprint thing, i was simply saying it looked nothing like the Buz Aldrin one, i understand they made their point but why not replicate the footprint ?? With the reflectors I understand your point and thankyou for updating my lack of knowledge .. i was just simply saying that because something man-made is on the moon doesn't prove man was there .. i'm not saying man wasn't there either .. OK .. just a question for you .. in the show they showed how it was easier to get results from a reflector rather than a mirror, you can stand at many angles and still get results from the reflectors but not the same for mirrors, so why would it need so much precision to place reflectors, couldn't we drop a circular/ball like reflector in say an area covering 100 square mile on the moon facing earth and find it ??

Kind regards

satellite1

Originally posted by satellite1
i understand they made their point but why not replicate the footprint ??

Because it's extremely difficult and expensive, maybe even impossible, to fly a vacuum chamber large enough to do it in a plane to replicate lunar gravity while providing adequate lighting.

With the reflectors I understand your point and thankyou for updating my lack of knowledge .. i was just simply saying that because something man-made is on the moon doesn't prove man was there

Unless only a man could have set it up that accurately...

couldn't we drop a circular/ball like reflector in say an area covering 100 square mile on the moon facing earth and find it ??

No, and even if we could it wouldn't get the expected return of photons. The retroreflector on apollo was an array of corner cube prisms. If you had a huge ball adequately covered in them, perhaps one would face back properly at earth, but the Apollo 11 reflector alone had 100 of them facing back at earth. With just one retroreflector properly positioned you'd probably never see a returning photon.

Main problem with the footprint, nasa delivered the soil to them. For all anyone knows the stuff could be magnetic. Also the footprint held up no where near as well as the footprint on the moon.

reply to post by jhh


Thread was closed and directed me to another thread so I posted this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now it's open again so I can't cross post.

Kind of frustrating.

Originally posted by jhh
Main problem with the footprint, nasa delivered the soil to them. For all anyone knows the stuff could be magnetic.

It did not act magnetic when it was being poured. Had it been magnetic you would have been able to tell as the grains clump together.

Also the footprint held up no where near as well as the footprint on the moon.

It held up perfectly well, there wasn't even a trace of decay or collapse. They didn't use a whole heck of a lot of the stuff so it wasn't deep to begin with, but it sure did hold up quite well.

Here it is, here are the results.

Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing

For those who haven't watched the show or want to watch it again. Here are the rapidshare links. It is divided into two parts, in high definition, about 350 MB total.

rapidshare.com...

rapidshare.com...

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Hi there. Slight nit pick but the moon does spin. It rotates about it's axis at the same rate as it orbits the earth. However I jknow what you mean.

It's called tidal locking. Mercury is the same one side always faces the sun. Actually most major moons in the solar system are tidally locked with the bodies they orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...

I did enjoy the suggestion that Adam and Jaime might be stopped from broadcasting something if the government didn't like their results. The speed camera one is just silly though they have found two confirmed ways of beating speed camera. Raw speed and changing the numebr plate. They also busted the reasons for not using cell phones in petrol station or modern aircraft (though they made excuses as to how the ban in modern aircraft isn't just to make you use their airphones. (I guess some-one will point out that they might have done this to debunk the claim that the cell phone calls from the hijacked aircraft on 911 must have been faked)

I do have to ask why then they were apparently allowed to broadcast

Plausible way to escape alcatraz
Plausible way to escape a mexican prison using salsa.
Plausible way to make a crossbow in prison from paper

An entire episode devoited to crime methods including
Plausible way to Fool a pressure sensor.
Muliple plausible ways to crack a safe
Plausible way to scaling a building wiht suction cups
Multiple confirmed ways to fool a finger print scanner.
Muliple confirmed ways to defeat a thermal motion sensor
Multiple confirmed ways to defeat an ultrasonic motions sensor
3 Plausible ways and one confirmed way to defeat a guard dog
1 Plausible way to defeat a bloodhound
and in another episode a plausible way to pick a lock using a lighbulb filament.

I think we have to agree that if they were stopped from reporting a way to beat a traffic violation then they would certianly have been stopped from demonstrating these criminal procedures.

If the moon hoax conspiracy is required to extend to covering up anybody's private investigations 40 years later then it sopunds all the less plausible to me.

I've seen the episode. It's very clear and simple which makes it very hard to believe that they falsified anything. As a matter of fact I can't say that I trust mythbusters. It's only that all myths promoted by conspiracy theorists on the moon landing can be explained easily by a school kid as long as he's not retarded. Conspiarcy theorists want to show the sensational, to make people say "wow, you are the smartest guy on the planet for figuring that out" where in fact they don't realize that nobody listens to their blabber.
I say OK...they faked it ... SO WHAT??? If you're so smart, build a rocked and go to the moon. Maybe you will remain there and rid us of another m0r0n.

ta ta

I heard that they de bunked the theories.

Yet I get people saying the astronauts should walk faster on the Moon
with less gravity instead of the slow motion explanation the hoaxers
scripted on us.

And even the same for people that believe in universal gravity,
everywhere the same.


Mass attraction is mass attraction and if all objects fall at 32 ft/sec/sec
what is the difference.

No one has figured that one out, except the DTG, Dynamic Theory
of Gravity, of Tesla locked up in Los Alamos.

I know they read it because the A bomb was thought to explode the
atmosphere at one time and cooler heads prevailed, ones that didn't
read about the free energy, and since they were un aware of the
incorrect conclusions went ahead to explode the first plutonium bomb.

Originally posted by satellite1
The flag part, i just didn't like how they did their experiment, maybe they could have made a device to replicate the planting instead of swaying it like that but just my opinion but i understand the point was made.

I'm not sure -- I'd have to watch it again -- but I don't think the flag was "swayed" in the experiment. In the experiment the flagpole was twisted, like you would when trying to "auger" it into soil, which is the way the astronauts did it.

That twisting motion was transferred to the hanging flag as a swaying motion, especially since the top and one side of the flag were fixed to the pole.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
I know this is a little OT but I was wondering if anyone could provide a source for some research into how and why our moon has no spin....I mean doesnt it seem a bit odd that theres no spin on the moon? A bit peculiar to me and I was just wondering if there was some very logical causes for such a phenomenon.

Thanks peeps and sorry for distracting from the main topic.

The Moon does spin...it spins once for every revolution around the Earth. This is not a coincidence, but is due to the fact that the Moon is "tidally locked" with the Earth.

Plus, this characterisic is NOT unique to our moon. There are 20+ other tidally locked moons in our solar system that all seem not to spin when viewed from their parent planet -- but actually spin once per revolution around the planet.

reply to post by ngchunter


All I know is that the last part was just junk. They show someone shooting a laser and showed a graph that says: see, look at the graph, apollo is still there.

Well I can create a graph right now and put it on screen and say see: apollo isn't there.