Cool

ive seen this program a few times and i think its quite good

and yes hopefully we wont just get more questions hopefully we would actually get some answers but dont count.

Just imagine for a minute that they do actually prove that the moon landings were hoaxed?
Do you think that show would actually be aired?
I somehow doubt it personally-but i'm one of those people who believe the first moonshot was faked, in order to beat the russians, but that others may not have been.

Even if they do prove it, people wont believe it until NASA says so.

The NASA acceptance is so deeply buried into the hearts of most Americans that nothing will ever challenge what they say.

Personally I would rate the honesty of the military agency NASA right up there with Donald Duck and Jack the Ripper.

Im not so sure i think we did go to the moon but i think the videos and pics were faked because they didnt have a clue what was going to happen and if something did happen like for instance a crash it wouldve been on licve t.v and they would ve been responsible plus imagine showing people dying on live television in 1969 so i think we went there but the vids and pics were fake whadda you guys think am i just talking @$% or am i making a bit of sense

i too think the same guys.
i do believe the pictures we have seen so far are fake but in my heart i do believe they have been to the moon

daz__

I like to watch a bit of myth busters.
But sometimes I think they are wrong about somethings.
Also they will be testing this myth purely from orders from the Government to the owner of there production company.
To prove that they did go to the moon.As a propaganda exercise.
So anyone who thinks it bares anything on reality should think again.

Moon landing = 100% real.

Originally posted by the way
Just imagine for a minute that they do actually prove that the moon landings were hoaxed?
Do you think that show would actually be aired?
I somehow doubt it personally-but i'm one of those people who believe the first moonshot was faked, in order to beat the russians, but that others may not have been.

They cannot prove the landings were hoaxed any more than anyone else has proved it (not at all, nor by anyone). The best they can do in that regard would be to show that the landings could have been faked based on the claims which they are going to experiment with. "Proof of" and "could have" are not the same thing.

My feeling is they will do a good job of busting the claim. At most they might come up with a conclusion of "plausible". Would they air it with that result? Oh yeah!

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Phage]

bunk hotdog... Catastrophe has been broadcast live from cape Canaveral before. Remember seeing the shuttle blow apart?

I think ya just posted some transcript thought to be Neil Armstrong, and now you here saying he was never there. You cannot possibly think both ways.

I dont thing reasoning stated to be any sort of argument against NASA landing on the moon. You know, its one thing to think they did not go to the moon but... If NASA *did* fake it they would probably just keep it simple and release a few photos, and that would be it. Truth is, they did ALOT more science than that and their is tons of data to prove it. And what about the rover? Do ya think NASA just spent millions on that just for a hoax, or entertainment value? My uncle worked for NASA/Marshall in Huntsville, AL and was one of the engineers who built the rover back in the day. If it were all a hoax, why would they spend millions/billions on mil spec equipment that would never be required to fool the public. Those things are real, not imitation plastic like Hollywood. The extra equipment and science that NASA did, would not be a requirement to pull off a hoax.

Also.. these ppl sitting here analyzing moon pics from apollo saying "Oh a moon base", "Oh a dome", "Oh alien artifact".. if they don't believe apollo was ever there, then why even bother to look at the pics.

Not sure why it's so hard for ppl to believe we have been there, done that.. Several times even. Especially, when there is credible science to back it up. Well, yeah lets just see what the mythbusters have to say about it. Should be good.

Anyways, Good post.. thanks.

Do they really want to prove it? Hire a russian or japanese rocket to take a satellite into the Van Allen belts, and measure the radiation there.

What does the Van Allen belt have to do with it? There is a space station orbiting the planet... Travelling at 17000 miles per hour... all over the Van Allen Belt. If the radiation were that bad, we would not be able to sustain people in orbit for 6 months duration. Inside that space station are 2 Russian Cosmonauts and 1 US Astronaut. Think that is fake too? If it is, it would be an international hoax... and a damn good one... cause all anyone has to do is look at NASA's tracker and spot the ISS orbiting 200 miles above the planet. Tune into the NASA channel.. Watch them do their science for hours on end.

Don't believe these ppl trying to discredit what mankind has already proven. They are just trying to sell a book, or a ticket to a seminar.

Unfortunately mythbusters is very innaccurrate. They dont actually test things, they just run a few expiriments. The one they lost me on was the dropping the penny off the empire state building.

They concluded it wouldnt do the damage people think it would because they fired a penny out of an airgun. They were convinced that this proved the penny wouldnt do too much damage, and never even mentioned freefall speeds, terminal velocity etc.

They wont "prove" anything.

I have been on the fence about this topic for quite sometime. I would think something might be fake, and then I would see something that "debunked" it.

But about a month ago I was watching some footage, especially with the rover. And I am pretty sure some of that footage is fake. In 1 video the astronaut falls down, and it does look like a cable is picking him up. And the rover leaving rooster tails that look like they are falling in the same arc as gravity on earth, but at a slower rate. When I do believe that it should take longer to fall, but the arc would also be much different. As the dirt seems to be hitting some type of atmosphere.

So I guess I'm not all that original in my thinking afterall. I do believe we've been to the moon, but I don't believe all the footage is real.

I think the mirrors on the moon used for measuring distance and such are a good indication that we've been there.

I think the show will come back saying it's plausable.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by badmedia]

There is no way Discovery would air it if they proved the moon landing was a hoax. this is the same channel that pulled "Conspiracy of Silence" and is now getting ready to air it second special on the heroes of flight 93. so they seem pretty set on pushing the government agenda.

Originally posted by mapsurfer_


And those Rover rooster tails have a strange arc for the very same reason... this debris is super light-weight, but it will still fall back to the surface but at a slower rate than on earth.

there is no atmosphere on the moon. why would the dust fall any more slowly than it went up?

and since when does 1/6th gravity allow you to shift your back off the ground before your feet push off the moon to support you? seems like it might take wires for that, but that is just speculation.

the rooster tails. please explain the science behind those. the science that would explain why they hit a wall of "something" and stop, spread, then slowly settle. what science explains that in no atmosphere?


[edit on 8/21/2008 by re22666]

Can't knock 'em, since their show my toast doesn't always land butter side down. If they can prove it, it's proven.