Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by re22666
 


If we stopped using cars today wnet back to horse and buggy, do you think there would be anyone who could run a NASCAR race in fifty years? It would take some work to re-introduce the technology I'm sure.



so....NASA went back to the horse and buggy with the space shuttle? funny, i thought they were continually advancing. what they hell are we paying them for. so you are saying they took all their knowledge and through it out the window, got rid of all the top scientists, hired a bunch of new guys with no education and let them just start nasa over?




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_

Originally posted by badmedia

The problem as someone else mentioned is that the particles don't follow that pattern. They go up, stop and fall back down. But unless there is an atmosphere on the moon, then the dust should fall at the same rate and the arc should be the same radius from start to finish. Instead they go up, stop and fall back down.

It is commonly known in physics that the weight of something does not at all matter in how fast it falls. All objects fall at the same speed. The reason 1 object might fall faster than another is due to the atmosphere and friction on the way down.


I cannot tell you exactly how reduced gravity might effect flying soil, but let us bring your argument to earth. How do you suppose they accomplished this hoaxed effect here on this planet?

I am not sure where you took your physics course, but yes a feather falls slower than a brick. Weight certainly does have bearing on how fast an object falls, and all objects do NOT fall at the same speed.

The fact that is strange gravitational effects on the moon should be of no surprise. The real question is.. how would they do accomplish these effects if they were filmed in hollywood?



ok, now i am sorry i even bothered to get into this. i totally missed this post. you are mocking someone's physics education and yet you say all objects fall at different rates depending on their weight? seriously? can you pleas post some sort of text from any physics anything anywhere backing that up. it seems you have no idea how gravity works, how things fall, and what atmosphere vs. no atmosphere has to do with it.

and to your point, how did they achieve this effect if it was filmed on earth? what effect? a vehicle spitting rooster tails? that happens all the time on earth. it would NOT happen on the moon though.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I love this show. I watch this show religously when I'm not working crazy hours. This episode should be very interesting. I was not a big skeptical person until an officer I served under at my last unit got me hooked onto this website. And after reading alot of threads, I tend to find the moon landing ones very interesting. Other than stating that I will definitely be watching this episode of MythBusters, I have no real input to the theory. I will agree that this myth will probably not be exposed on the show, I do find the myths they test very interesting.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
my guess is, and i love the show too, they are going to tackle straw man arguments and knock each one down. i see they are going after non-prallel shadows and i am sure that is just going to be due to an uneven surface. they will show a few of the worst parts of the myths surrounding it without addressing the real issues such as the 1/8th inch aluminum and the van allen belts.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
There are two reasons that I'm aware of for the rethinking of their radiation shielding on the new missions. First, the new and more delicate electronics of today are more susceptible to damage from radiation. Second, we will be using a different propulsion method and so the astronauts may spend more time in the outer Van Allen Belt than previous missions. Still, the radiation in the outer belt averages far less than your dentist's x-ray machine.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by daz__
 


Mythbusters as proof?? You gotta be kidding, they bust myths like the history channel busts 9/11 theories, it's all media bullsh*t. Who pays their bills? Same people that own the MSM. Don't expect truth here, and btw these idiots seemed to really enjoy the RFID chips - wonder why



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_


Hello? Is your assertion that the lunar mission are a hoax predication on this information? So how might that effect be accomplished within our own atmosphere. Seriously the strange effect of the falling soil only support the that of the lunar environment, and not indicative of earth.




what about this do you think shows proof it could not be done on earth. in fact, it only looks like it could be done on earth. watch the rooster tails, and as has been stated, a rooster tail is only possible in an atmosphere. here you can see them clearly. please explain why you think this would only happen on the moon.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


Your link didn't work but I did find what I think is the video in question.

A thought experiment, since we can't go to the moon right now. I also searched all over for a ballistics simulator to play with but couldn't find one so this will have to do. Take a ball, give it a toss on earth, note how high it travels before tracing a gentle arc back to the surface. Now take that ball to the moon, give it a toss with the same amount of energy. Since there is reduced gravity on the moon that ball will reach a higher point before it traces that arc. Oh, and that arc will be wider as well as higher. If you deny this then you might as well stop reading now (I really wish I could find that simulator).

This higher and wider than expected (on Earth) ballistic arc is what I see on the clip. Honestly. I don't see the dust doing anything but going higher, slower over the top, and wider than our Earth conditioned expectations would have it do. We've grown up learning how a ball flies in Earth's gravity. My guess is we would have a hard time playing ball on the moon because thrown things behave so differently there. We "know" how high a ball is going to go when thrown at a given speed at a given angle. We "know" the arc it's going to follow. What we "know" on Earth doesn't work on the moon.

Now, I've watched and watched that clip trying to see what you describe but I just don't see it. Yes the "hang time" is longer than I would expect on Earth but it doesn't stop up there. It just takes a while to lose the upward velocity and regain it's downward velocity. It's not air that's doing it, it's the shape of the arc. The arc is going to happen on Earth or Moon but it won't be the same arc.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I doubt this show is going to change the minds of fake-moon-landing-'conspiracists'. For them EVERYTHING IS A COVERUP, and it seems that the MythBusters show is making to their infinite list of coverups.

No scientific evidence, no matter how compelling can convince them that we did land on the moon. In my opinion they are simply idiots who don't have the mental capability to understand and grasp any scientific explanation to explain ANYTHING.

All the crazies have to declare in retaliation to this show is "It was a coverup!" and they would think those word are enough to refute all the compelling evidence of more than 39 years. Even on this thread some people are saying the show is somekind of a NWO coverup with NOTHING to back it up.

I might as well say: "I farted on my way to the toilet, I can't explain what trigerred it SO THIS MUST BE A GOVERNMENT COVERUP!"


[edit on 22-8-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
I hate to say it guys.

If the moon landing was faked, the Soviets definitely and maybe the chi coms would have disclosed it decades ago.


It's not that I don't think we've been to the moon. I'm rather sure of it. And since you mention it, if Myth Busters is just going to prove if we've been to the moon or not, then it's not going to be an episode worth watching really. There is easily proof that we have been to the moon.

The only thing I doubt is some of the footage we've been given. There are things in it which are obvious screw ups. The same kind of screw ups we see in Hollywood movies all the time.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
I doubt this show is going to change the minds of fake-moon-landing-'conspiracists'. For them EVERYTHING IS A COVERUP, and it seems that the MythBusters show is making to their infinite list of coverups.

No scientific evidence, no matter how compelling can convince them that we did land on the moon. In my opinion they are simply idiots who don't have the mental capability to understand and grasp any scientific explanation to explain ANYTHING.

All the crazies have to declare in retaliation to this show is "It was a coverup!" and they would think those word are enough to refute all the compelling evidence of more than 39 years. Even on this thread some people are saying the show is somekind of a NWO coverup with NOTHING to back it up.

I might as well say: "I farted on my way to the toilet, I can't explain what trigerred it SO THIS MUST BE A GOVERNMENT COVERUP!"


[edit on 22-8-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]


Why is it that you need to group everyone into 1 category, and then pick on the worse of that group and lay it on the rest?

And then of course, compare it to something silly and stupid to imply that it fits the bill for the rest.

In your entire post the only thing you did was call people names and make personal attacks. No serious discussion, didn't try and provide proof or even make a rebuttals to a claim made. Just personal attacks.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

I have no doubt we went there, but the astronauts are not able to tell us what they really saw, and the videos are filmed in a studio.

Neil Armstrong about the layers of truth:



[edit on 21-8-2008 by Copernicus]


Where is your source that say "the videos are filmed in a studio"

Bart Sibrel's DVD?

And on this YouTube, what are you trying to prove? This is not evidence of anything. You are taking things way out of context here. There's nothing that proves any conspiracy in his speech so why are you linking to this video?

Where in the video did he "held back tears"?
If you see other Neil's videos, that's just the way the man speaks.

If you take away the narrator B.S. imagined claims and the cheesy 70s spooky backgorund music, you can see it's nothing more than a speech by the first man on the moon to a group of students.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmediaWhy is it that you need to group everyone into 1 category, and then pick on the worse of that group and lay it on the rest?

And then of course, compare it to something silly and stupid to imply that it fits the bill for the rest.

In your entire post the only thing you did was call people names and make personal attacks. No serious discussion, didn't try and provide proof or even make a rebuttals to a claim made. Just personal attacks.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by badmedia]


I need to clarify I'm not grouping everyone into one category.

I am aware in this whole moon-fake-not-fake argument there are distinctly 3 groups.

1. Those who 'know' that we did indeed go to the moon and nothing spooky happened on the way to the moon and ON the moon. I say 'know' in parenthesis because it has been proven without a doubt with every possible tangible evidence there is. The compelling evidence say it is. And I will continue to 'know' this as true untill other compelling evidence blows away this one out of the water.

2. Those who believe the US faked the whole manned moon landing. Not just the first one. All six of them. Yep. Talking to these people is like talking to an orang utan. And I have talked to and try to explain in layman's term to a number of them. Which explains my despise for this partuicular group.

3. The third is those who think the first landing was buzzed by aliens and how the moon are suppposed to be their crib. I've read, watched and listened to every material available, and I remain skeptical as I haven't come across a single compelling evidence to blow away no 1 out of the water.

All they have are circumstantial evidence, 100% anecdotal and hearsay presented in a way as a make believe. Spliced statemenst from Buzz seeing 'UFOs'; the 'I know this guy who said such and such' deal, - 'don't worry the guy who said those crazy things are dead now, so the burden of proof has been taken care of'-
; The rest are blurry photos of rocks, rocks and rocks and you have to use your wild imaginations to make out ANYTHING out of it. But remember the pretext is aliens so as long as it has anything to do with aliens you are good to go.
It goes from the mundane to the outrageous. Glass catles on the moon? Soul catchers on the moon? EMV towing the moon onto orbit? Saffron colored 'moon sky'? I've read them all.

But everytime this particular groupo makes a claim their claims are conveniently packed in a can of convenient B.S. : oh the guy who said that was dead, ooh I can't tell you who it is because they would be in danger, ooh the evidence was taken away by the CIA/Men in black/men in grey. It's all the same B.S. over and over again.

I'm here to find a the truth like everyone in here, if I wasn't, I would be somewhere else. So cut me some slack.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Well I've always been on the fence. I believed for a long time, first heard about the possibility of them being faked, thought the light stuff was interesting etc. And then researched more and found good explanations for them.

Only recently did I come across the rooster tail arguments and notice of what looks like someone being picked up by a cable. And when it comes to the rooster tail, it's a matter of physics and not a matter of lighting. When the guy falls down and gets up with the point of power in his hips, thats a matter of physics.

While I think it is true we've been to the moon, that in itself does not validate the footage we've been shown.

I have no idea about any aliens or any of that other stuff. I am not a UFO buff, but I do enjoy the topic. My general stance on aliens is that I believe there is other life out there, I also believe they have likely visited the earth from time to time, but I am extremely skeptical of any specific claims because it is so easy to create a hoax.

It has nothing to do with not trusting the government or thinking everything is a cover up. It has everything to do with not trusting people because there is nothing in place that keeps people from telling lies no matter if that is in the government, or someone in your family. It happens and the only way to determine if it is true or not is to be honest when you look at the angles.

Such attacks don't help with that in anyway. We are all guilty of it, but it should be pointed out for what it is. Sorry, not much slack going to be given here.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


What would you like NASA to do, use the old APOLLO technology and computers that are like calculators?

You do realize as technology gets better they have to reinvent how they are going to do everything. EVERYTHING is going to change.

YOu do also realize with your comments that the shuttle is not designed to leave earth orbit, so how does that have anything whatsoever to do with landing on the moon?



[edit on 22-8-2008 by rocksarerocks]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Pride is mental trap. I didn't go the moon. I wouldn't be proud if I did. That's egotism, and it's a blinding trait to have. Pride is ignorance.

This is like saying "shut up and be patriotic because freedom is seemingly impossible in this world", and the USA is so great because we've managed to beat the rest of the world down enough to maintain our big fatass lardo corporately chained pseudo-freedom.

Maintain your pride. See how much it costs you. Knowledge of something bigger, better, and more important than your pride is the price you pay.


I'm sure you're real proud of yourself for taking a stand, do you pride yourself on believing anything the government puts forth is a lie? I'll admit some of it is lies, but that doesn't mean it's all lies...so anyhow you're a hypocrite



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to post by re22666
 


What would you like NASA to do, use the old APOLLO technology and computers that are like calculators?

You do realize as technology gets better they have to reinvent how they are going to do everything. EVERYTHING is going to change.

YOu do also realize with your comments that the shuttle is not designed to leave earth orbit, so how does that have anything whatsoever to do with landing on the moon?



[edit on 22-8-2008 by rocksarerocks]


they do not start over again from scratch with no knowledge because technology evolved. as technology evolves. the method of achievement becomes easier. if we had the technology to get there once, all the evolution of technology would then apply. this upgrade, that upgrade, or even a whole new design. you really think that because they dont want to use outdated equipment that they are stumped as to how to do what they already did once, with less? seriously?

the space shuttle is an example of how far the technology has come. the shuttle is far more advanced than anything the "went to the moon." yet even with all this technology, they have no idea what to do?

this whole thread is so full of craziness, i am more convinced than ever we never ever went to the moon. there are more rational people on the alien abduction threads.

i have to take one more look at this...



You do realize as technology gets better they have to reinvent how they are going to do everything. EVERYTHING is going to change.


ok, so what you are saying here is that everytime we develope something new, we have to scrap all we have and start over from scratch as if we never had it? so every 2 years all computers go away or become obsolete while we all wait for the new ones to come out? or do they shift and grow as technology grows. i cannot even believe someone would say that because that tech is old and we have new tech, we need to start all over figuring out how to do something we could do before with the old tech. what????????????

[edit on 8/22/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666
 


Your link didn't work but I did find what I think is the video in question.

A thought experiment, since we can't go to the moon right now. I also searched all over for a ballistics simulator to play with but couldn't find one so this will have to do. Take a ball, give it a toss on earth, note how high it travels before tracing a gentle arc back to the surface. Now take that ball to the moon, give it a toss with the same amount of energy. Since there is reduced gravity on the moon that ball will reach a higher point before it traces that arc. Oh, and that arc will be wider as well as higher. If you deny this then you might as well stop reading now (I really wish I could find that simulator).

This higher and wider than expected (on Earth) ballistic arc is what I see on the clip. Honestly. I don't see the dust doing anything but going higher, slower over the top, and wider than our Earth conditioned expectations would have it do. We've grown up learning how a ball flies in Earth's gravity. My guess is we would have a hard time playing ball on the moon because thrown things behave so differently there. We "know" how high a ball is going to go when thrown at a given speed at a given angle. We "know" the arc it's going to follow. What we "know" on Earth doesn't work on the moon.

Now, I've watched and watched that clip trying to see what you describe but I just don't see it. Yes the "hang time" is longer than I would expect on Earth but it doesn't stop up there. It just takes a while to lose the upward velocity and regain it's downward velocity. It's not air that's doing it, it's the shape of the arc. The arc is going to happen on Earth or Moon but it won't be the same arc.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]


do you understand what a rooster tail is? this is when the debris spit up from a vehicle's tires shoots up in an arc, and then hits the atmosphere and SPREADS OUT. this is what makes it look like a rooster's tail. that is why it is called that. that can only happen with an atmosphere. i do not need the elementary physics lesson if you have read any of my posts, i have made it abundantly clear i understand the physics. do you? this is not ballistics, this is particle physics. you need a particle simulator to prove what you want.
watch the video again. now tell me that each and every particle of dust flies up and then down in that arc, we both know it should. is there a perfect arc coming from the tires? or does it look more like a rooster tail?

and i do not see how it is going any higher in that video than it would on earth. how do you know how high whatever that tire is kicking up would go in earth gravity.




this rooster tail is huge. and we know water is heavier than moon dust right? yes i know, you will explain how the boat is going way faster than the rover and blah blah. the point is, do you see what in this picture makes it a rooster tail and what in this picture resembles the rovers kickup, and what in this picture is impossible in NO ATMOSPHERE. i will give you a hint. it is the same answer for all 3.

[edit on 8/22/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


No, the dust particles don't spread out because of the atmosphere. They spread out because each one is on it's own ballistic trajectory. Each dust particle leaves from a different point on the wheel. Each one gets sent on it's merry way from the wheel in a slightly different direction at a slightly different speed at a slightly different moment in time. This is why they do not all follow exactly the same path. Along each path, each particle is very likely to bump other particles, causing it to deviate a bit but for the most part yes, each one is following a classic ballistic curve.

Yes, this is ballistics. Ballistics is the science of objects in motion. This is not particle physics. Particle physics is the science of subatomic particles. You can't really be thinking the dust is composed of loose protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dust particles may be small but they are not that small.

Yes, it looks a lot like a roostertail from a boat because almost the exactly same thing is happening. Water drops are being ejected at slightly different directions and speeds, thus they spread out. It isn't air that's causing it.


[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666
 


No, the dust particles don't spread out because of the atmosphere. They spread out because each one is on it's own ballistic trajectory. Each dust particle leaves from a different point on the wheel. Each one gets sent on it's merry way from the wheel in a slightly different direction at a slightly different speed at a slightly different moment in time. This is why they do not all follow exactly the same path. Along each path, each particle is very likely to bump other particles, causing it to deviate a bit but for the most part yes, each one is following a classic ballistic curve.

Yes, this is ballistics. Ballistics is the science of objects in motion. This is not particle physics. Particle physics is the science of subatomic particles. You can't really be thinking the dust is composed of loose protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dust particles may be small but they are not that small.

Yes, it looks a lot like a roostertail from a boat because almost the exactly same thing is happening. Water drops are being ejected at slightly different directions and speeds, thus they spread out. It isn't air that's causing it.


[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]


if you are looking for a computer simulator, you need a particle simulator. computer particle physics is a whole different thing but then i thought you said you wanted to run a computer simulation. sorry for referring to what you were talking about and expecting you to understand that.. your explanation sounds just fine. right up until you watch the video. watch what is actually happening in the moon rover footage. if they were just spreading out because each has it's own trajectory. if that were the case, then it would look just like the boat.

sorry i didnt realize i needed to spell things out for you so much. the point of the boat pic, it shows a general idea of a rooster tail and combats your point about the height that the dust would rise to.

now go back to the rover footage and look at that tail. what do you see. an arc of dust shooting up. AN ARC OF DUST. not a spray, an arc. what you can see is that as it reaches the top of that arc, it then changes velocity. then it spreads out. then it slows down. there is no perfect arc. so now go back to your explanation and see if you can squeeze a reason for a change in velocity in there.

i guess i will put my particle physics simulation software away too since i was using the wrong lexicon.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join