It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by -0mega-
 


Unless you have any evidence to back up your claims, you are being completely irrational. The explanation given for the footage Nasa provided is perfectly adequate - to think otherwise in the absence of evidence is illogical.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Of course we went to the frickin moon. That is why NASA threw out all the plans and are completely rethinking of how to get back. They have no idea how they are going to pull it off yet, but that does not mean that they did not do it before.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by samael93
Of course we went to the frickin moon. That is why NASA threw out all the plans and are completely rethinking of how to get back. They have no idea how they are going to pull it off yet, but that does not mean that they did not do it before.


That does not really make sense. Why would they throw out all the old info? Did they think they would remember everything or that it would just be easier to start over from scratch?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiamanicus
 


*snip*, Mythbusters proved we went to the moon by unsuccessfully faking it on their own. Duh, what part did you miss?

Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 9/1/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
reply to post by samael93
 


Learn to speak to other members less like a 15 year old please, this isn't a computer game forum


Learn some respect.


I actually thought he was being sarcastic.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiamanicus
 


Because they don't have Saturn V rockets any more. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they can't get back to the moon without a rocket.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Tiamanicus
 


Because they don't have Saturn V rockets any more. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they can't get back to the moon without a rocket.


Wow, so they have no idea how to make a rocket to get us back there? Why did they not keep those plans around?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiamanicus
 


They have the plans, but technology has moved on considerably since the 60s, as you might imagine. That means building a Saturn V would be like Boeing making a replica of the Spruce Goose for their next Super Jumbo - retarded.

Is that all the argument you can muster? Do you really think NASA never sent guys to the moon?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Tiamanicus
 


They have the plans, but technology has moved on considerably since the 60s, as you might imagine. That means building a Saturn V would be like Boeing making a replica of the Spruce Goose for their next Super Jumbo - retarded.

Is that all the argument you can muster? Do you really think NASA never sent guys to the moon?


I am simply asking questions, not arguing. why are you so defensive. So as technology has progressed, they have no idea how to apply that to the old and update it or improve on old designs or at the very least revive old designs and make them safer and cheaper and more manageable? I just do not undestand why advancing technology means that NASA is not only at a standstill but has to completely start over.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiamanicus
[
I am simply asking questions, not arguing. why are you so defensive. So as technology has progressed, they have no idea how to apply that to the old and update it or improve on old designs or at the very least revive old designs and make them safer and cheaper and more manageable? I just do not undestand why advancing technology means that NASA is not only at a standstill but has to completely start over.


I would not say NASA is at a standstill... They are not simply developing another Saturn V which wasn't much more than a ICBM. Ares/Orion have to be more capable than that of it's predecessors. For example, has to accommodate another class of engines that are capable of propelling to mars, have ISS docking capabilities, etc. Fabrication and testing takes a long time whether they resurrect and retrofit an old design or build a new one.

The best analogy I could think of is computers... Would you want to try to re-use an old IBM XT/PC or upgrade to something more modern. I think it pretty much out of necessity the new craft have to be developed. It does however, seem like a long time to actually get these new vehicles to the pad.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
NASA is currently testing a new solid-fuel rocket booster that might replace the old Saturn V's. The new fuel is environmentally freindly and is cheaper to produce. I actually learned about them on the science channel, but here's a link to a article:

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_

Originally posted by Tiamanicus
[
I am simply asking questions, not arguing. why are you so defensive. So as technology has progressed, they have no idea how to apply that to the old and update it or improve on old designs or at the very least revive old designs and make them safer and cheaper and more manageable? I just do not undestand why advancing technology means that NASA is not only at a standstill but has to completely start over.


I would not say NASA is at a standstill... They are not simply developing another Saturn V which wasn't much more than a ICBM. Ares/Orion have to be more capable than that of it's predecessors. For example, has to accommodate another class of engines that are capable of propelling to mars, have ISS docking capabilities, etc. Fabrication and testing takes a long time whether they resurrect and retrofit an old design or build a new one.

The best analogy I could think of is computers... Would you want to try to re-use an old IBM XT/PC or upgrade to something more modern. I think it pretty much out of necessity the new craft have to be developed. It does however, seem like a long time to actually get these new vehicles to the pad.


If I needed to get some computing done and I had no idea but there was an old computer that once worked...um yeah, i would go with the old computer. It is not the same, technology has not stood still for 40 years, it has advanced. Why cannot NASA figure out how to get someplace they got once before with 40 years of new technology to apply. THEY CANT. why? BECAUSE THEY NEVER WENT BEFORE. oh.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiamanicus

If I needed to get some computing done and I had no idea but there was an old computer that once worked...um yeah, i would go with the old computer. It is not the same, technology has not stood still for 40 years, it has advanced. Why cannot NASA figure out how to get someplace they got once before with 40 years of new technology to apply. THEY CANT. why? BECAUSE THEY NEVER WENT BEFORE. oh.


Oh yeah nice job connecting the dots there... Maybe that Saturn V never existed correct? Brush up on your history lessons there bro, or perhaps visit the Smithsonian.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_

Originally posted by Tiamanicus

If I needed to get some computing done and I had no idea but there was an old computer that once worked...um yeah, i would go with the old computer. It is not the same, technology has not stood still for 40 years, it has advanced. Why cannot NASA figure out how to get someplace they got once before with 40 years of new technology to apply. THEY CANT. why? BECAUSE THEY NEVER WENT BEFORE. oh.


Oh yeah nice job connecting the dots there... Maybe that Saturn V never existed correct? Brush up on your history lessons there bro, or perhaps visit the Smithsonian.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That is my point genius. Why doesnt NASA just go dig that up and and start from there. Changing out what would be pointless to use, adding what is new. Or just use it's design and 'evolve' the original design of it?

I never said there was no rocket did I? wow.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiamanicus

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That is my point genius. Why doesnt NASA just go dig that up and and start from there. Changing out what would be pointless to use, adding what is new. Or just use it's design and 'evolve' the original design of it?

I never said there was no rocket did I? wow.


Maybe they should just strap an astronaut onto an old nuclear missile..

We wouldn't want to spend money on any new technology now would we?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_


Maybe they should just strap an astronaut onto an old nuclear missile..

We wouldn't want to spend money on any new technology now would we?


Really, we used to just strap astronauts to nuclear missles?

I was talking about taking the old tech that WE USED TO GET THEM THERE THE FIRST TIME and UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGY. I said build from the old. At the moment they are starting from scratch. Why is that? And please do not insult us by saying such stupid things as the above. They never got anyone to the moon by strapping the to a missle before so how would that make any sense in what I said. Way to misconstrue everything so that you can almost make a point. You are not arguing with some 8th grader who has some time to kill and and attitude problem here. You will have to make sense if you are going to try to turn my logic back on me.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
reply to post by Kryties
 


so you are tellig me that you can interpret the shot of the earth at a distance, then the obvious change of lighting but NOT camera movement, and next thing you know, the window is full of light? the sun is on the camera side of the craft so what is completely filling that window with light?

maybe the reason noone is discussing the episode is because it has been thouroughly covered that they barely even tried and at best could have proven nothing. as was stated, trying to fake something to prove that it was NOT faked?? what scientific method employs that line of logic????? what do you want to discuss? the stupid zero-g plane thing that proves nothing? them debunking shadows that never bothered anyone serious? i have started watching the episode and so far am even less impressed than i thought i would be.
look, i am not stopping anyone from talking about it am i?
i have not shut anyone up or out.
what is left to discuss about it?
it seems more like a copout to get out of answering my claims.
mythbusters was gonna prove we went to the moon and then proceeded to do a terrible job of 'debunking' myths that were straw man arguments anyway. so what discussion is there to have? or do you mean we should all just write posts in praise of the OP for posting a thread about the show? I will gladly discuss anything about the episode you like. that is no problem. maybe to pass the time though, you could tell me what is filling the window with light at the end of that video.


Without doubt this particular film inside the spaceship proves that they were not at the moon but not very far from earth. It was obvious that the light was indeed the Earth and they were faking this particular part of the trip. Now did they go to the moon? May be but all the astronauts were/are still involved in the cover-up of what they were really up to?

Also, this rubbish about why they haven't/can't go back to the moon because of the rockets/not having the technology, is the sort of lies that would only be believed by a herd of sheeple....... baa baa baa

So why didn't the most technological advanced country (USSR that is) never make it to the moon with men? Oh, yes, they were/are still playing superpower good cop bad cop games.... Come on sheeple they are all playing the game with the latest being the smoke and mirrors between USSR/US/Europe its so staged!



[edit on 1-9-2008 by mlmijyd]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Having actually watched the episode involved with this topic, I will say that I think there are a lot of flaws in what Mythbusters did. Firstly there was an obvious bias against the Moon Hoax myth, as indicated by their comments at the end of the episode.

I cannot expect a complete and thorough report by such biased people who pick and chose what particular myths to debunk, namely ones where the setting could be played around with until the desired effect was achieved. One example is where Jamie and Adam attempted to recreate the conditions on the lunar surface in order to see whether a person could have been visible in the photo of them descending out of the lander. Whilst taking into account the reflectivity of the surface and surrounding landscape, they did not take into account the reflectivity factor of the persons in the room, other objects in the room etc. All of these, on a set with such a small scale, would be a factor yet they failed to take these into consideration.

Another particular example I choose to bring up is when the three stooges are testing the flag-waving myth in the vacuum chamber. Without the lack of gravity, a definitive test cannot be performed. The girl then proceeds to say something to the effect of "...and of course there is no gravity on the moon which means that that the flag would react even more than it is here so Myth busted!" What a load of codswallop. Where did she get this idea from? Making stuff up as you go along isn't 'busting' anything.

The girl is damned hot though.....

[edit on 1/9/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiamanicus


Really, we used to just strap astronauts to nuclear missles?

I was talking about taking the old tech that WE USED TO GET THEM THERE THE FIRST TIME and UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGY. I said build from the old. At the moment they are starting from scratch. Why is that? And please do not insult us by saying such stupid things as the above. They never got anyone to the moon by strapping the to a missle before so how would that make any sense in what I said. Way to misconstrue everything so that you can almost make a point. You are not arguing with some 8th grader who has some time to kill and and attitude problem here. You will have to make sense if you are going to try to turn my logic back on me.


Ok, see if this makes any sense... There has been many rockets designed since the last moon shot, so which design best suits NASA requirements? Perhaps one that is bigger, badder than the previous. Why would they start with an inferior design simply because it existed way back when? They are not really starting from scrath. There were irocket designs that were developed after Saturn which were even better than their predecessors, and it boils down to payload and performance. Even the Saturn had several revisions, each one better than the previous. It was an evolving rocket design, and each rev better than the last. I don't know whether you have ever noticed, but the Space Shuttle used borrowed technology from the Saturn V. For example... the Shuttle main engines were the same engines used on Saturn V, and also.. the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) were in fact borrowed technology from the Saturn V. Since thing continually improve, they developed a newer model engine RS-68B rocket engine for use on the new Ares V, however the external fuel tanks were carried over from the Shuttle era. The technology is simply evolving over time.

NASA decided in 2005 that it would develop the Ares V is a Shuttle Derived Vehicle, that is a significant improvements over the Saturn or the Nova rocket design from the 1980s. NASA has their many reasons for implementing a new design to accommodate their missions. Most notably it will easily dwarf the Saturn V and the two Soviet/Russian superboosters in both height, lift, and launch capability.

I saw just a couple of nights ago, where they have new robotics for welding rocket segments together, etc. technology that far surpasses anything that occurred in the 1970s. I personally liked the shuttle because it looks cool, but there is no way that old technology is going to get us to mars. The SDVs are NASAs next logical step toward those goals.

NASA could have *easily* selected a Nova class rocket to retrofit for the new missions, however the have explained publically that they intend to implement more generic solutions for the new design, and implement more off-the-shelf technologies so that Ares and Orion can be more easily serviced. Their not going to use old engine technology when Pratt-Whitney has developed better technology over the decades. Keep in mind that it is not just NASA "going it alone" here. There is a whole aerospace industry that evolved since the 1960s, and their all submitted their proposals to incorporate their latest technology and wares.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join