Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax

reply to post by Tiamanicus


Because using the old plans for a Saturn V and trying to modernise it would be like taking Richard Trevithick's train (the first steam locomotive) and trying to get it to run on electricity today. You might as well start the whole thing over, as the only similarity will be that they both have wheels and run on tracks. Everything else is entirely different.

Which has no bearing on whether NASA went to the moon, as they clearly did. There is footage, there were experiments, there are moon rock samples, there are the retroreflectors, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Your understanding doesn't reflect the reality we live in, it seems.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Tiamanicus

 

Your understanding doesn't reflect the reality we live in, it seems.

You know, in the 2 threads I have seen you post in you have done nothing more than mock people. Let me make this quite plain to you: You are on a Conspiracy Theory website, for Conspiracy Theories. If This is not to your liking, go post on the Sesame Street forums where you can debate the intricacies of ABC all day long.

reply to post by Kryties


A conspiracy theory is supposed to be based on evidence of an actual conspiracy, not just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth.

I'm sorry if I called out people's ignorance, but then it does say "deny ignorance" in the top-left of our screens, doesn't it?

[edit on 1/9/08 by dave420]

reply to post by dave420


Then put your money where your mouth is and provide LINKS and VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of your own. Words do not make a claim true without evidence. Try to stop mocking people who have a different opinion to you and perhaps SHOW THEM using your own research.

That is the right and proper thing to do instead of getting on your high horse and just claiming that everyone is a nutjob.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Tiamanicus

Which has no bearing on whether NASA went to the moon, as they clearly did. There is footage, there were experiments, there are moon rock samples, there are the retroreflectors, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Saying that NASA 'clearly' went to the moon when there are countless people who have thousands of pieces of evidence that have not been refuted doesn't mean you are correct. PROVE YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY. Don't make unsubstantiated claims such as 'clearly' when the evidence to the contrary shows it is not clear at all.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Kryties

 

A conspiracy theory is supposed to be based on evidence of an actual conspiracy, not just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth.

There are thousands of photos and other pieces of evidence gathered which support the suggestion that NASA did not go to the moon. How is this not a conspiracy theory? Perhaps you should dust off the old dictionary and look up the meaning of the two words. Deny Ignorance, you said it yourself.

[edit on 1/9/2008 by Kryties]

reply to post by Kryties

I am not even sure if conspiracy is the correct term here. Hoax theory seems to be more appropriate. Conspiracy would imply something unlawful. But I am just splitting hairs here. This whole thread has gotten so far off track, it is ridiculous. I tried to get that other guy to start a new thread about the specific issues. I don't think the moon hoax's theorist will believe anything short of seeing it for themselves... which is pretty much the attitude I take towards UFO and Aliens. No ill will towards someones position on the issue, and quite frankly the general debate makes for a good thread. I just like to see as many fact brought to the table. I just don't like when people refuse to back up their statements, and resort to venting their opinions. If there is a subject of contention, at least provide a link to the source.

reply to post by Kryties


No, you show your evidence. The evidence for the moon landings is massive, and everywhere. It's part of popular culture. You are the one saying they didn't go, yet you provide no evidence.

The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Kryties

 

No, you show your evidence. The evidence for the moon landings is massive, and everywhere. It's part of popular culture. You are the one saying they didn't go, yet you provide no evidence.

The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

/facepalm

Just not getting it are you. I'm done talking to you, I shall concentrate on the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD instead of adding to its derailment any further.

On the previous page I made a statement about the Mythbusters show and how I do not believe they did a thorough job. Would anyone care to comment on that which is relevant to this topic?

reply to post by Kryties

What could Jamie & Adam possibly do to validate ? I am sure the answers will come with time, possibly the LRO, or the next manned mission to the moon (by china or the US). It is on the drawing board for both countries to make moon shots within your lifetime, so I am pretty sure it will be verified at some point. I am 99% certain they went there... simply because of the 900lbs of moon rock they brought back. The rock is pretty unique, and I don't see people questioning the origin of the actual moon rocks. If there was a hoax to be had here, the scientist and universities that studied these sample would have exposed that long ago.
If I saw something convincing, I would change my mind, but these loose change type of clips on youtube have not given me enough to lean that way.

There have been *many* Mythbuster episodes where I sit there and say.. oh they didn't do enough to really BUST a particular myth, but it's more about the entertainment value, and the likelihood of a particular myth being true or false based on the best of their efforts. Like that episode where they built that one-man flying machine from internet blueprints. Busted. Can it be done, probably, but.. they put quite a bit of effort and money into it, and failed. In the majority of these episodes, there is wiggle room for the true skeptic to say "Hey, but what about..." but they do factor in some assumption of probability.

reply to post by mapsurfer_


I guess I should first say that while I believe we have been to the moon, I don't believe NASA is telling us the whole truth, nor that much of it happened the way they said it happened.

I looked at the Mythbusters episode from a fence-sitting point of view, analyzing everything they did and all I can say I felt that the end was 'sensationalised'. To me they didn't have enough evidence to conclusively prove it either way.

I like watching Mythbusters for this reason, I like to pick the holes in what they do but I don't do it out of malice or spite, I do it out of intrigue in knowing the whole truth of something. Some shows they have done have been rather convincing, and others not so much so.

reply to post by Kryties


OK, I'll bite. You haven't provided evidence, you're merely stating your lack of knowledge of physics.

For the shadow photo they took, the reflectivity of the persons in the studio is absolutely minimal. You also have to remember that on the moon, there was a lot more moon surface to reflect light from (and it is not perfectly flat as the test moon they used was), so if anything, it would appear that there was less of a chance of them getting reflected light on the subject. And yet the effect of the reflectivity of the moon's surface was well established. As anyone who has heard of 'diffuse reflection' would be able to tell you. As they pointed out, the fact you can see the moon at all shows just how reflective it is, and also the fact that all the footage of the astronauts on the moon shows grey-scale, and not 'illuminated by the sun' and 'in total darkness', as the 'the moon doesn't reflect any light' crowd would have.

The flag waving part was also perfectly correct. Ignore what Kari (lovely as she is) Byron said, if indeed she said that, as it has very little to do with the test. The flag in the video from the moon moves highly-symmetrically, not erratically as if it was blowing in a breeze. The fact that none of the dust on the moon's surface is moved also demonstrates the fact that there really was no atmosphere where the video was shot. The fact the flag is perfectly, 100% stationary after the astronauts have finished planting it, and its initial movement has stopped, also demonstrates a complete lack of atmosphere. So no, they didn't have to rely on making stuff up to bust the myth - simple physics busted it wide open all on its own.

Not that this will dissuade you from your position, but then I doubt much will. I hope to be surprised.

Damned it you do and Damned if you dont
If they prove it was real people will just say they are working for the goverment or somthing along those lines
And if they prove it was hoaxed people will just say they are crackpots who have their own tv show

Edit to add :Btw this thread is about the show , not wether to debate if the moon landings are real, Grow up and stay on topic

[edit on 1-9-2008 by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE]

reply to post by dave420


Your almost there, well done. Hope it wasn't too hard to post something longer than 2 lines. All you need do now is take the agro out of it and you might pass for a respectful member. Perhaps adding a link here or there so that the rest of us 'apes' can verify the physics of light reflectivity as you suggest they are?

Can anyone give me a list of what they feel the mythbusters should have tested?

What about the mirrors the astronauts placed on the moon. Isn't that proof enough that man was on the moon?


www.youtube.com...

i believe that we did go to the moon at one point... maybe "the race" to the moon was faked just so the states could show that they were first, and beat everone else.. but i dont think that after they televised the fake one they didnt actually continue to try and go there

In relation to the show. Liked the flag and footprint tests. The light reflecting off the moon set shows how the light can show the man even though he is in a shadow, all the comments on the reflectivity of the people and such doesn't really matter, what about the stars and the light off of earth... . The point of the test was to put light on the suit within a shadow, that was done.

To the other issues discussed;
1. The rooster tail off the lander. The tires impact on each grain of dirt will vary. While the intial traj. will be nearly the same due to the contact point the velocity/ force on each grain will vary. The grains with less force will have a shorter arc then the grains that hade more force implied. Once the gravity of the moon itself acts on each grain the ones with less intial velocity/ force will have a shorter path/arc then grains with more velocity. This effect gives you a stream intially semi-focused but then dispersses as the grains begin to come towards thier individual peaks, giving the rooster tail. Also the Moon does have an atmosphere, it is minimal and the solar winds continually reduce it as the rocks on the moon produce it. www.thelivingmoon.com...

2. Why it will take 10 years to go back and why we haven't been back lately. First, why we have not gone back. They ran out of things to look at(so they thought). The first missions went to discover what the moon was made of, bring back rocks, yada yada. Once they brought back enough rocks they did not know what else to do at the time. It was believed to be an arid body with very simialar geology throughout the moon. To continue going there was just to spend money on more rocks and pictures, kind of expensive vacation for a couple of guys. Fast forward to today. They believe to have found frozen water at the poles (Something to go back for).
Why will it take 10 years? They are designing and sending satilites to go first to confirm the water and also other researh and mapping.... The final design for a lander can not be made entirely until they know the entire purpose of the mission. With the purpose defined they can come up with a lander that has all the proper tools and space to accomadate the missions purpose. They currently know conceptually what they want, travel pod, lander, equipment pod. It takes many years to build a car from scratch and we all know the purpose of a car right? What takes so long? Its not like they are building something from IKEA, insert panel B into slot A, They have to design and have built in a sterile lab most of the parts that go into this. They know the path to take and how long. Its the ship that is being rebuilt for an entirely new purpose, takes time.

Side note. They also are going back to hopefully set up a long term base tu use for future missions (Mars and others) 1/6 the gravity is 1/6 the fuel(not exactly, but I'm sure u get it). The eqipment they use to go to the moon is also a test run to use similar equip for Mars.

Sources;
4 years of physics and engineering in college/ High school
the site in body
Many a sleepless nights with the science channel

Was any one interested in going to the moon.
It was Kennedy's idea.
That was about the same as Bush saying we are going to IRAQ.
Presidential edict.
Both the think tank idea of the Illuminati to make money.

Could they say develop free energy discovered 100 years ago.
No Way.

Are the Illuminati serious, did Patton find secret parts from a
development base, did Forestall know that padded defense
funds were going to free energy scientists.

Yeah they can't let the secret out.
Mythbusters included.
They didn't go to the moon to find out.
Busted.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Oh that makes perfect sense...

Originally posted by prizim
Can anyone give me a list of what they feel the mythbusters should have tested?

What about the mirrors the astronauts placed on the moon. Isn't that proof enough that man was on the moon?


daz__adds:
the visor that appears to be in the up position when it should have been down. when the astro-not was facing the sun with no shield.

ok perhaps between us we can come up with a decent list..

then i think we should get ATSMIX to mythbust the mythbusters

daz__

[edit on 3/9/2008 by daz__]

[edit on 3/9/2008 by daz__]

reply to post by prizim


Good find find.
But it is not all that convincing.
With so many hits, its the law of averages and depending on
Einstein again.

Now the lasar reflectors are back.

www.youtube.com...

You be the judge...
Already known good reflecting points are now mirror locations.
Oh so busted mirror myth.

reply to post by mapsurfer_


In your post:

In addition, I don't know if you are of aware that NASA is preparing to launch the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) in the next few months which as part of it mission is to photograph all 6 lunar landing sites, as well as the debris lets behind by the Apollo missions. Now think logically about this... If NASA faked it, then why would they send a recon orbiter? To expose themselves? I think not.

When did that start. I suggested that on youtube or some forum and
got six votes.

I saw the photo from the Japan orbiter and it was a new angle
of the lander and surrounding area.

Haven't heard any bad words about it yet.