Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Mythbuster was bought and paid for doing that episode for ridiculing the moon hoaxer crowd, I really don`t think they would show a episode where they debunked the moon landing.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

But I DO know that proponents of the fake landing theories have been caught altering stuff. You've no doubt seen the Mythbusters episode with the flag in the vacuum?

The film was not altered and the flag did move..
I don't think anyone has proven otherwise..

BTW, I did say it wasn't much to go on but am just interested in what you think made it move if not astronaut involvement..

Well, to me, in the first clip you see it moving off the red dot, on the closeup it doesn't move.

As far as what made it move, the clip is only a few seconds long, who knows whether something had started the flag moving before that?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by notonsamepage

 

No they had newer and more advanced stuff with every mission, look at the moon rover

yeah the famous moon rover

I wonder how the pictures and the video recordings would look like if they went to the moon today

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Mythbuster was bought and paid for doing that episode for ridiculing the moon hoaxer crowd, I really don`t think they would show a episode where they debunked the moon landing.

That is a matter of opinion.
If you wanna see a conspiracy behind everything that's your prerogative. Discovery Channel also aired a show that questions the official story too.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Mythbuster was bought and paid for doing that episode for ridiculing the moon hoaxer crowd, I really don`t think they would show a episode where they debunked the moon landing.

That is a matter of opinion.
If you wanna see a conspiracy behind everything that's your prerogative. Discovery Channel also aired a show that questions the official story too.

But come on, you say the discovery channel questions the official story but they are not debunking it?

mythbusters "debunked" the hoax theories in their own way, not the other way around.

how could they? some higher up would kicked their ass if a episode from mythbusters was actually debunking the moon landing, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr was their heroes.. nawww they wouldn`t debunk that amazing story would they.

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by notonsamepage
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Mythbuster was bought and paid for doing that episode for ridiculing the moon hoaxer crowd, I really don`t think they would show a episode where they debunked the moon landing.

That is a matter of opinion.
If you wanna see a conspiracy behind everything that's your prerogative. Discovery Channel also aired a show that questions the official story too.

But come on, you say the discovery channel questions the official story but they are not debunking it?

mythbusters "debunked" the hoax theories in their own way, not the other way around.

how could they? some higher up would kicked their ass if a episode from mythbusters was actually debunking the moon landing, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr was their heroes.. nawww they wouldn`t debunk that amazing story would they.

edit on 3-7-2011 by notonsamepage because: (no reason given)

The Discovery Channel aired a programme about the moon hoax theories, they didn't make it. They air all kinds of 'filler' stuff, these shows don't reflect the official views of anybody.

Personally, I don't think the Mythbusters team would bother to get involved with the moon landing hoaxes if there was a mandate telling them to falsify stuff and go with the official line, but that's just my opinion.

The thing with these theories is that when somebody like Mythbusters steps in then everybody starts saying that 'they're in on it' or they have received orders to lie. I don't think that this is the case, there is an interesting thread here on ATS about how the US military has been trying to censor movies that have UFO themes for decades, and guess what? They can't force directors/producers to follow the official line that UFO's don't exist, they can only try to downplay the topic. I believe the same is true for NASA(or whoever), they can't just weigh in and demand that Discovery or Mythbusters do their bidding, like I said Discovery has already previously aired a show that purposes hoaxing by NASA, so how did that one get through???

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

But I DO know that proponents of the fake landing theories have been caught altering stuff. You've no doubt seen the Mythbusters episode with the flag in the vacuum?

The film was not altered and the flag did move..
I don't think anyone has proven otherwise..

BTW, I did say it wasn't much to go on but am just interested in what you think made it move if not astronaut involvement..

Well, to me, in the first clip you see it moving off the red dot, on the closeup it doesn't move.

As far as what made it move, the clip is only a few seconds long, who knows whether something had started the flag moving before that?

Please be specific.
When do you see (using the time provided by youtube) do you see the flag begin to move?


Now regarding Myth Busters. Here is why they are discredited and not "independent" researches searching for the truth.

go to 3:25


Besides thanking NASA, etc.
Whose names do you see there?

Show was biased.

Now if you want to debate specific information they brought up, like the flag waving, lets do it,
Because if you think you were confused about seeing the flag move from direct NASA footage,
how do you expect to understand what Mythbusters showed you. I can BUST them easily.

Ok, firstly, when I watch the video posted here of the flag moving, I can see it moving at :12 just before the AN passes it, then when its played close up it doesn't move.

Secondly, the credits on the MB show, please elaborate, I see names I don't know?

Thirdly, while I might concede that MB were a little biased, maybe as biased as I would be concerning this topic, I do not think that the material they presented is misleading, they are not making stuff up.

Fourthly, there is a lot of evidence showing hoaxing by the hoax believers themselves(I will post some of this later if you wish).

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Ok, firstly, when I watch the video posted here of the flag moving, I can see it moving at :12 just before the AN passes it, then when its played close up it doesn't move.

Ok, go to :40.
Now you are aware that the footage has been slowed down. Correct?
And you do see where the youtuber indicated when the flag is moving. Correct?

Now have you tried taking the time slider of the video and moving it back and forth between :40 and :46.
Do you now see the movement?

Secondly, the credits on the MB show, please elaborate, I see names I don't know?

Phil Plait

Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science.

Despite the valiant efforts of The Discovery Channel and PBS, television by and large carries a pretty big load of Bad Astronomy. Sitcoms, commercials, the news media and now the tabloid news shows are all contributing to America's misunderstanding of basic astronomy and the scientific method.

www.badastronomy.com...

&

Jay Windley.

Did Mythbusters Prove Apollo Photos Were Faked?

Discovery Channel's hit series Mythbusters recently took on the Moon hoax theory, with a little help from Clavius. What myths did they really bust?

Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.

www.xmission.com...

Thirdly, while I might concede that MB were a little biased, maybe as biased as I would be concerning this topic, I do not think that the material they presented is misleading, they are not making stuff up.

You may not think so, but then again, due to your bias you probably have not actually investigated their claims, correct?

Fourthly, there is a lot of evidence showing hoaxing by the hoax believers themselves(I will post some of this later if you wish).

Please do, though I must say Im a bit confused by what you mean.
But, wouldnt it be better if you would critique Mythbuster's episode.
To make sure they have been honest about their tests.

reply to post by FoosM


Yes I see movement, there may be natural be reasons why it is, and I don't see it as conclusive proof that man did not walk on the moon, sorry.

The two people you mention, Phil Plait and jay Windley, what about them? Are they 'the bad guys' so to speak? I don't see anything wrong with the websites you linked. If you think they should have had somebody like Bill Kaysing on the show well why don't you mail them and let them know.

As far as being biased, well so are you. What I saw on the MB moon hoax show was all 'above board' there was no trickery here, was there something you thought they left out?

The last point I made was that there are people out there hoaxing the hoax so to speak. There are people deliberately trying to mislead the public to believe that the moon landings were faked, through clever video editing, picture altering and other methods. This you cannot deny, maybe you'll try, but its true. Now I ask you, ok if NASA are hiding something, or lying or whatever, that is wrong very wrong!
But why the hell would people be trying to deceive the public into believing they faked the landings?
I'll tell you why, conspiracies are cash cow, period.

mirrors

muley

ham radios

win

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by FoosM

 

Yes I see movement, there may be natural be reasons why it is, and I don't see it as conclusive proof that man did not walk on the moon, sorry.

You dont have to see it as conclusive proof. But its an unexplainable hole in the story.
Now, if you will, admit that not all anomalies that have been pointed out have been debunked.
In other words, take back that blanket statement you made earlier that all issues have been explained. If you want to show yourself as being impartial and not an apologist.

The two people you mention, Phil Plait and jay Windley, what about them?

I just provided reasons why Mythbusters was not impartial and did not do that show to really investigate the claims by hoax believers. They lost their credibility as truth seekers. And they have used their show as a propaganda platform for NASA.

Now you ask, well they were bias but then did they do something wrong.
Yes, they misled their audience. And if you were willing to look hard enough you would see plenty of issues.
Example:

The Footprints:
NASA's regolith stimulant does not leave clear footprints under normal walking conditions.
MYTHBUSTERS lightly tapped the soil.
They should have simply put the boots and walked on it.
But they knew it would mean no BUST for them.


Shadows and Soil
Watch how JW reveal Mythbuster sleight of hand.


The Flag,
Well we just covered that.
Mythbusters didnt!
And what they did show was heavily edited to say the least.

Wires or Slowmotion?
Try both Mythbusters, because you didnt!

reply to post by FoosM


I stopped watching after 'I know of no dry natural soil here on Earth that has that property'

I mean, what can I say???

I'm done here. Bye.

Roll on the Chinese moon landings.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by FoosM

 

I stopped watching after 'I know of no dry natural soil here on Earth that has that property'

I mean, what can I say???

I'm done here. Bye.

Roll on the Chinese moon landings.

edit on 3-7-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

So you are out, leaving us with a vague statement.
Whatever it takes to keep that Apollo fantasy alive I guess.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by FoosM

 

I stopped watching after 'I know of no dry natural soil here on Earth that has that property'

I mean, what can I say???
I'm done here. Bye.
Roll on the Chinese moon landings.

edit on 3-7-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

So ya got nothing, like I said..

reply to post by FoosM


Oh no! This thread is being sucked into an Infinite Regression Loop again! Where's The Doctor when you need him?

Then please provide your evidence that Phil Plait, Jay Windley, and the Mythbusters (??) are all "appointed by NASA". If you cannot, then the moral thing to do would be to withdraw that claim.

Page 10

In the Mythbusters example they clearly stated they used grey protland cement "mixed with charcoal" to simulate the moons reflectivity. I don't mean to take anything away from this young man but, in his rebutal he plainly states twice the reflectivity of the cement but failed to even mention the part about it being mixed with charcoal.

Page 2

2. The flag movement occurs either when someone is touching it or when someone is near it. Jump up and down near a flag on Earth and you can get it to move slightly. On the moon the level of gravity is reduced so the force of jumping is less, but the lack of air resistance could easily result in movement. More importantly the static charge of the astronaut could attract or repel the flag. The youtube user claims otherwise by passing a statically charged balloon past the flag he has. However he doesn't take into account the air resistance around him. This shows a serious flaw in his methedology.

Page 4

OMG ! mythbusters Pwnd !

I'm sorry, but how many of you big arm chair critics flew half a world away to do this. (this is one of five videos)

Page 150

The first video about "flag movement" was proven true by mythbusters. The movement of the flag was proven not to be a hoax and it's actually easier to move the flag around on the moons gravity. I'm still a very big skeptic... no matter what way we're leaning.

Page 3

People are pretending their are two hardcore camps - the Mythbusters camp and the Jarrah White camp. Its ridiculous. Both are right and wrong about different things. Both camps make "stupid" mistakes. Both offer bad experiments because they both come from biased positions. The way the Mythbusters crew celebrated their result showed they were in a biased position and should not have been doing the experiment in the first place without finding key pro-hoax people who agreed to accept the results of the experiment given their test conditions.

Page 54

I'm glad you brought this up ... I've just come across this video that involves the 'mythbusters'.

Page 293

Someone, anyone, please have an original idea!!!

reply to post by DJW001

Someone, anyone, please have an original idea!!!

I did but no ones taking up the challenge.

reply to post by backinblack

OK, here's a good challenge for all..
Actually it would make a good thread but let's stick to this one..

Let's pretend NASA is the defendant in a trial and the Judge has ruled ALL evidence from them is inadmissible due to possible tampering and bias..

Now, prove to me that MAN LANDED ON THE MOON..

The problem is, you've got the proposition backwards. Let's see the Hoax Propagandists prove that the landings were faked without using NASA "evidence."

reply to post by DJW001

The problem is, you've got the proposition backwards. Let's see the Hoax Propagandists prove that the landings were faked without using NASA "evidence."

More likely your problem is you're not up to the challenge..

reply to post by backinblack

More likely your problem is you're not up to the challenge..

You have framed the challenge so as to be epistemologically impossible. No one can meet that challenge. It's akin to proving that God doesn't exist. You can demonstrate all the reasons why God isn't necessary, but someone can always argue that not being necessary isn't the same as a positive proof of non-existence. Similarly, I could cite memos from the KGB analyzing Apollo's success, but you could always claim that they were deceived as well. You always fall back on the simplistic, indeed, solipsistic, argument that only the people who actually landed on the Moon witnessed the event, and that they may be lying, or even brainwashed, thus not knowing the truth themselves. You reserve the right to claim that the truth about everything is ultimately unknowable, while claiming to be seeking the truth. No-one in their right mind would rise to that bait.