Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,308 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,227,118
Pageviews Today: 1,646,432Threads Today: 378Posts Today: 7,139
02:01 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6626359
Portugal
12/06/2011 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
NasaTard and NSA shill.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6626359


Anyone more intelligent than you is a "shill" in your tiny little world...

tool
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1117285

Are you mad bro?
Go watch the doc in the link before you stress.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1387177
United States
12/06/2011 08:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Mythbusters taught me how to disprove any moon conspiracies in my cat's litter box
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1117285
United States
12/06/2011 08:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
NasaTard and NSA shill.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6626359


Anyone more intelligent than you is a "shill" in your tiny little world...

tool
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1117285

Are you mad bro?
Go watch the doc in the link before you stress.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6626359


Did before...

Doing so again will make me as stupid as you, will it?

lmao
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6626359
Portugal
12/06/2011 08:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
NasaTard and NSA shill.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6626359


Anyone more intelligent than you is a "shill" in your tiny little world...

tool
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1117285

Are you mad bro?
Go watch the doc in the link before you stress.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6626359


Did before...

Doing so again will make me as stupid as you, will it?

lmao
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1117285

When the lies from Nasa will be exposed, will be funny too.
sheeplebah
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6329841
United States
12/06/2011 11:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
We have Landed on the Moon

BUT

The footage shown was faked (Training video shown instead)

What was seen was too sensitive to be screened
 Quoting: strange fellow




that could also be true but howd they get past that radiation belt?
 Quoting: Razon 6491324



They went around most of them.


Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6643524
United States
12/06/2011 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Mythbusters:

Bouncing the laser off the moon:
This episode had two problems. First that both the USA and USSR had both successfully bounced a laser off the moon and were able to detect some reflection of it BEFORE the Apollo missions.

Second was that the USSR landed reflectors on the moon using unmanned probes.

So, bouncing a laser off the moon does not prove man was there, even though the episode led people to believe otherwise.

Aldrin being backlit:
The issue I have with this episode is they did their experiment in atmosphere. If they wanted to be scientifically accurate, the experiment should have been done in a vacuum chamber. They could have started with a darker simulated regolith, and had some flour sifters rigged with remote cell phone vibrate motors and a remote camera.
Take a picture, then sift a little flour to lighten the regolith. Keep doing it until the picture shows the Aldrin model backlit the way he is in the NASA photo, then compare the albedo of the simulated regolith to the actual albedo of the moon's regolith.
Personally, I can understand some sunlight being scattered by the lunar surface, so I don't expect Aldrin to be in total darkness, but in the NASA photo he seems too perfectly lit and the camera too perfectly set for exposure.

Speaking of photos, someone did a breakdown of how many photos and video were allegedly taken during each Apollo mission while on the moon, and it added up to a near impossible amount of pics per minute.

The wires footage:
Already covered that they kept the wires footage and the slow down of the video speed completely separate. Hard to believe this error wasn't on purpose. In fact, someone took their wire footage and slowed it down (67% I think) and lo and behold, looked just like the NASA footage.

Really ashame that Mythbusters does this. With just a little more effort on their part, it could be a great show.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6643524
United States
12/06/2011 01:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"i dont think you guys understand the 'radiation belt' very well.

its where the earths magenetic field stops the radiation from the sun, its not an area where there is a concentration of radiation, its just where it meets opposition.

passing through this 'belt' is no problem, its when you pass it that you get a problem."

THANK YOU!
I've been saying for years that the Van Allen radiation belts are a red herring to distract people from the real Apollo problem. Radiation outside the Earth's magnetic bubble.

As mentioned in another thread here, the radiation levels outside the Earth's magnetic field should be well documented by now. I'm talking about the the usual level without solar flares.

Good luck finding definitive numbers. A lot of probably's, maybe's, possibly's, up-to's, about's etc.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6585179
Portugal
12/06/2011 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Wake up, people!

There is no Moon.



damned
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/06/2011 03:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
i dont think you guys understand the 'radiation belt' very well.

its where the earths magenetic field stops the radiation from the sun, its not an area where there is a concentration of radiation, its just where it meets opposition.

passing through this 'belt' is no problem, its when you pass it that you get a problem.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6627314


Nope.

"Radiation" is not a single thing. There are a number of different potential sources of ionizing radiation, and each is quite different.

In the case of the Van Allen Radiation BELTS, what is happening is that low-energy charged particles (predominantly from our own Sun) are trapped for a period of hours to days within a rough toroidal zone formed by the Earth's own (weak) magnetic field.

This produces a local concentration of protons (inner belt) and electrons (outer belt) with a spectrum of energies, mostly concentrated down in the 1-10 KeV range. Which is to say; in the case of the outer belt, beta radiation that would give a naked human being or an unshielded personal computer a very bad day.

The flux of these particles elsewhere in the Solar System is not that high. It is the concentration that matters.

Also out in the greater Solar System we have to deal with UV from the Sun -- enough to give that naked human being a nasty sunburn (and blind them within minutes) -- and extra-solar cosmic rays; charged particles that carry so much energy they fly right through the VARB without being stopped.

The latter mostly explode into showers of shorter-lived, more active particles within our upper atmosphere. The penetration of these effects is a percentage; if you live in Denver, you are receiving a much higher dose of cosmic rays than someone in Salt Lake City. And if you fly in a commercial airliner, you get even more.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/06/2011 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Mythbusters:

Bouncing the laser off the moon:
This episode had two problems. First that both the USA and USSR had both successfully bounced a laser off the moon and were able to detect some reflection of it BEFORE the Apollo missions.

Second was that the USSR landed reflectors on the moon using unmanned probes.

So, bouncing a laser off the moon does not prove man was there, even though the episode led people to believe otherwise.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6643524


True, but it is highly suggestive.

Your first point is bogus, however. You think the scientists behind the LRRR experiments have only two options, "a laser" and "not a laser?" No. They measured the returned photon flux. Check out the details available at the Apache Point Observatory. Not only did the LRRR give returns that were simply impossible without a mirror there, the differences between the various deployed units (two Soviet units, two different sizes set up by Apollo crews) are clearly observable.

Let me underline this. It would be impossible to swap the data for a Lunkhod-based experiment with an A15-based experiment and not have the Apache Point boys and girls figure out you'd done so.


A subtler point is, however; yes, the Soviets did deploy a reflector successfully. (More or less...it was badly aimed, one of the other rovers got lost and was only re-discovered recently, and there was also a complete failure to deploy the reflector -- automation can only give you so much in the way of success rate). And we have complete and detailed documentation. We know the design of the rovers. We know where they were built. We tracked the launch and followed the landing.

NONE of this exists for an imaginary US-launched robotic reflector array. There is no sign of such a thing being planned or built. No-one can identify a single thing about those missions, from the designer to what company contracted to build it to where they got the bleeding-edge skills shared by only the relatively small aerospace community.


Aldrin being backlit:
The issue I have with this episode is they did their experiment in atmosphere. If they wanted to be scientifically accurate, the experiment should have been done in a vacuum chamber. They could have started with a darker simulated regolith, and had some flour sifters rigged with remote cell phone vibrate motors and a remote camera.
Take a picture, then sift a little flour to lighten the regolith. Keep doing it until the picture shows the Aldrin model backlit the way he is in the NASA photo, then compare the albedo of the simulated regolith to the actual albedo of the moon's regolith.
Personally, I can understand some sunlight being scattered by the lunar surface, so I don't expect Aldrin to be in total darkness, but in the NASA photo he seems too perfectly lit and the camera too perfectly set for exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6643524


No. Chemistry matters for albedo, and so does geometry. Your regolith substitute would have to be exact for any direct photometric comparison to be meaningful.

You also seem to be skipping completely over the anisotropic properties of the lunar soil (as an aside; few real materials are perfect Lambert surfaces. Many common materials show a degree of anisotropy).

Of course, the vacuum is a non-starter. A few meters of relatively clean air reflects far too little light to matter in a scene like this. Interobject reflection totally swamps any contribution from air.

Lastly, why is it a surprise that the astronaut is in a good part of the tonal distribution of the final image? The image has a history. It was developed and processed and printed by human beings with an interest in bringing out the mid-range details.

Heck, this starts with the film itself. Why would you think film would faithfully record the exact tonal distribution of a scene in front of the lens? We don't see like that, and we don't want that in our images. From film through every other step in the capture and presentation values are brought into visually pleasing curve-fits.

And, incidentally, if you are talking about THE picture of Aldrin (the most widely reproduced of any Apollo surface photograph), in the original form it was tilted and the top of his head was cut off. Hardly studio material there!




Speaking of photos, someone did a breakdown of how many photos and video were allegedly taken during each Apollo mission while on the moon, and it added up to a near impossible amount of pics per minute.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6643524


That someone would be Jack White. I've read his analysis.

That should tell you something right there. But in case it didn't, let me go on.

First off, how long does it take to press the shutter on a motor-drive, long-magazine still camera? When you are using zone focus and a wide-angle lens?

Second, how many of the pictures are duplicates; multiple shots taken of the same subject (in case of motion blur or to bracket exposure)? As one example of something Jack misses, about 1/6 of the total number on later EVAs are panaromas; the astronaut would turn in place tripping the shutter every fifteen degrees or so. That's a dozen pictures in well under a minute.

Thirdly, there are two astronauts.

More important than any of these, however, is the essential error in Jack's analysis.

What he did, was take each documented task for each EVA and total up their estimated times, then subtract that from the known total time of the EVA. He then divided the number of photographs taken.

How long was the total EVA for Apollo 11? Several hours. How many pictures were taken? About two dozen. That breaks down to 5-10 minutes per photo.

The problems in this approach are legion, but lets deal with the greatest misapprehension first. That is the strange idea that setting up an experiment is on the timetable, taking the readings is on the timetable, calibration and testing is on the timetable, packing and unpacking is on the timetable, moving to the site is on the timetable, communicating with CAPCOM about the process is on the timetable......but documenting the setup is not.

No, Jack. Ongoing documentation of the activities was intended and timed and part of the training. If you look at pictures of the astronauts doing geology training at Barringer Crater, you'll see them taking in situ photographs of the samples as part of that process.

Lets say that again; the time to take the photographs was allowed for in the task time estimates Jack used for his totals.



The wires footage:
Already covered that they kept the wires footage and the slow down of the video speed completely separate. Hard to believe this error wasn't on purpose. In fact, someone took their wire footage and slowed it down (67% I think) and lo and behold, looked just like the NASA footage.

Really ashame that Mythbusters does this. With just a little more effort on their part, it could be a great show.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6643524


To who?

Does Little Timmy play piano just as good as Van Cliburn? You say you can't tell the difference. I say you simply don't have the background.


Actually, though, this falls apart in a simpler way. There are moments in the footage that could plausibly be done with some sort of flying harness. There are moments that could plausibly be done with slow motion. There are also moments (like astronauts twisting, passing each other, etc) that completely violate the possibility of there being flying gear rigged on them at that moment, and there are plenty of moments (almost any arm motion, from a wave to a salute) that look completely ridiculous slowed down.

You could solve this in a Hollywood movie. It isn't even an obvious problem if you rely on YouTube clips. The reason is cuts. But the actual visual record does not contain these cuts. It is not composed of one five-second snip that looks like a "wire," and one five-second snip that looks like slow-mo. It is composed of unbroken hours of movement over hundreds of meters of scenery and a depth tens of meters from the camera.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6715433
United States
12/07/2011 01:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
I disagree with some of your points and will get back to you on them. For now:

"And, incidentally, if you are talking about THE picture of Aldrin (the most widely reproduced of any Apollo surface photograph), in the original form it was tilted and the top of his head was cut off. Hardly studio material there!"

No, we're talking about Aldrin descending from the LEM with his back to the camera.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6715433
United States
12/07/2011 01:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"It is composed of unbroken hours of movement over hundreds of meters of scenery"

Link please.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/07/2011 06:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
I disagree with some of your points and will get back to you on them. For now:

"And, incidentally, if you are talking about THE picture of Aldrin (the most widely reproduced of any Apollo surface photograph), in the original form it was tilted and the top of his head was cut off. Hardly studio material there!"

No, we're talking about Aldrin descending from the LEM with his back to the camera.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6715433


Ah. That one. Going from memory here, there are some pretty clear shadowing effects. It is also EXTREMELY clear that it is soft light. No give-away shadow edges. Basically, the lighting quality and angle appears to describe a fixture with an effective aperture of several feet in diameter, located on the ground.


I'm guessing you are referring to AS11-40-5866, from the series -5862 to -5869, color magazine S.

AS11-40-5869 shows most clearly that Aldrin is descending into the lander's shadow, meaning the photographer is shooting very close to into the sun. This is the most favorable angle for retroreflectivity from the soil around the photographer.

-5867 and -5868 show most clearly that Aldrin is being lit from a wide angle; from below and to the sides. This is of course entirely unlike any lighting angle normally practiced in studio photography, as well as a difficult angle to achieve. You would need a pair of large reflectors or bounce sheets just off-camera, near the photographer's feet and to the right and left. For the simplest design of the shot, aim the sheets to capture the natural sunlight (if outdoors).

Which is, basically, what we are seeing. (BTW...pay attention to the foil as well. It records a soft source, not a multiple source or a point source.)
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/07/2011 06:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"It is composed of unbroken hours of movement over hundreds of meters of scenery"

Link please.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6715433


Sorry...you had to be alive at the time, or pay money to Spacecraft films.

The longest clips hosted by NASA are in the 8-minute range.

Many, many good and useful things are not online and free. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6366268
Australia
12/07/2011 06:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
NASA probably wouldn't help them unless they were going to make a show which confirmed what NASA says. If they were going to reach the conclusion, "NASA is a bunch of big fat liars!!!", then NASA would say, "GO AWAY!".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1371185
United States
12/07/2011 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
We have Landed on the Moon

BUT

The footage shown was faked (Training video shown instead)

What was seen was too sensitive to be screened
 Quoting: strange fellow




that could also be true but howd they get past that radiation belt?
 Quoting: Razon 6491324


I've spent Years trying to work that one out

I got Involved with Moon Landing Conspiracy Back in '78


Long time still not got all the Answers
 Quoting: strange fellow


Oh but you're so sure we landed on the moon.. that's called denial..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1155690
United States
12/07/2011 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Sure I believe man landed on the moon.

But when in the hell did being skeptical of amazing claims be considered UNITELLIGENT?
You can't just say we "went to the moon, with little to no problems. In and out, yay, go america" and not expect a little skepticism.


And for people saying "radiation belt fail, there was no threat of radiation".....to bad nasa has already said 'hey, yea we pretty much spent a lot of time trying to think of a way around the radiation problem. But we couldn't find one. We just had to hope that a large solar flare or cme didn't form on the sun and kill the astronauts."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1371185
United States
12/07/2011 06:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Sure I believe man landed on the moon.

But when in the hell did being skeptical of amazing claims be considered UNITELLIGENT?
You can't just say we "went to the moon, with little to no problems. In and out, yay, go america" and not expect a little skepticism.


And for people saying "radiation belt fail, there was no threat of radiation".....to bad nasa has already said 'hey, yea we pretty much spent a lot of time trying to think of a way around the radiation problem. But we couldn't find one. We just had to hope that a large solar flare or cme didn't form on the sun and kill the astronauts."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1155690


And that would be called damage control..
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/08/2011 03:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"We chose to do this, and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2678827
United Kingdom
12/09/2011 09:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"We chose to do this, and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


A bit like trying to show moon-hoax believers the masses of scientific evidence that Apollo did land humans on the moon.

Getting to the moon was easy by comparison. We already had the ground rules in place courtesy of Newton and Kepler. Throw in a team of talented and visionary engineers (many from ex-Nazi Germany...) add a pretty well unlimited budget and the rest is history.

Trying to traverse the chasm of biased ignorance of the moonhoaxer is a trek into the unknown, where logic and reason have no meaning. A universe where a shoddy 2 minute YouTube vid often blows away a lifetime of science and learning just because some semi-literate YouTuber has attained a rudimentary knowledge of the capabilities of Windows Movie Maker.

It doesn't matter what you say or how you present the evidence, because only they know the truth.
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1144259
United States
12/09/2011 09:45 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Trying to traverse the chasm of biased ignorance of the moonhoaxer is a trek into the unknown, where logic and reason have no meaning.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2678827


applause
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29026
United States
12/09/2011 10:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
We have Landed on the Moon

BUT

The footage shown was faked (Training video shown instead)

What was seen was too sensitive to be screened
 Quoting: strange fellow




that could also be true but howd they get past that radiation belt?
 Quoting: Razon 6491324


van allen who discovered the radiation belt said himself that the belt would not hurt anyone going through it, plus the radiaion from the belt is strongest around the equator. the apollo missions went through a weak end of the belt and at very fast speeds. Van Ellen himself who discovered the belts stated that they would not harm people going through them.

please research, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[link to www.crystalinks.com]
mehitable

User ID: 1524722
United States
12/09/2011 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Whether we went to the moon or not - and I can see the good points on either argument - it was a terrible waste of money. We have too many problems on earth to bother about space. And all those products they say came out of the moon program...well, we could have created that stuff in other contexts if we wanted to.

Can you say "boondoggle"? I knew you could.
mehitable

User ID: 1524722
United States
12/09/2011 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
"We chose to do this, and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


A bit like trying to show moon-hoax believers the masses of scientific evidence that Apollo did land humans on the moon.

Getting to the moon was easy by comparison. We already had the ground rules in place courtesy of Newton and Kepler. Throw in a team of talented and visionary engineers (many from ex-Nazi Germany...) add a pretty well unlimited budget and the rest is history.

Trying to traverse the chasm of biased ignorance of the moonhoaxer is a trek into the unknown, where logic and reason have no meaning. A universe where a shoddy 2 minute YouTube vid often blows away a lifetime of science and learning just because some semi-literate YouTuber has attained a rudimentary knowledge of the capabilities of Windows Movie Maker.

It doesn't matter what you say or how you present the evidence, because only they know the truth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2678827


They don't believe in the moon landing for a very simple and obvious reason: the government lies constantly about virtually everything, and officials have been caught repeatedly - and still are - in lies. there is a complete lack of trust here. When you combine that with the knowledge that a skilled filmmaker, ala Stanley Kubrick, could create film that would appear indistinguishable from a "real" event....you have many people who simply don't believe in the moon landings.

It's a question of trust. Our government no longer has it.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 1222987
Netherlands
12/09/2011 10:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
it was a terrible waste of money. We have too many problems on earth to bother about space.
 Quoting: mehitable

Most of those problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

Some of those problems can be solved with space assets.

They don't believe in the moon landing for a very simple and obvious reason: the government lies constantly about virtually everything, and officials have been caught repeatedly - and still are - in lies.
 Quoting: mehitable

Meanwhile in Grown-up Land what people believe is immaterial.
The only thing that matters is what the evidence shows.
In THIS case it shows clearly and unambiguously the "government" isn't lying.

there is a complete lack of trust here.
 Quoting: mehitable

That should be your cue to change your government!

Being a deluded whiny Conspiracy Theorist on teh intertubes is NOT going to achieve that.
People have no time to be bothered with dimwits who can easily be shown to be wrong about even the most basic things.

When you combine that with the knowledge that a skilled filmmaker, ala Stanley Kubrick, could create film that would appear indistinguishable from a "real" event....
 Quoting: mehitable

That is not knowledge, that is fantasy.

See what I mean?
You people have no clue about how the real world works, which makes you incapable of telling the facts from the lies.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/09/2011 01:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
van allen who discovered the radiation belt said himself that the belt would not hurt anyone going through it, plus the radiaion from the belt is strongest around the equator. the apollo missions went through a weak end of the belt and at very fast speeds. Van Ellen himself who discovered the belts stated that they would not harm people going through them.

please research, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29026


I would modify that, considerably. Doctor Van Allen stated that it was quite possible to protect someone sufficiently to get them through the belts without it being a major health threat.

The total exposures for the various Apollo missions, including passage through the VARB, were in about the magnitude of a single chest X-ray.

I personally had a series of chest X-rays, one per day for five days, and I am not at all worried about the implications for my future health. But at the same time this is not to be taken lightly; if they had scheduled all five on the same day I would have been very concerned.



The Apollo deniers miss in various ways, but it does boil down to a lack of domain knowledge. To most of them, "Radiation" is a single magical thing. It is either present and killing people, or not present. The idea of safe exposure levels seems ridiculous to them.

Harder still is for them to understand the very different behavior of massive charged particles in high fluxes (the lower-energy protons of the inner belt) and high-energy photons (aka commercial x-rays.)

Roughly speaking, the difference between cosmic rays, and the inner radiation belt, is like the difference between facing a distant sniper with armor-piercing bullets, and a mob of attackers with small rocks. In the latter case, the small rocks will certainly kill you, but you can keep them off with nothing but a plexiglas shield and be completely protected.

The high-energy cosmic ray, on the other hand, passes through the shield, you, and travels another ten city blocks to hit a pedestrian -- or, rather, passes right through the VARB, part of Earth's atmosphere, and the skin of the airplane you are riding in. Except that these bullets are also tiny -- like the rocks -- and there are much fewer of them.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/09/2011 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Whether we went to the moon or not - and I can see the good points on either argument - it was a terrible waste of money. We have too many problems on earth to bother about space. And all those products they say came out of the moon program...well, we could have created that stuff in other contexts if we wanted to.

Can you say "boondoggle"? I knew you could.
 Quoting: mehitable


Look the numbers. The cost of Apollo was much smaller than...

The interest on the national debt.

Farm subsidies.

Military R&D.

Pension plans for government workers.



I did the math a while ago and it worked out to something like, if you canceled Apollo completely and turned that money over to the schools you'd get ONE free school lunch for every student in America. One. That year. For the total cost of the program.

Remembering that not everything used for Apollo was left on the Moon; they built launch facilities, and put money into radio telescopes, university departments. And most of the money spent went, after all, to contractors; to companies that build infrastructure, paid investors, and paid their own workers who took that money to buy homes and raise children and...
mehitable

User ID: 1524722
United States
12/09/2011 04:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
it was a terrible waste of money. We have too many problems on earth to bother about space.
 Quoting: mehitable

Most of those problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

Some of those problems can be solved with space assets.

They don't believe in the moon landing for a very simple and obvious reason: the government lies constantly about virtually everything, and officials have been caught repeatedly - and still are - in lies.
 Quoting: mehitable

Meanwhile in Grown-up Land what people believe is immaterial.
The only thing that matters is what the evidence shows.
In THIS case it shows clearly and unambiguously the "government" isn't lying.

there is a complete lack of trust here.
 Quoting: mehitable

That should be your cue to change your government!

Being a deluded whiny Conspiracy Theorist on teh intertubes is NOT going to achieve that.
People have no time to be bothered with dimwits who can easily be shown to be wrong about even the most basic things.

When you combine that with the knowledge that a skilled filmmaker, ala Stanley Kubrick, could create film that would appear indistinguishable from a "real" event....
 Quoting: mehitable

That is not knowledge, that is fantasy.

See what I mean?
You people have no clue about how the real world works, which makes you incapable of telling the facts from the lies.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD




Just trying to insult people isn't going to get you anywhere. For example, you refer to "evidence". I would then ask....WHAT evidence? What "evidence" do you have that we have actually put men on the moon? Don't you really just have a belief....just like the people who believe that we didn't go to the moon.....you have a BELIEF that what the government and media told you is true. What other "evidence" do you actually have?

You have the same "evidence" that 19 Arabs actually caused 9/11, or that Oswald killed Kennedy. You believe what the government and media tell you. The rest of us believe something else that makes more sense to us.

Certainly doesn't make you any better or smarter (or more correct) than the rest of us.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/09/2011 05:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Just trying to insult people isn't going to get you anywhere. For example, you refer to "evidence". I would then ask....WHAT evidence? What "evidence" do you have that we have actually put men on the moon? Don't you really just have a belief....just like the people who believe that we didn't go to the moon.....you have a BELIEF that what the government and media told you is true. What other "evidence" do you actually have?

You have the same "evidence" that 19 Arabs actually caused 9/11, or that Oswald killed Kennedy. You believe what the government and media tell you. The rest of us believe something else that makes more sense to us.

Certainly doesn't make you any better or smarter (or more correct) than the rest of us.
 Quoting: mehitable


If you reduce all knowledge to "belief" you can most certainly create a construct under which all knowledge is equally valid. It is a sophomore argument, though.

Is my "belief" that the sun is shining outside on a par with my "belief" that it will not rain tonight? On the latter, I have not looked at any forecasts or even looked at the sky recently, and I have no real basis for that belief. On the former, unless the physical laws of the universe have drastically changed or someone is playing an extremely expensive (and pointless) practical joke, all I need is the bright light shining on my shades and the time of day to know that, indeed, the Sun is shining just as it has on other days.

The "belief" many Apollo deniers have regarding a faked project is based on their understanding of political realities, and a naive and generally uninvestigated idea of how such a thing could be technically accomplished.

The "belief" of Apollo supporters is mostly based around understanding of the science and technology, both of which make a successful hoax extremely difficult. This is -- and, yes, one should thank the Apollo deniers in part for seeing that this happens -- an INVESTIGATED idea, as potential methods and flaws are constantly being brought up and subjected to rigorous testing to see if they are scientifically sound.

My belief in the basic veracity of the Apollo record rests largely on this; that over a period of ten years I have frequently gone to primary references, standard textbooks, and calculator, and the counter-proof offered by the Denier de jour has always failed to meet even a minimal standard.

I have worked hard for this belief. At least as hard as any Apollo denier, and -- I would like to think -- more rigorously than they. And as opposed to the narrow investigation of the anomaly hunter, I am interested enough in the subject to have done significant reading outside any specific question. This has given me a deep appreciation of just how large, detailed, and consistent the record is.

The Apollo Project is roughly as well-documented as the American participation in World War II. The essential science behind it is as established -- with as many sources and tests and cross-referencing to other fields of science -- as the metallurgy of steel. It is not inconceivable that some hoax exists, but it would have to be so massive, so far-reaching, and so difficult to sustain the idea that someone is shining a 2K HMI (and a whole bunch of other instruments as well) at my house in order to convince me the Sun is shining becomes entirely plausible in comparison.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1553028
United States
12/09/2011 05:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...
Mythbusters is fucking pathetic!


They call it science - yet science says you can REPEAT a test and obtain the SAME OUTCOME.

Mythbusters can't do ANYTHING correct - they just throw a bunch of shit together, test it out and satisfy themselves with whatever easy outcome they come to.


Just the fact that 'viewers' can write in, complain, ask for RE-TESTS, and end up with some other dumb arse conclusion shows the fact that Mythbusters CAN'T DO ANYTHING CORRECT.


They are SPECIAL EFFECTS people, with SPECIAL EFFECTS EXPERIENCE


Not science, not intelligence - just SPECIAL fucking EFFECTS.

The worst of the shows are when they blow something up JUST FOR THE FUCKING EXPLOSION and JUST for ratings. And with each and EVERY explosion, the mythbusters team basically orgasm, jump up and down, 'i can't believe it...', blah, blah.

Pathetic.



As for USING to NASA to prove or disprove NASA - that is the biggest most ridiculous fucking pathetic 'experiment' yet.

Hay, why don't we resurrect Hitler to prove or disprove whether the Holocaust happened - I mean according to mythbuster, whatever the 'source' says is 'obviously' true.

As if NASA would let ANYTHING OUT that makes them look like fakers. NASA probably did most of the test themselves to secure positive outcomes.

Fuck - I wonder how much was edited and cut out of the final program!?


Seriously, I don't care about the moon landing - can't believe anyone - but the pathetic setup of mythbusters just blows me away.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4811328


I see. Now tell me, how do you REALLY feel about the Myth Busters? Please, don't hold back.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!