|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:08 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
even the logic of a child could see that something was wrong with the picture
if it took so much to get there, why did it take so little to leave there?
This is a perfect example of what I've been saying for years...those who deny Apollo are precisely those who know the absolute least about it.
Tell us...what did the entire Saturn V stack weigh at liftoff from the earth? What did the lone ascent stage of the LM weigh in 1/6th gravity on the moon?
Please do just a little research before showing your profound ignorance for all to see.
what they weighed had only a little to do with it, common sense would have us ask why it was so easy to get back when it took so much to get there Quoting: Anonymous Coward 490625
Please elaborate on what you are claiming. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 483120
8/27/2008 10:14 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Oh and btw, you sheople (the ignorant dumb ones) remind me of the fans that fill the democratic convention building and cheer on your "leader."
Give me a fucking break, I think god made a mistake with you people and forgot to manifest you as REAL SHEEP. Instead, the human race unfortunately got you instead. Sad really.
give me a f'n break. thanks to you and your corporate candy asses making the gap between the haves and the have littles i gotta put up with a 7 trillion dollar deficit because YOU PEOPLE want ME to BELIEVE IRAQ HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH 9/11. I'm not against war when it's justified. LET ME LEAD YOU TO THE FIRING SQUAD. 
I wasn't making fun of democrats OR republicans actually. Sorry if it came across that way, I was just using it as an example. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 483120
8/27/2008 10:16 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My watch probably has more memory than the 1969 Apollo 11 computers. Considering the computing power available at the time, I think it's impossible to have landed a man on the moon, based on this fact alone.
I knew it! That Charles Lindbergh guy was a fake, too!!
I guess all the pre-Apollo un-manned landers from both the US and Soviet Union were faked as well? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
I'm not saying unmanned missions were fake, hey it's only lights and clockwork going through the van allen belt, not human flesh & blood. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:27 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My watch probably has more memory than the 1969 Apollo 11 computers. Considering the computing power available at the time, I think it's impossible to have landed a man on the moon, based on this fact alone.
I knew it! That Charles Lindbergh guy was a fake, too!!
I guess all the pre-Apollo un-manned landers from both the US and Soviet Union were faked as well?
I'm not saying unmanned missions were fake, hey it's only lights and clockwork going through the van allen belt, not human flesh & blood. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
Care to explain how the trip through the Van Allen belts exposed the astronauts to a lethal does when Dr. Van Allen himself said it wouldn't be a problem on the trajectory they flew and the short time they were in it? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:29 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My watch probably has more memory than the 1969 Apollo 11 computers. Considering the computing power available at the time, I think it's impossible to have landed a man on the moon, based on this fact alone.
I knew it! That Charles Lindbergh guy was a fake, too!!
I guess all the pre-Apollo un-manned landers from both the US and Soviet Union were faked as well?
I'm not saying unmanned missions were fake, hey it's only lights and clockwork going through the van allen belt, not human flesh & blood. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
The question at hand was the computing power required to land on the moon. Do you now agree that the pre-Apollo landers had the computing power neccessary to do it? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 490063
8/27/2008 10:29 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
i think they did a great job with the lighting experiments... makes sense. The moon gravity experiments seemed right. Then the other team that did the footprint experiments... not so much. the moon dust would be much deeper, and the action of the boot was all wrong. when you walk, it's not like a rubber stamp, straight up and down, it's a rocking motion from heel to toe and a kick off. i think they should have been more thorough in that segment, might've helped.
next segment coming on now. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:33 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My watch probably has more memory than the 1969 Apollo 11 computers. Considering the computing power available at the time, I think it's impossible to have landed a man on the moon, based on this fact alone.
I knew it! That Charles Lindbergh guy was a fake, too!!
I guess all the pre-Apollo un-manned landers from both the US and Soviet Union were faked as well?
I'm not saying unmanned missions were fake, hey it's only lights and clockwork going through the van allen belt, not human flesh & blood.
Care to explain how the trip through the Van Allen belts exposed the astronauts to a lethal does when Dr. Van Allen himself said it wouldn't be a problem on the trajectory they flew and the short time they were in it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Info on the Van Allen belts...
[link to www.thekeyboard.org.uk]
[link to www.clavius.org]
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 490063
8/27/2008 10:37 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
the laser reflector test is pretty conclusive. but the deeply paranoid won't believe it until they fly to the moon themselves and see the evidence. maybe not even then.
from what I can see, i'd say the hoax theory is busted.
now are they hiding some of the juicier nuggets of events that occurred there? that's more likely than the total hoax theory.
and i'm a pretty paranoid guy.
they had a motive. they had maybe 90% of the means to get it done. but in this case, i agree with the mythbusters. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 483120
8/27/2008 10:41 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My watch probably has more memory than the 1969 Apollo 11 computers. Considering the computing power available at the time, I think it's impossible to have landed a man on the moon, based on this fact alone.
I knew it! That Charles Lindbergh guy was a fake, too!!
I guess all the pre-Apollo un-manned landers from both the US and Soviet Union were faked as well?
I'm not saying unmanned missions were fake, hey it's only lights and clockwork going through the van allen belt, not human flesh & blood.
The question at hand was the computing power required to land on the moon. Do you now agree that the pre-Apollo landers had the computing power neccessary to do it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
I never disagreed with you about that. Maybe you got me mixed up with another AC? I'm not denying they had the computing power.
All I'm saying is what I believe, and that is that the US did not land on the moon, it's that simple. You have your opinion, and I have mine. We'll take it to the grave with us but in the end it means nothing. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 490625
8/27/2008 10:41 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
even the logic of a child could see that something was wrong with the picture
if it took so much to get there, why did it take so little to leave there?
This is a perfect example of what I've been saying for years...those who deny Apollo are precisely those who know the absolute least about it.
Tell us...what did the entire Saturn V stack weigh at liftoff from the earth? What did the lone ascent stage of the LM weigh in 1/6th gravity on the moon?
Please do just a little research before showing your profound ignorance for all to see.
what they weighed had only a little to do with it, common sense would have us ask why it was so easy to get back when it took so much to get there
Please elaborate on what you are claiming. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
for example
we have to cross the ocean one way we have to take the titantic but to come back we only need a row boat? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 471866
8/27/2008 10:42 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
This show was absolutely terrible, they couldn't possibly be more biased. That and they only took shots at stuff they could easily disprove. That and they are good buddies with Nasa and even used their equipment for the tests do you honestly think they are very motivated to find results contrary to the government story? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:44 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
All I'm saying is what I believe, and that is that the US did not land on the moon, it's that simple. You have your opinion, and I have mine. We'll take it to the grave with us but in the end it means nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
It would be nice to hear what causes you to not believe it. You must have some reasoning that you think provides evidence that they didn't go, right? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:49 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
even the logic of a child could see that something was wrong with the picture
if it took so much to get there, why did it take so little to leave there?
This is a perfect example of what I've been saying for years...those who deny Apollo are precisely those who know the absolute least about it.
Tell us...what did the entire Saturn V stack weigh at liftoff from the earth? What did the lone ascent stage of the LM weigh in 1/6th gravity on the moon?
Please do just a little research before showing your profound ignorance for all to see.
what they weighed had only a little to do with it, common sense would have us ask why it was so easy to get back when it took so much to get there
Please elaborate on what you are claiming.
for example
we have to cross the ocean one way we have to take the titantic but to come back we only need a row boat? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 490625
When leaving the earth, they had to carry everything needed for the entire journey, including a rocket large enough to leave the earth's large gravity, enough fuel for both trips, and enough thrust to get it all up to speed enough to break the earth's escape velocity. To get back, all they had to do is to leave the moon's feeble gravity and break it's much lower escape velocity. They even left half of the lander on the surface. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's like leaving for a long trip...at first you have to carry everything you will need. But the load becomes lighter as you use fuel, leave parts of your vehicle behind, and use up the consumables. By the time you get back, there isn't much left. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:50 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
This show was absolutely terrible, they couldn't possibly be more biased. That and they only took shots at stuff they could easily disprove. That and they are good buddies with Nasa and even used their equipment for the tests do you honestly think they are very motivated to find results contrary to the government story? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 471866
OK, what else would you like to see?
They are biased since everyone with two brain cells to rub together already knows that we went. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492253
8/27/2008 10:51 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
I was told years ago that Nasa was asked to turn the Hubble to the moon so we could see the flag and other junk we left behind............they said no, the moon was to bright. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:54 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
I was told years ago that Nasa was asked to turn the Hubble to the moon so we could see the flag and other junk we left behind............they said no, the moon was to bright. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492253
Actually, Hubble has been pointed to the moon.
But, Hubble couldn't see it anyway. Even the lunar orbiter can just barely make out the descent stages and the disturbed soil. Do the math. What is the angular diameter of a sunar lander's ascent stage at a distance of 235,000 miles? What is the angular resolution of Hubble. Both figures are available. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 483120
8/27/2008 10:54 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No doubt.
Show me a picture from a satellite or telescope of the landing site.
Not just MSM trying to debunk it. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 10:55 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
I was told years ago that Nasa was asked to turn the Hubble to the moon so we could see the flag and other junk we left behind............they said no, the moon was to bright.
Actually, Hubble has been pointed to the moon.
But, Hubble couldn't see it anyway. Even the lunar orbiter can just barely make out the descent stages and the disturbed soil. Do the math. What is the angular diameter of a sunar lander's ascent stage at a distance of 235,000 miles? What is the angular resolution of Hubble. Both figures are available. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Here are the calculations..,.
[link to calgary.rasc.ca] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 11:00 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No doubt.
Show me a picture from a satellite or telescope of the landing site.
Not just MSM trying to debunk it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
Here's the Apollo 15 landing site.
[link to www.space.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 491996
8/27/2008 11:01 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Clearly, the Myth Busters have settled this issue to the complete satisfaction of everyone at GLP. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/27/2008 11:03 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Clearly, the Myth Busters have settled this issue to the complete satisfaction of everyone at GLP. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 491996
Only the ones with common sense and analytical abilities. I'm sure there are plenty of idiots who still believe the hoax foolishness. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492253
8/27/2008 11:04 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Here are the calculations..,.
[link to calgary.rasc.ca]
Thank you for the site.......interesting reading...... |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 490625
8/27/2008 11:07 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
even the logic of a child could see that something was wrong with the picture
if it took so much to get there, why did it take so little to leave there?
This is a perfect example of what I've been saying for years...those who deny Apollo are precisely those who know the absolute least about it.
Tell us...what did the entire Saturn V stack weigh at liftoff from the earth? What did the lone ascent stage of the LM weigh in 1/6th gravity on the moon?
Please do just a little research before showing your profound ignorance for all to see.
what they weighed had only a little to do with it, common sense would have us ask why it was so easy to get back when it took so much to get there
Please elaborate on what you are claiming.
for example
we have to cross the ocean one way we have to take the titantic but to come back we only need a row boat?
When leaving the earth, they had to carry everything needed for the entire journey, including a rocket large enough to leave the earth's large gravity, enough fuel for both trips, and enough thrust to get it all up to speed enough to break the earth's escape velocity. To get back, all they had to do is to leave the moon's feeble gravity and break it's much lower escape velocity. They even left half of the lander on the surface. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's like leaving for a long trip...at first you have to carry everything you will need. But the load becomes lighter as you use fuel, leave parts of your vehicle behind, and use up the consumables. By the time you get back, there isn't much left. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
so if you use everything up on the first leg of the journey, then you do not need anything for the return of a journey, is that what you say we should believe?
then why wouldn't the same principal be applied if it were the other way around? say it took all of nasa to get off of the moon but once they got to earth it would only take a little earth lander to get it back to the moon again
you see how little sense your explanation makes? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492013
8/27/2008 11:17 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
I think they should've busted another moon myth.
Is the moon really a hollow metal sphere?
This is an interesting question. When descent stage of LM crashed into the surface the seismic characteristics showed it be hollow. The NASA scientist stated that the moon "rang like a gong or bell " for up to four hours after impact. Matter of fact in 1969 this was the main headline in post newspapers.
NASA scientist stated that seismic wave pattern was characteristic of a hollow Titanium sphere 60 miles below the surface. In addition, the scientists saw exactly the same seismic traces each time a meteorite would hit, as if it were vibrating some fixed bodies inside the moon.
1969 Lunar Seismic date [link to geocities.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492382
8/27/2008 11:21 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
where did the astronauts put their poop? |
|
Mike "Woo Woo" Rowe
User ID: 491775
8/27/2008 11:22 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The Mythbusters have an annoy propensity to poorly analyze things and make knee-jerk pronouncements.
The first two problems I noticed with their "Moon Landing Conspiracy" episode:
1. shadows in photographs - the didn't set this up in a vacuum, so there was an atmosphere to diffuse the light source, indirectly lighting the model astro-not.
2. the retroflecter science package - could have been placed by a secret robotic probe, no astro-nots needed.
interestingly, it seems that Adam / Jamie are the ones who always want to declare a myth "busted" on the basis of a poorly analyzed scenario.
bonus : Tory's revealing comment for the footprint test at Huntsville - Grant : "myth busted" Tory : "great, now NASA will let us go" |
|
Barls Knarkley
User ID: 401789
8/27/2008 11:38 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The US knew it wasn't possible then to go to the moon Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
Says who? You? Why do you accept this as fact?
The sad thing is they did it well enough to fool millions, if not billions of people into believing that they actually went. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
Including the Russians? But not you? What gave it all away to you, then, and why do you think other nations that would love to show up the US didn't spot it?
Seriously now, if we had been to the moon, I am 1000% sure the United States of World Government would of tried to go back and build some type of missile defense system on the moon or whatever else. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 483120
"Or whatever else". In other words, you're just making stuff up.
What good would a missile defence system on the Moon do? It took the Apollo astronauts three days to get there. If you had your Star Wars system in place there and it detected a missile launch, then by the time it could respond the US would be radioactive glass.
I mean, really. Try to think before you post. |
|
Nuance
User ID: 258757
8/27/2008 11:42 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
My two cents
For what it is worth...
I know for sure that there are many ways to know for sure that they have been on the moon. (corner reflector just to name one).
So i am sure that they went there.
BUT there are too many bogus in a lot of pictures from the first missions.
So i strongly believe in two different scenario.
1- they had a problem (film did not resist etc.) with the original pictures so they had to fake some for the public.
Don't forget the context a this moment ( cold war ).
2- They went there for sure as mentioned higher, but not at the first mission. The first one was fake, and by doing that way it would have let them the time they needed to shut the russians mouth and be fully ready to do it for real in the second or the third mission. |
|
Barls Knarkley
User ID: 401789
8/27/2008 11:48 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
so if you use everything up on the first leg of the journey, then you do not need anything for the return of a journey, is that what you say we should believe? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 490625
No, not at all. But fuel itself has weight, which means that you need even MORE fuel to lift it out of Earth's gravity well. Which is, you know, six times stronger than the Moon's. It's not a linear relationship, it's an exponential one. Try thinking of it as needing the square[/]i of the fuel (that's not strictly accurate, but let's simplify the maths). So to lift double the weight, you need four times the fuel. Three times the weight, nine times the fuel. So by the time you are down to just the tiny little ascent module, your fuel requirements are miniscule in comparison to the Apollo stack.
then why wouldn't the same principal be applied if it were the other way around? say it took all of nasa to get off of the moon but once they got to earth it would only take a little earth lander to get it back to the moon again
you see how little sense your explanation makes? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 490625
Uh...no. The rocket equation gives a clear idea of how much fuel it takes to launch a given weight from the surface of a body with a given gravity field (though you also have to take into account things like air resistance, a factor which also helps Earth launches suck more fuel than from the airless Moon). Big, heavy payload from Earth - lots of fuel. Little payload from Moon - not very much fuel. Big payload from the Moon - fair amount of fuel, though still nowhere near as much as the same weight launched from Earth. Little payload from Earth - much, much less fuel than a big thing like a Saturn V, but still way, way more than the one-sixth gravity Moon.
do you really think you're making a valid point here, or are you just saying stuff to be contrary?
Let's put it this way - you obviously have never, ever studied rocket science. Lots of people around the world have. Why do you think none of them have ever made the argument you are? Is it because your "common sense" trumps their calculations and years of experience actually launching things, or is it more likely you have no idea what you're talking about? |
|
The Commentator
User ID: 155573
8/27/2008 11:50 PM
 | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
can anybody provide a link to a good documentary on google video that talk about the moon landing being a hoax Quoting: Anonymous Coward 447638
A good one? No. There is no such critter.
non sufficit Orbis |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
