Mythbusters VS Fake Moon landing...

Bwaahhahahaahaha SUCH AS???

i was pissed off at their attitude towards it. tory said "take that conspiracy theorists!" like they were proving something to us.

the fact is there is no proof man has been up there. they could send unmanned rockets and the laser reflector without humans.

i'm not saying 100% that man wasn't on the moon, but its very unlikely that man could survive in those capsules exposed to all that radiation with paper thin walls and the technology was so un-sophisticated. but there is no explination to how the van allen belt is survivable by humans passing through it.

They may not need any reflector for the laser. The entire moon is a reflector.

very true

Those who don't believe in the Moon landings are deluded idiots.

That's reality.

The presence of LRRRs on the landing sites.
We know the hardware, how and where, and by whom it was designed and build.
Certified as the real deal by any aerospace engineer who looked at them.
We know when it was launched, in front of literally millions of witnesses.
We tracked it to the Moon.
We know the men who placed them.
There is photographic documentation of the whole process.
Video, DAC, telemetry, dosimeters, voice recordings, live broadcasts, independent observations, including by the Soviets.
Thousands of autobiographical books, articles, and interviews, by some of the 400,000 people involved in the process.
None of whom EVER voiced ANY doubt that what they did was not for real.

Years of telemetry from the science stations.
Tens of thousands of scientific publications and engineering reports based on the results from Apollo.

The science itself.

Much of it a complete surprise, and COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with anything that has been learnt about the Moon since.

We have (or rather the Japanese do) conformation that the topological layout of the landing site documented by Apollo 15 DOES EXIST on the Moon.

This is information nobody could possibly have had at the time.

And there are the rocks.

Moon rocks. Hundreds of kilos.
Documented to been retrieved in-situ.
Often on live television with the geologists who got first dibs watching.
These geologist sometimes saying: No, that one, bring us that one!

Rocks verified by thousands of geologists the world over.
Matching the few ounces of Soviet samples.

And core samples. Which possibly couldn't even be roboticly retrieved with today's technology.

And that's just an overview.
Yes, there is evidence. A mountain of evidence.

Your sorry excuse for an "opinion" is ill-informed, to put it mildly.
Getting all your "info" from conspiracy peddlers tends to do that.


All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. — Douglas Adams



Did you two miss the part about the reflection from the LRRRs being billions of times stronger then the reflection from any other spot on the Moon?

Guys, I read the first thread of posts on this, so don't know if anyone has posted this or not... But if you want to know the real story about what goes on behind these TV programs (as if you didn't know already), watch this video clip of Adam talking about all of the behind the scenes shit they had to deal with when investigating the RFID chip show:

[link to www.youtube.com]

After listening to this clip, it will be obvious that they will report (or not report at all, whichever the case may be) whatever it is they're told to report, be it true or not.

I can guarantee you, that all of TV is like this, and we know this to be true just from watching MSM news. Correct?.. yes.

Peace.

The thing is....

Governments lie about so much...

They twist and control our reality without shame.

Why the fuck should we believe men went to the Moon?

There is a DETAILED explanation.

Unfortunately for you, it is couched in the language of science; in precise terminology, in mathematical descriptions. The understanding is found in university-level physics, and in publicly-accessible models used by industry, and in published papers in the peer-reviewed literature and, yes, in the detailed technical pamphlets generated by NASA (not the simpler, pre-digested material meant for a general audience.)

Look at the Yanks on damage control because someone disrespected their NASA, my god you guys are soooo predictable, too proud to open your eyes, but thats ok, its been their general populaces problem for generations

Keep it up, because everyone else knows you will anyways.
By the way, not ALL yanks are eyes wide shut, but if you read the first page here, it will be blatantly obvious.

Ahum...

And that's why nobody takes hoaxies serious.
Shitloads of empty rhetoric, but no evidence whatsoever.

there was the idea or 'myth' that;

the proof that the moon landing was shot on;

a MOVIE SET, WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING,
was that there were SHADOWS THAT WERE NOT PARALLEL.

the shadows should ALL be parallel, NEITHER DIVERGING NOR INTERSECTING, unless it is on a MOVIE SET, WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING.

(this happens on a MOVIE SET, WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING, due to the CLOSE PROXIMITY of the light source, or use of multiple light sources.)

so what did the "Mythbusters" do ??
first they change the 'myth' from; 'NATURAL LIGHTING from the SUN, v/s ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING', to; 'can you get non-parallel shadows with a single light source'.
(since it is obvious that you can get these results with multiple light sources)

then they built a model,
and produced SHADOWS THAT WERE NOT PARALLEL,
(guess where !)

on a MOVIE SET, WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING !!

EXACTLY WHERE WE SAID THEY COULD BE PRODUCED !!

this supposedly proved us wrong !!

ha ha ha ha ha !!

at no point during the show, do they use the sun as the light source, to produce their results.

There is no "proof" that will satisfy these idiots. All anybody has to do is watch one, just one, interview with Neil Armstrong. He's been shouldering this lie for a long time, and it shows.

The SHADOWS are. Their projection onto the film plane is not.

Do you understand this image?

[link to farm4.static.flickr.com]

Or either of these?

[link to img.photobucket.com]

[link to 3.bp.blogspot.com]

Or what about this one?

[link to www.successandfailure.net]





No; this is what multiple light sources look like.

[link to www.flickr.com]

Don't believe me; ask any photographer or stage or film lighting designer. Or just open your eyes next time you are indoors.




No. It is not possible to get multiple discrete shadows from multiple light sources without visible blend zones. If you can manage that trick, there are a lot of lighting designers who would like to hear from you.

A SINGLE distant light source is a good approximation for sunlight, and the geometry is almost the same.

Again, don't believe me. Get a straight edge and a piece of paper and work it out for yourself.

Hey smart guy. Nobody needs evidence for something that never happened. You claim we went to the moon, prove it. Show undeniable evidence, not some b.s. that NASA claims or some shoddy photos and video accompanied with newspaper articles. Please.

You're a fucking idiot. Why dont you kill yourself and save us all the trouble?

All of you who think the moon landing is fake are the most Stubern people in the world. It's like religious fanatics saying the universe Is only 4000 years old they won't agree even though it's proven fact. I have a masters degree in astrophysics I'm not going to explain to all of you the math and facts about how that couldn't have been fake becouse you wouldn't understand and would just get all mad and spit out some dumb comment. When you can get a REAL scientist who isn't crazy, to say the moon landing was fake I will believe you. I give you my word

You're even more retarded than most of your fellow Australians.

The answer is in the name - Van Allen Belt. Its a belt, not a sphere, not a barrier a belt.

Mythbusters on the Discovery channel is owned by Disney, Disney are the ones that faked the Moon landings.

The secretly funded war in Laos and the Moon program happened at the same time. Did they just redirect "Public Monies" to black ops??????????

[link to rt.com] 1968 – 1975

[link to en.wikipedia.org] 1961 - 1972

I guess I am glad I live in a country where idiots that claim the moon landing "never happened" are allowed to speak...even thought they are stupid, paranoid nut-bags are allowed to speak. The rest of us with a brain will be allowed to rebuff these morons...

You accidentally the whole grammar while trying to insult people's intelligence.

all you need to do is watch Kubrick's Odyssey. I downloaded it online. It explains how they were faked. it's great

You know, the scientific community laughed at Chladni in the late 1700s when he said meteorites came from outer space, as main stream science didn't acknowledge this fact at the time.

In the past, people believed the world was flat, and today we laugh at them.

One day, people may laugh at us for believing we landed men on the moon in 1969.

Well, they were. They were showing that a lot of Apollo Deniers are idiots.




There's no "proof" anything exists, including yourself (Descartes notwithstanding). It is impossible to have absolute proof of anything; there is always one more untested option.

What it is possible to have is a preponderance of evidence.





Typical taking points.

"All that radiation" What radiation? Do you know how much it actually is? Do you know who measured it? What did they say? Are you, then, taking NASA's word for the very EXISTENCE of the Van Allen Radiation Belts (as a for-instance) -- something you have no ability to discover with your unaided naked eye -- but you have then decided that every single thing NASA says about those belts is false?

"Paper thin walls?" Do you know anything about the construction or materials of the spacecraft? Have you determined the properties of those structures -- as in, can they withstand the designed strain?

"Unsophisticated?" Compared to what? The 747, Concorde, color TV, the computer, fusion bombs, genetic sequencing, the electron microscope, CERN...all of these were already around in that time. How does the cell phone, or the human genome project, make a better rocket? Is the 747 completely incapable compared to a 767? Or is the later bird merely an incremental improvement?

Yes, there are explanation. There is extremely detailed technical information on every aspect of the Apollo Program. But no-one will force-feed it to you. It is all archived in ways convenient to those who are willing to do the work to go learn.

EVERY VISIBLE OBJECT IS A REFLECTOR.

Otherwise you wouldn't see it.

And yet, Scotchlite stripes, crossing marker paint, bicycle reflectors are all still with us.

Perhaps the issue is more than binary. Perhaps it makes a difference HOW reflective, when you are actually trying to bounce a precision laser off the Moon in order to measure millimeter changes in distance!

Who the frack cares?

This is Mythbusters we're talking about. Which is to say...they do the experiment and tell you how they did it.

Which means it is reproducible.

Now, you might not have their budget. Or their access. Or as many lives as Buster.

But this basic nature of what they do means you never have to take their word on it. You can try it yourself.



So...perhaps there was one of their Apollo Hoax related demonstrations you think should have happened a different way? Perhaps you'd care to argue, specifically, some place in which you think they cheated or used special effects or otherwise covered up how the experiment would actually have come out?

Read Isaac Asimov's essay, "The Relativity of Wrong."