idk what to think anymore. It seems really easy to fake a moon landing but at the same time I have hope that peoples word is better than peoples doubts. Until I land on the moon and see for myself I cant trust anyone. Even today people just cant be trusted.
haha fags still think moon landing was fake wow, why dont ya build a rocket and a ship, and land on the moon and take a photo of the landing sites, THEN tell me it was fake, good luck
@hunchbacked why should i? if i believe this happened?, i think it happened, only a hermit that lives a fake life will think this was fake, just like there own life is
soo, I think your saying that all the science/mathamatics/physics that was needed to go to the moon in the 60's, when they couldn't even make a practical MICOWAVE in 1958, is more simple and logical than all those intelligent people figuring out that it wasnt possible to go to the moon at the time.?? stop me if im wrong
The first microwave oven was manufactured in 1948, and while not exactly practical, with further improvements, the first counter top model was for sale by 1967 and very successful.
I fail to see how this relevant to Apollo though.
Also, who are these "intelligent people" you refer to? I prefer to believe the over 400,000 people who built the technology you speak so disparagingly of.
Watch the documentary series "Moon Machines", it's quite fascinating.
@Dylantorres95 Yes, if you have the education of a 1st Grader, you'd be lost in the explanation. Here, let me sum it up in words you can understand: Wasn't a Hoax, we went to the Moon.
@BadBunnyRides love how you people always go to education level, college grads believe this shit too.. tv show using nasa data to prove nasa claims. yeah way to think for YOUR self. Guess you didn't learn that in college like some of us did
@crish09r If you went to College then you know what occam's razor is. Try using it and let me know what you come up with...and no cherry picking, use the data as given. If you REALLY want the truth and can be unbiased, you'll figure it out.
One thing - look in the bright diference between astronaut and moon surface. In NASA picture astronaut and surface its about the same bright (grey astronaut and grey surface), but in the Mythbusters picture, surface is overexposed, its totaly white, with no details on it, but astronaut is grey... So, with DIGITAL HASSELBLAD, with its 39 Mpixels, and 36.7 x 49.0 mm sensor, its no problem to change astronaut from dark to bright, but in the same time, bright surface becomes brighter... BUSTED ?????
@romittos Yes, Busted, you (as many Hoax believers do) have ommited a point of data to fit your belief, OR you have missed it because you didn't think of it.
Watch it again and LISTEN to what they are trying to show...
Now, can you think of what that might be or do I have to give you the answer?
Everyone watching, but not paying attention, nor thinking outside the box (the sheep box) deserve no respect, no votes, etc. START THINKING FOR YOURSELF! why i called it the sheep box, is cus you are following what other ignorant people before you have allready thought of. Look around, we live in a 3D world! its how religion etc was made up, and is comfort among many, but for thoose capable of being independent, and thinking Outside the box, we know that facts is facts
there were thousands of photos of man in the moon and there were more evidence of the flaws. and yet they chose this particular and the most common that people already recognize and easy to take proof. what about the murders and the engines flaws and the fact that other countries are secretly investigating. this was like proving that jesus existed but not proving if he was god at all (or walking on water and all that stuff)...geez this shows has a biased political aspect
The problem here is these guys are not scientific experts and could have made a lot of mistakes with their calculations. Also I have to point out that the Apollo missions were being tracked by observatory telescopes around the world. Like other things people are always looking for a scandal where one doesn't exist. If this was faked Russia would have discovered it and exposed us by simply having pictures taken of Sea of Tranquility by one of the
@zenjim007 sorry didn't finish....having pictures taken of Sea of Tranquility by one of their own space probes. Russia had too much face to by us beating them and would have jumped at the opportunity to prove the U.S.A. a fake. The biggest problem here for these self appointed so called experts is none of them have been to the moon or really understand the conditions there. To them I say, " Build a space probe, orbit the moon and clear pictures of The Sea of Tranquility; then I'll believe!
vaya panda de payasos oficialistas q son los de este programa,solamente buscan lavar el cerebro a la gente,dandoselas de cientificos,e inculcando la version gubernamental de los echos,mentirosos ,ciencia d pacotilla....
@chocoroyal there were thousands of photos of man in the moon and there were more evidence of the flaws. and yet they chose this particular and the most common that people already recognize and easy to take proof. what about the murders and the engines flaws and the fact that other countries are secretly investigating. this was like proving that jesus existed but not proving if he was god at all (or walking on water and all that stuff)...geez this shows has a biased political aspect
To the people complaining about them not touching 9/11 because they don't want to reveal it was an inside job, they have a good reason not too. They don't know what is used to make the mind control gas that forms a plane's vapor trail, or how hot it burns.
@saw2135 They also know that History Channel beat them to it, with a 2 hour doc put on by Popular Mechanics that showed how stupid the 911 deniers are.
Mythbusters doesnt want to retread the same ground.
@schecterscott - Ok, so have a look at this moon hoax debunking TV programme (go to 23:23 in the following video);
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
One light source, in a desert area at night, and yet the same effect! It's worth watching the whole video, since it covers some of the points MBs covered, and others that MBs didn't (such as no stars, radiation etc).
There is much higher contrast between your highlights and shadows than in the NASA original.I just took a look at more NASA photos and saw that the L.E.M. was made out of cooking foil and plastic tape.I'm sorry, but nobody in the right mind would get in that thing and land on the moon.
@DeadJesus100 The Americans. NASA has recognized that YOUR first shots of the moon landing a fake. This was done shortly before the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of this event. This is one big lie, I tell you. No one on the moon was not up to now. It is in this program and had "collapsed." Because it, in 1966 only to go fly the plane. But even they did not work (ie us) ... and you will convince the world that were there on a rusty tub? America - Empire of lies. Disneyland.
That moon conspiracy show said that the astronauts had hasselblads mounted on their chest. There was no view finder, and their suits would have made it difficult to operate the camera. Perhaps they had some bad ass auto focus. How did they compose, and focus all of those bad ass moon shots I love?
@davidg1024 Easy, they took hundreds of shots, and you've only seen the dozens that werent blurry and out of focus. So how come you never see the rest of them? BECAUSE THEY'RE BLURRY AND OUT OF FOCUS. Obviously. Which pics would you plaster all over the media?
@SpreadingtheMuse Where did they reload their film? Did they have to wear those suits while in the moon lander thing? Trying to load 120/220 film with thick ass gloves could be difficult. 35mm as well. I believe that hassleblad did custom make their cameras, so maybe they put all of these concerns in their design. I am not a skeptic, I am just curious about the photography portion. I am a aspiring photographer.
@davidg1024 I'd suggest looking at the cameras blueprints in detail before assuming anything. Surely the manufacturers custom made the cameras for ease of use.
They used magazines of film. This is in fact default for this camera and part of why it was chosen, though some modifications were made to make it easier to use in the spacesuits and to make it more reliable in a vacuum, but this is basically how all Hasselblad 500 series work.
.hasselblad*com/media/2207875/astronauts_manual_singlepage_lr*pdf (see pages 8 and 9)
w w w*hq*nasa*gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass*html
(remove spaces and replace asterisks with periods in address bar for link)
@undergroundrokr "paid' would be ANOTHER fear-mongering dork conspiracy, used as proof for the FIRST fear-mongering dork conspiracy. Using one as proof of another only proves how stupid both of them are.
I love the Mythbusters for doing this, but it saddens me to live in a country that has achieved arguably the greatest exploratory scientific leap in human history (landing 12 men on a heavenly body) and as much as 20% of the people in said country don't think it happened. They'd rather believe that our government (which is SO good at everything else it does) has pulled off the greatest hoax of all time when they couldn't cover up a break in to Watergate or a blowjob in the Oval Office. *sigh*
@houdin654jeff i wouldn't exactly say our government is SO good. and you have to realize that in 1969 they could have easily gotten away with this. it wasn't until watergate that America started to doubt what the government told us. I don't know whether it was a hoax or not, but it needs to be considered
@snappback2reality Key points I think you're forgetting: It wasn't 1969 that they would have to fake this. They would have had to essentially start faking it years earlier when Kennedy made the national goal of landing on the moon. Even then, it's been 42 going on 43 years and not one of the hundred thousand or so people implicit in said hoax has talked? And why didn't the Russians call us on our BS if we faked it? All they had to do was orbit the moon and take pictures of the Sea of Tranquility
@snappback2reality Err, Watergate was the same administration that actaully launched Apollo. So we're supposed to believe that the same screw-ups who couldnt even cover up 6 dumbasses breaking into a hotel room could THEN cover up 100,000 technicians, some from mulitple countries? Not one chance in hell.
@DonLeoMarin Building 7 was on fire and steel gets weaker when it's heated for hours, JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, Area 51 is a test facility for experimental aircraft; And they obviously haven't been kept secret from the public very well if you and I know about them. The more relevant issue is that this "hoax" hasn't been called out by any world government who has sent probes to the Moon or any single one of the 100,000+ people who worked on the Apollo program for over 40 years.
@houdin654jeff So than Building 7 is the first in history to FREE FALL from a burning fire in 1 day and get hit by an invisible airplane. Area51 was kept silent for years and made public once the sheep started making noises. JFK was the greatest President this country has seen but put to sleep once he opened his mouth about Secret Societies.
@DonLeoMarin *deep breath* Invisible plane? No, visible debris from the towers which damaged the sprinkler system, started the fire and was never quenched because fire fighters had other things to do that day and 343 of them died. The steel was heated, weakened and eventually collapsed. Other buildings in history have done that too (in the aftermath of earthquakes, for instance), just not on television for the world to see.
@DonLeoMarin Governments have to keep secrets somewhere. Why not in the middle of a desert? After all, if the citizens know, they might print it in their newspapers, making it far easier for spies to learn what new technologies we're working on. Greatest President is an arguable definition, but why kill him? Why not just defame his character by exposing his affairs or other methods? Killing well liked people only makes them martyrs, keeps their message strong.
@DonLeoMarin And none of that addresses the point of the above video or my question in a previous post. How the hell do you keep 100,000+ people from talking about the hoax they participated in for 4 decades running? Why didn't other governments (specifically the Russians prior to the end of the Cold War), expose the hated Americans as liars and cheats? And if it's such a "perfect" cover up, why do people like you and me even know about it? Nixon's administration couldn't keep Watergate silent.
You can't compare the watergate of the monica affair with the moon hoax; nobody wanted to defend Nixon or Clinton, they were interesting nobody; for the moon hoax, it is very different for the moon fascinates, so people want to defend the moon adventure; this is what helps to maitain the lie alive, otherwise it would already have been exposed.
The Mythbusters are frauds, their demonstrations are not convincing.
@hunchbacked You're implying that a 100,000+ person hoax is easier to cover up than a blowjob or a break in? And of course people wanted to defeat Nixon & Clinton, the opposing political parties for starters. You're still not addressing my points, all those people are still quiet after 40 years and the Russians never attempted to call the US liars and cheats for faking something they could check up on.
OK, if it wasn't a +100,000 hoax, then you have other problems.
Namely, all those engineers and scientists of all those are going to use all their not inconsiderable brilliance and ingenuity to make you something that WORKS, that would get you to the moon.
But if NASA had this, why didn't they simply go to the moon instead making up some elaborate hoax?
And don't say radiation.
If it was that bad, Russia would know. Anyone whose sent a satellite above LEO would know.
- The great difficulty of landing in the void on the moon which has strictly nothing to do with landing in earth's atmosphere: The technology of the time was still in infancy, and not ripe for something as difficult as landing on the moon; the engineers would have had to make many tests with the LM, would have crashed a certain number of them before maganing to make land one safely on the moon.
It would have taken time to master this technique, and it had to be before sending men; the engineers knew it, but the CIA didn't let them the time to develop the technique in a safe way; if the engineers could not guatantee the success in a short time, and the CIA wanted a success in a short time, then the only solution was to fake the mission.
So the engineers, who were against luring people, stuffed the project with incoherences I can perfectly see.
@hunchbacked I am not playing the euphemism treadmill with you.
You theorise about conspiracies.
As for tests, what do you think Surveyor or Apollo 4, 9, 10 were for? And that's just space based stuff. Ever hear of test stands?
Radiation is not a reason. If it was, the numerous satellites above LEO would fail that much earlier, not to mention the results from Luna 9 and Zond-5 & 7.
I admit I don't know electronics.
But the electronics would have to be real even in a hoax.
@hunchbacked Probes from India, China, Japan, ESA and Russia have all travelled to the moon, carrying instruments to measure the radiation. Russia sent probes to explicitly measure the radiation.
According to all sources I've sen, Luna 9 measured 30 millirads a day, not dangerous for Apollo length stays and Zond 5 & 7 found it to be safe "from a radiation point of view".
Their own N1 program having failed,why would they lie for NASA?
The radiation does not stop when you have gone through the Van Allen belts.
Apollo believers make calculations of the quantity of radiation that the astronauts are exposed to when going through the VAB, and say that they only were a short time in the VAB, and it would only have been dangerous if they had remained a long time in the VAB, like, once they have gone through the VAB, they are safe and no longer exposed to radiations.
@hunchbacked "getting exposed" is used by hoax pushers for ignorant fear-mongering. We're ALL getting exposed, everyday. What counts is the unit rad per time. And at no time, no place, has any hoax pusher every quoted the exact and accurate unit rad per time either inside or outside the VABs.
You cant just yell "RAD!" and expect to sound smart. You have to KNOW.
They didn't try to make something which WORKS; the electronic interfaces I have seen in the project are hilarious, full of jokes, aberrations.
They were not going to send astronauts in machines that they perfectly knew that it would lead them to a certain death, and that's what they told to the CIA.
Thet were hoping that the CIA would hear the voice of reason, but the CIA coerced them into faking the project against their consent.
@Luigibob95 Yes, they have other lights in that room. That doesn't mean they were on when taking those photos.
If the source of light that lit up the astronaut was something other than a reflection but rather above and emmissive, wouldn't the shadow of the model LM on the ground be significantly less dark?
p.s. It is time to remove the 10ft American flag pole that is rammed so far up your asses and wake the fuck up! Americans were busy smoking dope at Woodstock in 1969 tripping on acid, NOT walking the moon!
@georgedammo THANK GOD we have hoaxaholic GED newbs to tell us these things. I almost believed a professional engineer who actually works for a living ;)
This has indirectly proven that indeed the moon landing could have been hoaxed by NASA. Who is to say that NASA did not utilise the same apparatus (fake reflective moon dust) used by the boys in this experiment. Instead of trying to ‘BUST’ the pictures, why don’t they have a go at busting the flawed video footage which contains within it irrefutable scientific errors. Why haven’t we gone back there in 42 years? don’t tell me theres no point, then why the fuck do ppl continue climbing Mt. Everest
How STUPID would NASA have to be to ADD a secondary emissive light source when trying to create a hoax of a body with only one emissive light source, the sun?
The thing is though, Mythbusters was testing the claim, made by conspiracy theorists, that NASA did just that, that NASA was that stupid.
That is ALL they were testing here.
Also, it doesn't take over a $100 billion to climb Everest.
I would love us to go back to the moon, but America is more into chucking bombs right now.
@1991nikola Because going to the moon was one goal, and we did it, great. Then we made OTHER goals:
6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers, etc etc. There's only so much money to go around. You learn new things by DOING new things, not spinning your wheel repeating yourself for 40 years.
This proves the NASA moonlandings were, in fact, actually faked using scale models made by Adam Savage using cement, a barbie, and toilet paper rolls.
@falcont2t Because all the evidence of "fake" is piss poor. Thats why. There's nothing you can name that hanst been refuted at some point somewhere. The problem is you read a dork webpage and gullibly believe every word, naive enough to think they'd give you the whole story.
@ModernGolfer Egad! Now that you mention it, that would make more sense than the positronic brain they supposedly installed in my head! They simply don't have that technology, so who do they think they are fooling!?
3:54 one of the firsts times that i dissagree with their conclusions. Their ground is much brighter than that of the moon image, and yet their astronaut is darker than that of the moon image, when it should have been brighter. Therefor one have to conclude that the moon guy is too well lit.
@N3CR1S - Well, it's always going to be difficult to get a perfect match, but I don't believe that was the goal, instead it was to prove that the astronauts shouldn't be in pitch blackness as the hoax believers claim, but in fact would be illuminated by the sunlight bouncing off the lunar surface, and hence I believe they've proven that point and busted the myth. Overall, I think they did a great job in that episode of MythBusters :-)
@Arckitekt They didnt say how to fake the Reflectors. They didnt say how to fake the moonrocks. They didnt say how to fake the Japanese Lunar Satellite pics.
Why dont YOU explain all that, if you're going to pretend to know anything? ;)
this just shows that it can be faked... is anybody else noticing that. it seems people are believe what they want to believe. true or false it can be faked... end of story.
@fukdyamum They didnt say how to fake the Reflectors. They didnt say how to fake the moonrocks. They didnt say how to fake the Japanese Lunar Satellite pics.
Why dont YOU explain all that, if you're going to pretend to know anything? ;)
If there was a second light source there wouldn't be any shadows at all. Neil Armstrong and his team where the first humans to land on the moon that is it!!!!!!!
@JoonaZ35 Yeap, I have never really understood how it would work that there would be a secondary light that would only shine on the astronaut and the craft and not on the ground. :)
Busted nothing at all, what did they show as proof to back there theory 2:44-3:00? Are you kidding me. The only proof here is there mock up set has no stars just like NASA's.
@Abuismael1 have u ever been outside at night wheres there alot of light, example, a porch light? Your eyes cant see stars when u look up because your eye lids are limiting the amount of light entering your eyes. This is the same with a camera lens! They limit the amount of light entering the camera, thats why you cant see stars!
@Abuismael1 - Google: 'Spacewalk', go to Images and look for stars in those pictures. Google: 'Voyager Saturn' and look for stars. Google: 'Voyager Jupiter' and look for stars. Google: 'Hubble mars' and search for stars in those pictures. Google: 'telescope moon' and look for stars. Google: 'Space station earth' and look for stars. Since the first photographs of space, stars do not show up if the camera is set to capture brighter objects. Stars needs a longer exposure to be captured on film. :)
@Abuismael1 Cameras in 1969 didn't have anything near the same resolving power as those nowadays. Even now, you need a long exposure to catch the stars. Less on the moon, of course, considering all of our pollution, but still.
Arguing with someone's opinion. what makes sense to one personally might be totally foreign to someone else. It's obvious im the only one who sees a correlation here. But arguing about whether I'm right or not will not change my opinion on this matter
It makes perfect sense to me. You believe we didn't land on the moon, but you still believe in god. There is no God. Therefore you are A FUCKTARD hypocrite who believes lies about the moon landing, but you believe there is some magical man in the sky. Religion is nothing but lies, as is a fake moon landing. If you believe on lie and not the other, I believe you are a hypocrite. It's just my opinion, and it makes perfect sense to me.
@TheMeleeMaster21 not saying it proves the landings took place, biggest one for me is lack of a thruster crater, but it's to do with short exposure timing, google for images of the space shuttle and see if you can see stars in those photos...
@DriveYourWalk yeah these characters are full of shit, vague references to reflectivity of the regolith doesn't add up to much, let alone a so called myth being busted... good model makers mind...
at 3:24 while taking the photo of the astronaut the ceiling hasn't been blacked out ,that's an extra light source coming from above on the astronaut enough to light it up.
You guys are all fucking idiots.. How would the mythbusters confirm the biggest scandal of recent human history? Are you even serious? People that had intelligence against the moon landing all died by "accidents". Just tell me how this could be busted on fucking TV? If you have watched previous episodes of mythbusters, you'll see that they have tested myths in NASA HQ. There is NO-FUCKING-WAY this would get busted... I like the mythbusters, but the moon landing episode was fucking ridiculous...
@AchillesTheHedgehog - It doesn't matter where, others can repeat their experiments to prove them right or wrong.
My question is, where are all the documentaries/films by hoax believers SHOWING how the moon landings were faked? It's over 40 years now, surely the EASIEST way to prove it was faked would be to get actors, put them on a dust covered stage, use slow motion and wires if necessary, and duplicate exactly what we see in hours of footage of astronauts on the moon. So where are they? :)
@MTMind2 Oh yeah Nasa had 40 billion budget to fake it and those mythbusters can fuck themselves.I would like to see them bust the waving flag , no blast craters and the identical landscape shots took on different missions "myths". Are you or they up for that?.Or the bypassing the radiation belt while the biggest solar storm took place in a thin aluminum capsule etc etc?
@KottLoom - Sorry, but you list the typical nonsense spewed out time and time again by uninformed 'armchair experts'. Let me guess, you think there should be stars in the photos too? Do point out the identical shots in different missions. One X4 solar flare took place near the end of A-12, but there's no evidence it resulted in a CME directed at earth. And Dr Van Allen (you know, the guy the radiation belts was NAMED after), laughed at the claim astronauts couldn't pass through the belt.
it'd a white suit. it's obviously very visible in shadows.
ThibautVDP 1 day ago
Thing i respect is that NASA wont even deign to bebunk these conspiracy nuts,shows NASA find it so moronic that they dont feel any need to refute it.
mattwho81 2 days ago
idk what to think anymore. It seems really easy to fake a moon landing but at the same time I have hope that peoples word is better than peoples doubts. Until I land on the moon and see for myself I cant trust anyone. Even today people just cant be trusted.
MrEvilpanda69 1 week ago
haha fags still think moon landing was fake wow, why dont ya build a rocket and a ship, and land on the moon and take a photo of the landing sites, THEN tell me it was fake, good luck
CryptWarrior69 2 weeks ago
@CryptWarrior69
And why don't you just do it, and visit the landing sites and see for yourself that they are desert and that there is no equipment left there?
Then tell me it was not fake, good luck!
hunchbacked 2 weeks ago
@hunchbacked why should i? if i believe this happened?, i think it happened, only a hermit that lives a fake life will think this was fake, just like there own life is
CryptWarrior69 1 week ago
soo, I think your saying that all the science/mathamatics/physics that was needed to go to the moon in the 60's, when they couldn't even make a practical MICOWAVE in 1958, is more simple and logical than all those intelligent people figuring out that it wasnt possible to go to the moon at the time.?? stop me if im wrong
crish09r 2 weeks ago
@crish09r
The first microwave oven was manufactured in 1948, and while not exactly practical, with further improvements, the first counter top model was for sale by 1967 and very successful.
I fail to see how this relevant to Apollo though.
Also, who are these "intelligent people" you refer to? I prefer to believe the over 400,000 people who built the technology you speak so disparagingly of.
Watch the documentary series "Moon Machines", it's quite fascinating.
watch?v=Y7sMe52fEAc
loperspest 2 weeks ago
the mythbusters are not scientists, they are FX guys, and child actors
sandsphere 3 weeks ago
@sandsphere how scientific do they need to be? this is a pretty accurate representation of what it would be like. Short of going to the moon itself.
mangomonkey278 2 weeks ago
i want that astronaut
corbin2112001 1 month ago
If you listen to them it doesn't make any scene.
Dylantorres95 1 month ago
@Dylantorres95 Yes, if you have the education of a 1st Grader, you'd be lost in the explanation. Here, let me sum it up in words you can understand: Wasn't a Hoax, we went to the Moon.
BadBunnyRides 1 month ago 9
@BadBunnyRides love how you people always go to education level, college grads believe this shit too.. tv show using nasa data to prove nasa claims. yeah way to think for YOUR self. Guess you didn't learn that in college like some of us did
crish09r 2 weeks ago
@crish09r If you went to College then you know what occam's razor is. Try using it and let me know what you come up with...and no cherry picking, use the data as given. If you REALLY want the truth and can be unbiased, you'll figure it out.
BadBunnyRides 2 weeks ago
@BadBunnyRides not in 69
Bluffeddood 4 days ago
@Bluffeddood I have no clue what your talking about. Please be a little more clear.
BadBunnyRides 2 days ago
@BadBunnyRides lol, i'm 5th grade and i could come up with very strong pro-landing things against what my non believing tutor said XD
ThibautVDP 1 day ago
@Dylantorres95 Your comment makes perfect scene.
AntiIgnorantDimwit 2 weeks ago
Now I don't know what to believe :(
ScreamoHead101 1 month ago
@ScreamoHead101 We went to the moon. Simple as that
TheIronicUsername 3 weeks ago 3
One thing - look in the bright diference between astronaut and moon surface. In NASA picture astronaut and surface its about the same bright (grey astronaut and grey surface), but in the Mythbusters picture, surface is overexposed, its totaly white, with no details on it, but astronaut is grey... So, with DIGITAL HASSELBLAD, with its 39 Mpixels, and 36.7 x 49.0 mm sensor, its no problem to change astronaut from dark to bright, but in the same time, bright surface becomes brighter... BUSTED ?????
romittos 1 month ago
@romittos Yes, Busted, you (as many Hoax believers do) have ommited a point of data to fit your belief, OR you have missed it because you didn't think of it.
Watch it again and LISTEN to what they are trying to show...
Now, can you think of what that might be or do I have to give you the answer?
BadBunnyRides 1 month ago
in this case; Myth busters
Everyone watching, but not paying attention, nor thinking outside the box (the sheep box) deserve no respect, no votes, etc. START THINKING FOR YOURSELF! why i called it the sheep box, is cus you are following what other ignorant people before you have allready thought of. Look around, we live in a 3D world! its how religion etc was made up, and is comfort among many, but for thoose capable of being independent, and thinking Outside the box, we know that facts is facts
Killer99215 1 month ago
Kubrick's Film For NASA watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XTyrbyWcIrk
slonerider777 1 month ago
@slonerider777 - If that was a link to "Dark Side of the Moon", you do realise that film was a mockumentary don't you? :-)
Google "Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary" and read the first link.
Alternatively, watch it here on YouTube via the following link;
/watch?v=_1_4JpP-lSo
MTMind2 1 month ago
there were thousands of photos of man in the moon and there were more evidence of the flaws. and yet they chose this particular and the most common that people already recognize and easy to take proof. what about the murders and the engines flaws and the fact that other countries are secretly investigating. this was like proving that jesus existed but not proving if he was god at all (or walking on water and all that stuff)...geez this shows has a biased political aspect
lum2ina 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lum2ina Kubrick's Film For NASA watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XTyrbyWcIrk
slonerider777 1 month ago
@lum2ina you have no idea what you are talking about
Killer99215 1 month ago
The problem here is these guys are not scientific experts and could have made a lot of mistakes with their calculations. Also I have to point out that the Apollo missions were being tracked by observatory telescopes around the world. Like other things people are always looking for a scandal where one doesn't exist. If this was faked Russia would have discovered it and exposed us by simply having pictures taken of Sea of Tranquility by one of the
zenjim007 1 month ago
@zenjim007 sorry didn't finish....having pictures taken of Sea of Tranquility by one of their own space probes. Russia had too much face to by us beating them and would have jumped at the opportunity to prove the U.S.A. a fake. The biggest problem here for these self appointed so called experts is none of them have been to the moon or really understand the conditions there. To them I say, " Build a space probe, orbit the moon and clear pictures of The Sea of Tranquility; then I'll believe!
zenjim007 1 month ago
y q le ocurrio a kubrick?????
bertold2011 1 month ago
vaya panda de payasos oficialistas q son los de este programa,solamente buscan lavar el cerebro a la gente,dandoselas de cientificos,e inculcando la version gubernamental de los echos,mentirosos ,ciencia d pacotilla....
bertold2011 1 month ago
how bout the footage of the astronaut that is getting helped up but the other one doesnt even touch him?????
8MunchenBayern8 1 month ago
@8MunchenBayern8 How much "help" does an astronaut need in 1/6th gravity?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Busted bitches
chocoroyal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chocoroyal there were thousands of photos of man in the moon and there were more evidence of the flaws. and yet they chose this particular and the most common that people already recognize and easy to take proof. what about the murders and the engines flaws and the fact that other countries are secretly investigating. this was like proving that jesus existed but not proving if he was god at all (or walking on water and all that stuff)...geez this shows has a biased political aspect
lum2ina 1 month ago
To the people complaining about them not touching 9/11 because they don't want to reveal it was an inside job, they have a good reason not too. They don't know what is used to make the mind control gas that forms a plane's vapor trail, or how hot it burns.
saw2135 1 month ago
@saw2135 They also know that History Channel beat them to it, with a 2 hour doc put on by Popular Mechanics that showed how stupid the 911 deniers are.
Mythbusters doesnt want to retread the same ground.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
it doesnt fully debunk it. they created their replica moon surface based on what NASA say it is made of!
schecterscott 1 month ago
@schecterscott Then you'd have to prove that the moon is made of something different. Do you have any such evidence?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@schecterscott - Ok, so have a look at this moon hoax debunking TV programme (go to 23:23 in the following video);
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
One light source, in a desert area at night, and yet the same effect! It's worth watching the whole video, since it covers some of the points MBs covered, and others that MBs didn't (such as no stars, radiation etc).
MTMind2 1 month ago
There is much higher contrast between your highlights and shadows than in the NASA original.I just took a look at more NASA photos and saw that the L.E.M. was made out of cooking foil and plastic tape.I'm sorry, but nobody in the right mind would get in that thing and land on the moon.
ThePurpleHarpoon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER PROPAGANDA JEW PIGS
SICK QUEERS
Space Shuttle Astronaut James van Hoften NASA
" Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people
are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the Moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts"
LOL but in 1969 it was no problem for Fake Apollo
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
Man you moon conspiracy theorist are ignorant little fuckers
Tekhazai 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER MORONS
Bunch of retarded homosexuals
APOLLO DISNEY TV
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@DeadJesus100 The Americans. NASA has recognized that YOUR first shots of the moon landing a fake. This was done shortly before the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of this event. This is one big lie, I tell you. No one on the moon was not up to now. It is in this program and had "collapsed." Because it, in 1966 only to go fly the plane. But even they did not work (ie us) ... and you will convince the world that were there on a rusty tub? America - Empire of lies. Disneyland.
DmitryBaranov87 1 month ago
That moon conspiracy show said that the astronauts had hasselblads mounted on their chest. There was no view finder, and their suits would have made it difficult to operate the camera. Perhaps they had some bad ass auto focus. How did they compose, and focus all of those bad ass moon shots I love?
davidg1024 2 months ago
@davidg1024 Easy, they took hundreds of shots, and you've only seen the dozens that werent blurry and out of focus. So how come you never see the rest of them? BECAUSE THEY'RE BLURRY AND OUT OF FOCUS. Obviously. Which pics would you plaster all over the media?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Where did they reload their film? Did they have to wear those suits while in the moon lander thing? Trying to load 120/220 film with thick ass gloves could be difficult. 35mm as well. I believe that hassleblad did custom make their cameras, so maybe they put all of these concerns in their design. I am not a skeptic, I am just curious about the photography portion. I am a aspiring photographer.
davidg1024 2 months ago
@davidg1024 I'd suggest looking at the cameras blueprints in detail before assuming anything. Surely the manufacturers custom made the cameras for ease of use.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@davidg1024
They used magazines of film. This is in fact default for this camera and part of why it was chosen, though some modifications were made to make it easier to use in the spacesuits and to make it more reliable in a vacuum, but this is basically how all Hasselblad 500 series work.
.hasselblad*com/media/2207875/astronauts_manual_singlepage_lr*pdf (see pages 8 and 9)
w w w*hq*nasa*gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass*html
(remove spaces and replace asterisks with periods in address bar for link)
loperspest 2 months ago
@davidg1024
Just to add, auto focus was not needed.
The astronauts were trained to use zone focussing, where a high f stop is used to give a large depth of field.
Then they simply set the range to predetermined spots for near, middle and far distances to what they wanted to photograph.
As for the lack of a viewfinder that was not a problem, a medium format camera with a wide angle lens has a very large field of view.
ytmoog 2 months ago
@ytmoog Thanks for educating me. I did not know that. Do you know what kind film they used?
davidg1024 2 months ago
@davidg1024
They used a custom Kodak Ektachrome film which used an Estar base which is thinner and able to handle a higher temperature range than celluloid.
ytmoog 2 months ago
@ytmoog Kodak was the first in space. Bad ass
davidg1024 2 months ago
@davidg1024 Kodak boss P Arnolds mocked nasa when he said the astronauts
had to guess where they were aiming their cameras at
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
NASA paid them to say the somthin else!
undergroundrokr 2 months ago
@undergroundrokr "paid' would be ANOTHER fear-mongering dork conspiracy, used as proof for the FIRST fear-mongering dork conspiracy. Using one as proof of another only proves how stupid both of them are.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
These conspiracists hate you guys so much right now
chaayse 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHYBUSTER PROPAGANDA QUEER JEWS
Humans are sheep
They believe whatever they are told
Like fake moon landings
911 inside job
and dead jesus
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
i like the smail modles
Hi675445 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
cool
Hi675445 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
call
Hi675445 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
Lets see them "prove" 9/11
DemkVan 2 months ago
I love the Mythbusters for doing this, but it saddens me to live in a country that has achieved arguably the greatest exploratory scientific leap in human history (landing 12 men on a heavenly body) and as much as 20% of the people in said country don't think it happened. They'd rather believe that our government (which is SO good at everything else it does) has pulled off the greatest hoax of all time when they couldn't cover up a break in to Watergate or a blowjob in the Oval Office. *sigh*
houdin654jeff 2 months ago 29
@houdin654jeff i wouldn't exactly say our government is SO good. and you have to realize that in 1969 they could have easily gotten away with this. it wasn't until watergate that America started to doubt what the government told us. I don't know whether it was a hoax or not, but it needs to be considered
snappback2reality 1 month ago
@snappback2reality Key points I think you're forgetting: It wasn't 1969 that they would have to fake this. They would have had to essentially start faking it years earlier when Kennedy made the national goal of landing on the moon. Even then, it's been 42 going on 43 years and not one of the hundred thousand or so people implicit in said hoax has talked? And why didn't the Russians call us on our BS if we faked it? All they had to do was orbit the moon and take pictures of the Sea of Tranquility
houdin654jeff 1 month ago
@snappback2reality Err, Watergate was the same administration that actaully launched Apollo. So we're supposed to believe that the same screw-ups who couldnt even cover up 6 dumbasses breaking into a hotel room could THEN cover up 100,000 technicians, some from mulitple countries? Not one chance in hell.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@houdin654jeff EPIC comment, so very true
thepostie 3 weeks ago
@houdin654jeff Building 7, JFK, Area 51, all examples of the biggest lies and secrets they have kept from the public.
DonLeoMarin 2 weeks ago
@DonLeoMarin Building 7 was on fire and steel gets weaker when it's heated for hours, JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, Area 51 is a test facility for experimental aircraft; And they obviously haven't been kept secret from the public very well if you and I know about them. The more relevant issue is that this "hoax" hasn't been called out by any world government who has sent probes to the Moon or any single one of the 100,000+ people who worked on the Apollo program for over 40 years.
houdin654jeff 2 weeks ago
@houdin654jeff So than Building 7 is the first in history to FREE FALL from a burning fire in 1 day and get hit by an invisible airplane. Area51 was kept silent for years and made public once the sheep started making noises. JFK was the greatest President this country has seen but put to sleep once he opened his mouth about Secret Societies.
DonLeoMarin 2 weeks ago
@DonLeoMarin *deep breath* Invisible plane? No, visible debris from the towers which damaged the sprinkler system, started the fire and was never quenched because fire fighters had other things to do that day and 343 of them died. The steel was heated, weakened and eventually collapsed. Other buildings in history have done that too (in the aftermath of earthquakes, for instance), just not on television for the world to see.
houdin654jeff 2 weeks ago
@DonLeoMarin Governments have to keep secrets somewhere. Why not in the middle of a desert? After all, if the citizens know, they might print it in their newspapers, making it far easier for spies to learn what new technologies we're working on. Greatest President is an arguable definition, but why kill him? Why not just defame his character by exposing his affairs or other methods? Killing well liked people only makes them martyrs, keeps their message strong.
houdin654jeff 2 weeks ago
@DonLeoMarin And none of that addresses the point of the above video or my question in a previous post. How the hell do you keep 100,000+ people from talking about the hoax they participated in for 4 decades running? Why didn't other governments (specifically the Russians prior to the end of the Cold War), expose the hated Americans as liars and cheats? And if it's such a "perfect" cover up, why do people like you and me even know about it? Nixon's administration couldn't keep Watergate silent.
houdin654jeff 2 weeks ago
@houdin654jeff
You can't compare the watergate of the monica affair with the moon hoax; nobody wanted to defend Nixon or Clinton, they were interesting nobody; for the moon hoax, it is very different for the moon fascinates, so people want to defend the moon adventure; this is what helps to maitain the lie alive, otherwise it would already have been exposed.
The Mythbusters are frauds, their demonstrations are not convincing.
hunchbacked 2 weeks ago
@hunchbacked You're implying that a 100,000+ person hoax is easier to cover up than a blowjob or a break in? And of course people wanted to defeat Nixon & Clinton, the opposing political parties for starters. You're still not addressing my points, all those people are still quiet after 40 years and the Russians never attempted to call the US liars and cheats for faking something they could check up on.
houdin654jeff 2 weeks ago
@houdin654jeff
Unlike what you think, it is not a +100,000 person hoax, it is much much less.
But my response is much too long to hold in a comment, so I sent you a private message to give you explanations.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
OK, if it wasn't a +100,000 hoax, then you have other problems.
Namely, all those engineers and scientists of all those are going to use all their not inconsiderable brilliance and ingenuity to make you something that WORKS, that would get you to the moon.
But if NASA had this, why didn't they simply go to the moon instead making up some elaborate hoax?
And don't say radiation.
If it was that bad, Russia would know. Anyone whose sent a satellite above LEO would know.
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest
Because, despite their talent, there were insurmountable obstacles:
- The radiations
- the solar storms
- the differences of temperatures (the astronaut's suits were not adapted, as those who closely inspected them said).
- The micrometeorites
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@loperspest
- The great difficulty of landing in the void on the moon which has strictly nothing to do with landing in earth's atmosphere: The technology of the time was still in infancy, and not ripe for something as difficult as landing on the moon; the engineers would have had to make many tests with the LM, would have crashed a certain number of them before maganing to make land one safely on the moon.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@loperspest
It would have taken time to master this technique, and it had to be before sending men; the engineers knew it, but the CIA didn't let them the time to develop the technique in a safe way; if the engineers could not guatantee the success in a short time, and the CIA wanted a success in a short time, then the only solution was to fake the mission.
So the engineers, who were against luring people, stuffed the project with incoherences I can perfectly see.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@loperspest
I don't like the term of "conspiracy theorist"; it gives a bad image of us.
I just see the plain and obvious truth, and I show it.
What I am showing is the reality, what really happened, and not something which just comes out of my imagination.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I am not playing the euphemism treadmill with you.
You theorise about conspiracies.
As for tests, what do you think Surveyor or Apollo 4, 9, 10 were for? And that's just space based stuff. Ever hear of test stands?
Radiation is not a reason. If it was, the numerous satellites above LEO would fail that much earlier, not to mention the results from Luna 9 and Zond-5 & 7.
I admit I don't know electronics.
But the electronics would have to be real even in a hoax.
loperspest 1 week ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loperspest
1) Satellites are not humans.
2) Satellites don't go beyond Van Allen belts.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Radiation still affects electronics. Not as much, but it does. Look up "radiation hardening'.
If NASA's reported figures were wrong, the owners of private satellites, not to mention their insurers, would know.
Also, why would there be LESS radiation where the Earth's magnetic field captures and concentrate subatomic particles?
And even if it were so, Luna 9 and Zond 5 & 7 went beyond the Van Allen belt, Luna 9 landing on the moon, Zond 5 & 7 going to the moon and back.
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest
The satellites don't go far away enough from the earth to be seriously affected by the radiations.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
The Van Allen belts, aside from the SAA, which gets even nearer, are well within medium earth orbit and extends to beyond geosynchronous orbit.
Even if it wouldn't have much effect, it would make them fail that much earlier, which creates an anomaly.
Something an insurance agency would be very concerned about as their livelihood is dependent on knowing when something is likely to fail.
And Zond 5 & 7, as well as Luna 9 went to the moon. How's that not "far enough out"?
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest
Did they really go to the moon?
We don't know for sure!
And the danger is not just going through the Van Allen belts, the real danger begins after having gone through the Van Allen belts.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Probes from India, China, Japan, ESA and Russia have all travelled to the moon, carrying instruments to measure the radiation. Russia sent probes to explicitly measure the radiation.
According to all sources I've sen, Luna 9 measured 30 millirads a day, not dangerous for Apollo length stays and Zond 5 & 7 found it to be safe "from a radiation point of view".
Their own N1 program having failed,why would they lie for NASA?
If anything the motive would be the reverse.
loperspest 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Again, you cut and paste "VAB" like a newb, not knowing a damn thing about them.
Radiation exposure is given in unit PER TIME. Not enough time means not enough exposure. They werent in the VABs long enough to hurt them.
OUTSIDE the VABs, the rad is generated by the solar wind. Which is 88% alpha and beta radiation. Which is blocked by plastic.
Theres not ONE radiologist who supports the hoax. In fact they all think its moronic. I ought to know, I am a radiologist
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
The radiation does not stop when you have gone through the Van Allen belts.
Apollo believers make calculations of the quantity of radiation that the astronauts are exposed to when going through the VAB, and say that they only were a short time in the VAB, and it would only have been dangerous if they had remained a long time in the VAB, like, once they have gone through the VAB, they are safe and no longer exposed to radiations.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
But it is wrong, it is after the VAB that the danger really begins.
The astronauts were exposed to radiations all along their mission, not just when going through the VAB.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked "getting exposed" is used by hoax pushers for ignorant fear-mongering. We're ALL getting exposed, everyday. What counts is the unit rad per time. And at no time, no place, has any hoax pusher every quoted the exact and accurate unit rad per time either inside or outside the VABs.
You cant just yell "RAD!" and expect to sound smart. You have to KNOW.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 days ago
@loperspest
They didn't try to make something which WORKS; the electronic interfaces I have seen in the project are hilarious, full of jokes, aberrations.
They were not going to send astronauts in machines that they perfectly knew that it would lead them to a certain death, and that's what they told to the CIA.
Thet were hoping that the CIA would hear the voice of reason, but the CIA coerced them into faking the project against their consent.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
If you look though they have other light above although they say they dont hmmm?
Luigibob95 2 months ago
@Luigibob95 Yes, they have other lights in that room. That doesn't mean they were on when taking those photos.
If the source of light that lit up the astronaut was something other than a reflection but rather above and emmissive, wouldn't the shadow of the model LM on the ground be significantly less dark?
loperspest 2 months ago
p.s. It is time to remove the 10ft American flag pole that is rammed so far up your asses and wake the fuck up! Americans were busy smoking dope at Woodstock in 1969 tripping on acid, NOT walking the moon!
georgedammo 3 months ago
@georgedammo THANK GOD we have hoaxaholic GED newbs to tell us these things. I almost believed a professional engineer who actually works for a living ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
This has indirectly proven that indeed the moon landing could have been hoaxed by NASA. Who is to say that NASA did not utilise the same apparatus (fake reflective moon dust) used by the boys in this experiment. Instead of trying to ‘BUST’ the pictures, why don’t they have a go at busting the flawed video footage which contains within it irrefutable scientific errors. Why haven’t we gone back there in 42 years? don’t tell me theres no point, then why the fuck do ppl continue climbing Mt. Everest
georgedammo 3 months ago
@georgedammo
"Why haven’t we gone back there in 42 years?"
Money.
The US can't afford it any more*.
Although China seems to be on the way now.
"..then why the fuck do ppl continue climbing Mt. Everest"
'cos it's cheaper
The costs involved are well within the range of a moderately wealthy person.
*(well they could if they cut military spending, but I can't see that happening; they seem to like their bombs)
ytmoog 2 months ago
@ytmoog they seem to like their bombs
american here, we do, makes me sad. :( we should go to the moon again.
0HLAWD2 2 months ago
@0HLAWD2 Apparently the reason why we haven't gone back to the moon was because the rocks on the moon turn into crabs and they kill you.
tjtheplay 2 months ago
@georgedammo
How STUPID would NASA have to be to ADD a secondary emissive light source when trying to create a hoax of a body with only one emissive light source, the sun?
The thing is though, Mythbusters was testing the claim, made by conspiracy theorists, that NASA did just that, that NASA was that stupid.
That is ALL they were testing here.
Also, it doesn't take over a $100 billion to climb Everest.
I would love us to go back to the moon, but America is more into chucking bombs right now.
loperspest 2 months ago
funny shit is, about 8 years ago NASA had said that the actual MOON LANDING FILM WAS STOLEN... YEAH SURE
talentscout45 3 months ago
@talentscout45 We're going to believe NASA before we believe a conspiracy chasing dork online. Just saying ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
my question is why dont people go on the moon now,if they could go in 1969 ?
1991nikola 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
@1991nikola
The answer is money.
Manned space flight is hugely expensive, and the US seems unable and unwilling to pay for science and exploration any more.
So I guess the next trip will be done by China,
ytmoog 3 months ago
@ytmoog you are right,they have huge economics crysis :P
1991nikola 3 months ago
@1991nikola Because going to the moon was one goal, and we did it, great. Then we made OTHER goals:
6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers, etc etc. There's only so much money to go around. You learn new things by DOING new things, not spinning your wheel repeating yourself for 40 years.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
This proves the NASA moonlandings were, in fact, actually faked using scale models made by Adam Savage using cement, a barbie, and toilet paper rolls.
CasusUniversum 3 months ago 19
@CasusUniversum i still dont get why people say its real
falcont2t 3 months ago
@falcont2t Because all the evidence of "fake" is piss poor. Thats why. There's nothing you can name that hanst been refuted at some point somewhere. The problem is you read a dork webpage and gullibly believe every word, naive enough to think they'd give you the whole story.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@CasusUniversum - Based pm that commentary, I have to say "CasusUniversums" BRAIN in made out of cement, a barbie, and toilet paper rolls.
ModernGolfer 3 months ago
@ModernGolfer Egad! Now that you mention it, that would make more sense than the positronic brain they supposedly installed in my head! They simply don't have that technology, so who do they think they are fooling!?
CasusUniversum 3 months ago
@CasusUniversum watch the first part and he explains that.
TKGoat 2 months ago
@TKGoat *sarcasm*
CasusUniversum 2 months ago
@CasusUniversum Oh lol not as easy to catch sarcasm online lol
TKGoat 2 months ago
@CasusUniversum all of them? 11 12 14 15 16 and 17?
attonator 1 month ago
@attonator Jamie is older than he looks.
CasusUniversum 1 month ago
you need to now black out the "regiolith" and show how the astronaut at the same exposure will go black
ReasonableAtheist 3 months ago
just go into your yard and check the shadows, the sun makes crazy ass shadows
ReasonableAtheist 3 months ago
3:54 one of the firsts times that i dissagree with their conclusions. Their ground is much brighter than that of the moon image, and yet their astronaut is darker than that of the moon image, when it should have been brighter. Therefor one have to conclude that the moon guy is too well lit.
N3CR1S 4 months ago
@N3CR1S - Well, it's always going to be difficult to get a perfect match, but I don't believe that was the goal, instead it was to prove that the astronauts shouldn't be in pitch blackness as the hoax believers claim, but in fact would be illuminated by the sunlight bouncing off the lunar surface, and hence I believe they've proven that point and busted the myth. Overall, I think they did a great job in that episode of MythBusters :-)
MTMind2 4 months ago
@N3CR1S
They were not testing exactly how bright he should seem in the photo.
Nor could they for various reasons.
The myth they were testing was that the astronaut should have been pitch black in the shadow.
Which of course is silly.
ytmoog 3 months ago
Adam and Jamie are the biggest losers on TV. Sure, they'll disprove the moonhoax but they wont touch 911. Cowards and tools of highest order.
Seigu007 4 months ago
mission accomplie
cetaitdemain1 4 months ago
They proved how easily it could be faked.
Arckitekt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Arckitekt They didnt say how to fake the Reflectors. They didnt say how to fake the moonrocks. They didnt say how to fake the Japanese Lunar Satellite pics.
Why dont YOU explain all that, if you're going to pretend to know anything? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
There is 3 type of people here.
1. The consipiracy theorists that can't handle ANYTHING unless it's a consipiracy theory.
They feel a huge need to tell their bullshit here.
2. The anticonsipiracy theorists, that can't handle consipiracy theories, they too have a huge need to babble their shit here.
3. THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY LIKES THE YOUTUBE CLIP AND DOESN'T HAVE A HUGE NEED TO BABBLE SOME SHIT
(but since I babbled shit, where do I belong to?)
SlipAllCityToy 4 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy You fall under the "I believe everything I see on tv". I make money off idiots like you.
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007
What do you mean?
First of all, I don't have a television.
And no, I don't believe anything I see on television.
You don't get any money off me.
How about that? :3 <3
SlipAllCityToy 4 months ago
this just shows that it can be faked... is anybody else noticing that. it seems people are believe what they want to believe. true or false it can be faked... end of story.
fukdyamum 4 months ago in playlist Mythbusters
@fukdyamum They didnt say how to fake the Reflectors. They didnt say how to fake the moonrocks. They didnt say how to fake the Japanese Lunar Satellite pics.
Why dont YOU explain all that, if you're going to pretend to know anything? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
but they did. as shown in this video.
fukdyamum 4 months ago
@fukdyamum They explained what the reflectors were, not how to fake them.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
Wait!!
Didn't Mythbusters just prove how NASA faked it? ;)
Heathen531 4 months ago
everytime i watch something like this my internet or the video slows down or freezes.
fruityes1 4 months ago
the second one was a stretch, the astronaut in the NASA is brighter than the surface of the moon!!!!!!!!
baharehut 4 months ago
@baharehut Have you ever heard of touch-up development?
sehamon 4 months ago
Guys. There's this new invention. It's called a "Flash."
Frogfreak2796 4 months ago
@Frogfreak2796
that would flash up the whole area . plus like you said its "new" . i doubt they had "new" technology in 1969 . idiot
woody19995 4 months ago
@woody19995 They've had the flash on cameras since 1890.
sehamon 4 months ago
@woody19995 Sarcasm. The original camera had a flash. Goodness, you Youtube trolls...
Frogfreak2796 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Abuismael1 You dont believe me or the mythbusters?
bond1011 4 months ago
If you can make a set, Don't you think nasa can make a bigger set to take real pictures...
EzzyGamer 4 months ago
If there was a second light source there wouldn't be any shadows at all. Neil Armstrong and his team where the first humans to land on the moon that is it!!!!!!!
JoonaZ35 4 months ago
@JoonaZ35 Yeap, I have never really understood how it would work that there would be a secondary light that would only shine on the astronaut and the craft and not on the ground. :)
TheGameHeaven 4 months ago
Busted nothing at all, what did they show as proof to back there theory 2:44-3:00? Are you kidding me. The only proof here is there mock up set has no stars just like NASA's.
Abuismael1 5 months ago
@Abuismael1 have u ever been outside at night wheres there alot of light, example, a porch light? Your eyes cant see stars when u look up because your eye lids are limiting the amount of light entering your eyes. This is the same with a camera lens! They limit the amount of light entering the camera, thats why you cant see stars!
bond1011 5 months ago
@bond1011 yer right, don't believe that at all.
Abuismael1 4 months ago
@Abuismael1 - Google: 'Spacewalk', go to Images and look for stars in those pictures. Google: 'Voyager Saturn' and look for stars. Google: 'Voyager Jupiter' and look for stars. Google: 'Hubble mars' and search for stars in those pictures. Google: 'telescope moon' and look for stars. Google: 'Space station earth' and look for stars. Since the first photographs of space, stars do not show up if the camera is set to capture brighter objects. Stars needs a longer exposure to be captured on film. :)
MTMind2 4 months ago
@Abuismael1 Cameras in 1969 didn't have anything near the same resolving power as those nowadays. Even now, you need a long exposure to catch the stars. Less on the moon, of course, considering all of our pollution, but still.
Frogfreak2796 3 months ago
Arguing with someone's opinion. what makes sense to one personally might be totally foreign to someone else. It's obvious im the only one who sees a correlation here. But arguing about whether I'm right or not will not change my opinion on this matter
mrbonesmcgee 5 months ago
Your the dumbass for argu
mrbonesmcgee 5 months ago
It makes perfect sense to me. You believe we didn't land on the moon, but you still believe in god. There is no God. Therefore you are A FUCKTARD hypocrite who believes lies about the moon landing, but you believe there is some magical man in the sky. Religion is nothing but lies, as is a fake moon landing. If you believe on lie and not the other, I believe you are a hypocrite. It's just my opinion, and it makes perfect sense to me.
mrbonesmcgee 5 months ago
I still have a question. Why can't you see any stars on the moon landing pictures?
TheMeleeMaster21 5 months ago
@TheMeleeMaster21 not saying it proves the landings took place, biggest one for me is lack of a thruster crater, but it's to do with short exposure timing, google for images of the space shuttle and see if you can see stars in those photos...
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
2:01 look at how dark the 1/6 scale astronaut is, now watch @ 2:04 light on the 'shadow' area. It is clearly lighter??????
l like how their showing us easy it was for NASA to make a moon landing set.
DriveYourWalk 5 months ago 2
@DriveYourWalk yeah these characters are full of shit, vague references to reflectivity of the regolith doesn't add up to much, let alone a so called myth being busted... good model makers mind...
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
Any one who thinks the moon landing was faked is a retard trying to make themselves sound intelligent
Shad0wz101 5 months ago
at 3:24 while taking the photo of the astronaut the ceiling hasn't been blacked out ,that's an extra light source coming from above on the astronaut enough to light it up.
renato1976 5 months ago
dear human beings we only have one sun meaning only one shadow.
shams122020 5 months ago
You guys are all fucking idiots.. How would the mythbusters confirm the biggest scandal of recent human history? Are you even serious? People that had intelligence against the moon landing all died by "accidents". Just tell me how this could be busted on fucking TV? If you have watched previous episodes of mythbusters, you'll see that they have tested myths in NASA HQ. There is NO-FUCKING-WAY this would get busted... I like the mythbusters, but the moon landing episode was fucking ridiculous...
AchillesTheHedgehog 5 months ago
@AchillesTheHedgehog - It doesn't matter where, others can repeat their experiments to prove them right or wrong.
My question is, where are all the documentaries/films by hoax believers SHOWING how the moon landings were faked? It's over 40 years now, surely the EASIEST way to prove it was faked would be to get actors, put them on a dust covered stage, use slow motion and wires if necessary, and duplicate exactly what we see in hours of footage of astronauts on the moon. So where are they? :)
MTMind2 5 months ago 25
@MTMind2 They are still looking for a way to access area 51? :P
UnsuccessfulLobotomy 4 months ago
@UnsuccessfulLobotomy - I think you're right :-D
MTMind2 4 months ago
Comment removed
KottLoom 4 months ago
@MTMind2 Oh yeah Nasa had 40 billion budget to fake it and those mythbusters can fuck themselves.I would like to see them bust the waving flag , no blast craters and the identical landscape shots took on different missions "myths". Are you or they up for that?.Or the bypassing the radiation belt while the biggest solar storm took place in a thin aluminum capsule etc etc?
KottLoom 4 months ago
@KottLoom - Sorry, but you list the typical nonsense spewed out time and time again by uninformed 'armchair experts'. Let me guess, you think there should be stars in the photos too? Do point out the identical shots in different missions. One X4 solar flare took place near the end of A-12, but there's no evidence it resulted in a CME directed at earth. And Dr Van Allen (you know, the guy the radiation belts was NAMED after), laughed at the claim astronauts couldn't pass through the belt.
MTMind2 4 months ago