The astronaut in the shadow: obviously there is no way that the film could have been processed with increased contrast either..... and anyway the moon in made of cheese, everyone knows that.
also they dont show you the other evidence about the sun needing to be smaller than what it is in some of the visor shots we have.no talk about radiation belts yet either.im going to post a link to all you who dont belive the facts
@deadrekon10 - The claim the sun in the visor in some shots should be smaller is as uninformed as the claim we should see stars in Apollo photos & film. As for the radiation belts, also known as the Van Allen belts, Dr Van Allen himself said & I quote "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense".
i cant belive this ,even when they show the evidence right in front of you ,hahahahahah,all you have to do is realize ,the actual sun would be further away than that ''spot light '' they are using, also they jumble the facts.anybody who said the rock diverging shadows were from two lights is fake.we know it comes from one light.and the position where you have your spot light is exactly where the light would have been when faked on a real scale.artificial light.
One good observation.....they are Yanks, don't they gain from not proving the moon landing was fake. I mean the Yanks keep their "first on the moon" claim and the MB audience witch are mostly other Yanks feel all so proud and fuzzy inside....
@Raggi86 so what ur asking is to mythbuasters make a show where they bust the myth that they are not busting this myth at all? even if u see fact like this, u refuse to believe because that human nature, its hard to accept that ur wrong so u claim something like "well they got paid by us coverment!!!"
@BlackHoleMan77 - All other's who have carried out that same experiment have achieved the same results, for example, watch the following documentary;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
Watch from 23:23 to 24:23, they show how the light from the ground reflects the light back up and illuminates the astronaut (and the presenter). Therefore the claim that everything in shadow should be black is fully debunked, it's now up to moon hoax believers to do the same experiments to prove them wrong :)
whatever you tell these conspiracy theorists, they will stick to their claim. proof them wrong, they blabla again, you proof them wrong again and they start insulting you as "naive" or "blind". there's no arguing. wasted intellect.
@GloomY1HaveN spreading nonsense? watch out what you're saying, there are people who believe everything they read. ask your physics person of reliance about light, color and stuff. before posting.
But they haven't explained how the cross hair got behind the various photos.. But I really wish they wouldn't use the phrase conspiracy theorists, it is such a damaging word which prevents free thinking in millions of people
Actually the reason is "emulsion bleed" where a very overexposed area of the film 'bleeds' outwards slightly, and as the fiducials are very thin they can easily be partly or completely covered.
This is very noticeable in some of the images where only the overexposed section of an object 'covers' the crosshairs and the rest does not.
@crisisofconsciousnes The "crosshair" is ridiculous on the face of it. So what do you think? That NASA went out on its "set" and planted crosshairs all over it so they'd show up in the photo? Really?
This is about chemical film. You take a pic of a bright background with a tiny dark object and the brightness can bleed over. Take a pic on a bright day, with chemical film, of thin power lines against a bright sky and you'll see the exact same thing.
the only reason I don't like to admit this is because the people who dismiss conspiracy theories usually group all these phenomena together, I believe they went to the moon but I am certain 911 was an inside job.
I bow to your superior knowledge. However, the Moon is the highest emitter of gamma radiation in the solar system. Gamma rays are penetrating and are not good for photographic film. That would be the least of Neil and Buzz's problems though because they would be dead.
@royrichardsify Errr, I would have thought that the sun is the highest emitter. And since the moon has no interior emitters of its own, and only reflects what the sun blasts its way...
But anywho. How big of a dose of gamma rays does it take to kill a person? And what is the dose rate on the moon? See, if you have no idea what the fatal dose is, then you have no business saying that the moon "has to" have that amount, now do you?
You may be right that the Sun is the highest emitter but I believe you are not. I read something about it once and the source was said to be cosmic, rather than solar radiation. I don't know, off hand, the fatal dose of gamma rays or even the units used to measure them. I seem to recall that the intensity on the moon approached a million times that on Earth. It doesn't get much more fatal than that. Check it out, you'll find Apollo was a hoax.
@royrichardsify "million times" Well, thats not even close. Thats such a gargantuan inflated ridiculous number that I would be surprised at all if you told me you got it from a dork hoaxpage. A hoaxpage that strangely never worked a Radiation or technical job in their life. Why would you gullibly believe that?
See, I AM a rad worker. I actually work in this stuff so I know everything you read is certifiable BS. There's no evidence of "fake" that hasnt been refuted. None
If I'm not even close perhaps you would let us know the true levels on the moon. Information is so hard to come by. It seems to be accepted that a small amount of cosmic gamma rays make it to Earth - a tiny fraction of the radiation that is deflected and scattered by Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. Gamma rays are blocked almost totally yet are a health risk to frequent flyers. The moon has no magnetic field, no atmosphere. A million times doesn't sound so far out.
@royrichardsify For starters, the Earth's magnetic field doesnt stop ANY Gamma radiation, as gamma is neutral charged. The VABs only catch Alpha (pos) and Beta (neg). So thats lesson 1 ;)
Lesson 2: Gammas are the WEAKEST of those 3 kinds, having only 1/10th the danger of beta, 1/20th of alpha.
Lesson 3: The dose rates on the moon are equal to a year on Earth. One day on the moon gives you a years normal radiation.
So, have you died in the last year and just...didnt notice? ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse This is unfair. You know this stuff from your work but won't reveal how you know it. I only know things from Wikipedia but the point is I am trying to understand. As I see it, gamma is the highest energy radiation there is. It is bad for you. How can you know the amount of gamma on the moon? Just how do you know this?
@royrichardsify "As I see it" isnt correct unfortunately. Gamma is the WEAKEST of radiations, having only 1/10th the damage of beta, 1/20th that of alpha. Thats freely available radiation safety knowledge. A "danger" level of gamma is over 1000 counts per minute, whereas alphas danger level is 20
MEANWHILE: Its not what I say the gamma levels are. YOU are the one saying "DEATH!" without any numbers for support. If you dont know the gamma, then why "must" it be danger level?
@royrichardsify Cosmic or rather galactic radiation comes from deep space. The sun emits solar magnetic rays that sweeps out through the solar system and disipates the very dangerous galactic radiation, By the time galactic radiation reaches the inner solar system they are very much reduced in intensity. Solar radiation is not a high risk for the short time astronauts spend in space. Solar flares are though, luckily they can be anticipated much like the weather and avoided.
What about ultraviolet and infrared lol? These "astronauts" would be cooked by every type of radiation there is. The temperature on the moon is well above the boiling point of water. They were wandering around in a vacuum, a sort of giant thermos flask. If they were water-cooled, or whatever, that water would boil very fast. You couldn't put it through a radiator for air cooling cos there's no air. It's a joke.
@royrichardsify -153c to +107c are the moons temperature range. To deal with these extrems spacesuits even back then were designed with 12+ layers. lncluding a reflective layer for the Sunlight, ultraviolet protective layer, insulation layer, internal heating and cooling systems and internal heat exchange pumps that remove excess heat. My coffee is in a thermos (vaccum) but doesn't boil.
@Spindry96 Yes but if you put coffee in a transparent thermos flask and then put it on the moon it will explode. It's very well to say, oh, it was a high tech space suit but what is an internal heat exhanger? I mean where does the heat go.
@royrichardsify The apollo space suit had five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dracon for heat protection. A three layer Liquid cooling and Ventilation Garment with plastic tubing circulated water to cool the astronaut down, minimize sweating and fogging of the suit helmet. Water was supplied from the backpack where water was chilled by an ice subliator. Not sure why you think a thermos would explode in space. Space itself is a vaccum and spaceships don't explode
@royrichardsify A heat exchanger is something like a radiator on your car, where cool liquid is circulated around the hot spots. The heat goes into the liquid and away from the engine. I'm not certain as the specifics of the spacesuits except that it was similar. One doesnt need a radiator either to expel the heat, as another option is a heat sink, containing the heat in an isolated element away from the body
@royrichardsify Why would a thermos explode? Internal pressure can be predicted, and you just have to build a ship/suit/thermos strong enough to withstand it.
@royrichardsify What ABOUT Ultravoilet and infrared? Are those ever mentioned?
Lesson 4: 88% of space radiation is Alpha and Beta (the suns solar wind)
Lesson : Both alpha and beta, being PARTICLES, not light, can be blocked by anything. Nuke reactors use plexiglass
Lesson 5: Infrared is heat. But the moon is the same distance from the sun that we are, so it gets equal heat. Even then, they didnt land at high noon, but at a twilight meridian. Less light ;)
@royrichardsify Before you fly off on any more newb assumptions, best let you know what I do for a living. I WORK in radiation. I've BEEN in high rad fields and high charged-particle environments. I've done the work with my own two hands. I know exactly what it takes to block and be safe from every single kind of radiation you've mentioned. And I was using a Geiger counter only yesterday. Whatever you think you read on a dork webpage is wannabe idiot manure.
@SpreadingtheMuse lol you have absorbed too many gamma rays and are mutating. Do you really think the moon is the same temperature as the earth? And you say I read dork idiot manure.
@royrichardsify The moon DOES have spots where the temp is the same. That provable with a simple thought experiment:
So the moon is -300 degrees on the dark side. Just ask any hoax pusher. The moon is +300 on the day side, high noon. Therefore, how can there not be some location BETWEEN the two spots? Where the temp is between +300 and -300?
Hint, there is, and in the perfectly predictable spot: Twilight. 0 degrees.
Why did the silt in the moon video's fall back to earth so abruptly? YOU KNOW WHAT! Someone could actually measure the force of the kick on the silt (from the video), and propose a possible max height (using a proposed angle of impact) that the silt should have gone before it fell to the moon's surface. If the max height achieved correlates with the earth's gravity then they are on EARTH. If the max height achieved correlates with the moon's gravity then they are on the MOON. Love physics <3
@BeatBoyCrow - Yep, and has been done for many Apollo clips, where in each case the dust and objects correlates with the moon's gravity (allowing for a margin or error). For example;
/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE
/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs
All examples of dust being thrown up, by astronauts and rover, matches the moon's gravity. To make it appear to match earth's gravity, the video must be sped up 2.46x, but then the astronauts movements are too fast, proving it wasn't filmed on earth and slowed down :)
NASA ALLOWED THE SERIES TO SHOW THIS..FIRST TIME ANYONE TRIED TO PROVE THEM WRONG on national television.You really think NASA would communicate and give MYTHBUSTERS everthing they need to know about what they are testing just to show (ON AIR) that the biggest event in history was a lie..and all your school textbooks need to be changed.I THINK NOT..LOL.even if 50 years technology proves it to be wrong the government will still deny it,USA cant let us loose their trust and risk anarchy or riots
@leroijr407 - But what's stopping others from doing the same experiments as MBs? What's stopping TV program, documentary and film makers from around the world from performing the same experiments as MBs and more? Why have none of the moon hoax film makers ever carried out experiments to show how the landings were faked, such as rigging up an actor on wires over a dust covered stage and using slo-mo to 'prove' it can be done on earth? MBs have done what NO moon hoax maker has ever dared to do :-)
@MTMind2 true, they have.but look at how long it took them to do it.people were skeptical about the walking on the soon after the release of the pictures and poor video, but it took well over 30 years for NASA to put this together for mythbusters.Some people believe we never went in the first place, and not going back for 40+ years doesn't help the argument that we did.
@leroijr407 - But NASA didn't 'put this together', Mythbusters did, it's their programme.
Recently I found another programme that carried out similar experiments with the same results, and NASA had no involvement;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
I disagree with the poor video claim, considering it was a live TV broadcast from the moon (i.e. at record distances), the video quality is good and it got better with every mission.
True not going back doesn't help, but we didn't go because it was cheap or easy.
@MTMind2 I dont think JFK would have let us fake it, Hense his untimely death. try myth busting 2001: space odessey. they didnt go to the other planets, but it looks JUST like space walking. and thats what NASA bought. in my opinion. think of this. what if NASA did go to the moon. Just not in 1969? What if NASA dont wanna go back because todays technology is 1080 progressive HD recording, and everything in the first moon landing pics would look different from today?
@MTMind2 All space flight missions (apart from the moon missions) have been in the safety of earths magnetic field, protecting from harmful radiation, the non-believers say that the first extra-terrestrial explorers would come back and generate all sorts off bodily problems that are related to high doses of radiation (thats why you have a thick lead plate resting on your body when you get a relativity weak x-ray). None of the astronauts have developed any kind of problems relating to radiation.
@leroijr407 I thought several astronauts had developed cataracts, specifically cause they WERE exposed to radiation. One of them even died of cancer.
But "radiation" is 9/10ths fear-mongering by laymen who dont know the first thing. One, the VABs were passed thru in mere minutes. Two, the VABs are mostly alpha and beta radiationh, both of which are blocked by plastic.
Even Dr. Van Allen himself said the claim of hoax was baseless.
@MTMind2 if it was faked in a studio with the great director Stanley Kubrick (RIP) and was all an act. i think about how much money president JFK was allowing NASA to spend to get to the moon on HIS (JFK"S) promise in that decade. NO business would pass that up. Greedy CEO's, right. millions and millions could have been spent on special effects to fake it just so corporate NASA could keep the money anyway.
@leroijr407 - The Stanley Kubrick claim is based upon his 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, however his film is full of so many errors that's it's nonsense to think he could have faked the footage :) As shown here;
/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
No sci-fi movie has ever matched the Apollo footage using wires and slo-mo as claimed, and don't you find it strange that NO moon hoax film has ever recreated the Apollo footage to prove it could be done on earth? Surely that's the best proof?
@MTMind2 at the time of 1969 stanley was the only director remotely close to what NASA wanted to acheive. with kubricks directing and NASA's knowledge of weightless environments from there weightless tubes they have, together with all the MONEY nasa has , they could make possibly anything happen. REMEMBER,funds were limited in 2001 a space odessey. (NOT WITH NASA)So you cant compare that movie.
@leroijr407 - With all due respect my friend, a weightless tube the size you're suggesting is impossible. You can't just make up tech to suit your theory :-), you have to go with what's known and proven to exist. Today, they still use airplanes on a parabolic flight path to simulate 20-30 seconds or so of weightlessness or lower gravity. Why hasn't a better solution been found to simulate lower gravity over 40 years later? Because simply throwing money at something doesn't make it possible.
@leroijr407 Except when Kubrick DID fake the moon for his movie 2001, it looked fake as all hell.
The logic for bringing kubrick into this goes like "Well he made a movie about space, and the moon is in space, therefore he faked it." Its retarded as all hell.
2001 looks FAKE. Even ten years later, the moon sequence of Superman II, big budget of trillions of dollars, THAT looked even more fake. The special fx did not exist.
@leroijr407 "FIRST TIME ANYONE TRIED" EXCUSE ME? Are you high? What about Fox's "Moon was fake" documentary in 2000? Which was shown not once but twice and is now uploaded 50+ times right here on youtube?
So you're dead wrong. THe USA DID allow a contrary voice. THey DID risk anarchy. And since that hoax doc is all over youtube, it swas pretty inexcusible for you not to know about it, and speaks a lot about your "research." : /
@SpreadingtheMuse FOX broadcast was NOT, i repeat NOT a demonstation broadcast for proving the hoax wrong or right, simply a discussion, like what all of us are having here on youtube. Mythbusters was a demonstration with a specific job of acting out exact theories of the hoax in a controlled environment to experiment the outcome.
@leroijr407 The hell it wasnt. That FOX show drew conclusions and made statements. They said "FAKE" in front of a national audience. It was totally slanted in one direction.
Considering the FOX show WAS slanted against NASA, why were they obligated to help them with anything? They were supposed to assist in their own smear? Thats stupid and you know it.
@SpreadingtheMuse YOU GO ASK NASA FOR THE DOCUMENTS THEY GAVE MYTHBUSTERS AND SAY YOUR GOING TO AIR A TV BROADCAST ABOUT THE OUTCOME AND TELL THEM (NASA) , THEY WILL SEE WHAT UR RESULTS ARE AFTER ITS ON AIR...THEY WONT GIVE YOU SQUAT THEN, UNLESS THEY CONTROL IT...THATS ALL I WAS SAYING. ACT LIKE UR IN NASA'S SHOES, WOULD U RISK IT IF YOU DIDNT KNOW THE OUTCOME. I SURE WOULDNT. THATS POLITICS FOR YA. everybody.....lets get HiGH now...PUFF PUFF ,PASS IT HERE SpreadingtheCHEEKS
@Dmac11a666 I know that! If you read my comment properly, you will see I was arguing that there wouldn't be wind even if it was a hoax (which it isn't) because they claim it was done inside a building, which would mean there would be no wind. I know why the flag was flapping, I just watched the same discovery documentary you did.....
@Dathinkingman Sadly, conspiracy theorists are rednecks from the southern states. They'll just move on and claim the Free Masons brought the Mythbusters. Funny how the idiots in the USA works.
@stuchly1 well i am from pakistan. and my nation must have conspricy theories in there genes. almost all of them they deny both the holocaust (thats a standard position arising due to anti-isrealiism) and 9/11 (almost all say its inside job again arising due to anti-americanism) and also some even go on to say that moon landing was hoax. imagine what i have to deal with daily :( - and dont get them started on freemasons, HARP etc
@TVlandFill - So which of the MB experiments do you believe are wrong, and how are they wrong? What's stopping TV studios or moon hoax film makers from carrying out the same experiments as MBs to prove them wrong? The fact is, MB did what moon hoax film makers should have done years ago but they NEVER did (because they know the results would not be in their favour). Haven't you ever wondered why no moon hoax film re-enacts the Apollo footage to prove to everyone that it *can* be faked on earth?
@MTMind2 Go back and watch the moon hoax videos again. For Petes sake, there are pictures of mountains with the Landing Module in front of them. And then later, we see the same exact mountains with no Module. Explain that! Unless they left someone behind, thats not possible.
@TVlandFill - *Sigh*. If I'm on a landscape and I take a photo that includes mountains in the distance, and then I walk say 100 feet in any direction and then take a photo that includes exactly the same mountains, the foreground has changed but the mountains would be EXACTLY THE SAME. Please explain why you think the mountains should change at such a distance!
Parallax. That explains things perfectly. As MTMind2 mentions, a far away object isn't going to change much in appearance, if at all, from a relatively small change in position compared to a close up object. Moving to the side and/or in front of the LM would allow just the kind of phenomena you described. Also, the moon lacks a significant atmosphere, so no atmospheric haze, which also makes judging distance difficult, so a mountain far away can look like a close up hill.
hang on, if they hoaxed this in a studio, surely there would be no wind in the studio for the flag to flap either? and so saying, "the flag is flapping, there must be wind, it must be hoaxed on earth", is pointless? there would be no wind if it were real OR a hoax, and so the flag flapping would instantly need another explanation than 'wind'
@cronnyberg The lack of air is the reason it is flapping...Its moving cause they moved it while setting it up and there is no air to stop it and very little gravity so it takes longer to stop flapping around...
Your a moron, do the world a favour, stop commenting on things you have no expertise in and fucking kill yourself!! Im British, I have no reason to lie. YOU LANDED ON THE MOON YOU MORON!!! Ask ANYONE outside of the USA who has no reason to lie to the American Public...YOU LANDED ON THE MOON YOU MORON!! The only people that think you didnt land on the moon, are cretins like you who know NOTHING OF THE FACTS! IDIOT!! FUCKTARD!!! GO GET A DARWIN AWARD FOR FUCKS SAKE!!
@lpslostagain We went BACK five times, for six total. So how many times does it take? 10? 20? I want a number and I want it justified.
And what ABOUT the radiation belt? What are you pretending to know about it? How much radiation dose is in it? How much radiation is even lethal to humans anyway? Dont just cut and paste big words, prove that you actually know something.
The flag you see here uses the same physics that I would imagined be applied to jet packs in space, let's say, a possibility in the Halo franchise. In space, there is no weight, but there is still mass and inertia.
@SirGabriel2076 Speaking of which, did you see that Pirate hat at 7:55? If Samus Aran fights against space pirates as well as Halo Spartans, she should do well against a spartan pirate that would be stealing ships with jet packs as I had explained before.
NASA "lost" the landing tapes. They claim they needed to erase the video (what about film?) to recycle them for some other project. (like a man reusing the wedding video tape for the superbowl) Now they are "re-creating" the tapes, based upon TV footage saved by an aussie TV station (which did not need to recycle those tapes, or did not receive the order to DESTROY them)
@light4darkness bahahahahaahahahahahahashahahahahahaha, I love this haha. Okay light4darkness, I'll play along, where's your proof? Who gave this order?
@newel8888 look for example at 9/11 when every security camera, and every amateur that had filmed, was asked to submit the tapes to the fbi for investigation. Some did not send them, so there are still some amateur videos around, but not many. About NASA, this is from official news, mainstream. Why had no one except an aussie station kept the tapes? The order to destroy is usually carried out by having someone "borrow" it, and then, oops it got lost. Or blame it on the janitor.
@light4darkness - It was recorded on video because it was broadcast live via the Apollo TV cameras and watched all over the world, it was not recorded by a film camera and returned, and so video was the only way to record it. It's also not clear how it was lost/deleted (it may still turn up in future years if misplaced/labelled), but given that there are copies around the world of the missing footage, I don't see what anyone thinks NASA had to gain by losing those few minutes of Apollo footage.
We werent on the moon 1969. The USA was humiliated when Russian get Juri Gagarin in the space so they wanted to do something greater becuse USA was and always will be greedy. There is so much evidence that it's a hoax and please to your good watch Zeitgiest adn see what you precious countrey did :))
every myth was busted its not just coincidense its real right infront of us you can either believe it or not its up to you but all the evidence backs up that there was a moon landing.
Think about this. If NASA actually wanted to trick us, WHY WOULD THEY MAKE SUCH STUPID ASS MISTAKES? Of course there's not air on the moon, why would they flap the flag in a studio? That's ridiculous. Give them some credit, seriously.
Guys, about the flag that shouldn't be waving, it's clear that they put an additional bar on the upper horizontal side of the flag (real footage), to make it more stable, so maybe it's because of that that it seems to be waving. If you look at the upper border of the flag, it's completely straight.
I guess you'll just believe what's fed to you. I am sorry but I cannot trust a media that has lied to us in the past and feeds us false stories. No one ever tackles the Van Allen Radiation belt and the fact that 9 of 12 "moonwalkers" are still alive. No cancer or radiation poisoning. The point is not if it was faked or not, and it was, its the way they feed information to it's people as a means of control. So go on and order your RFID chip and get it over with.
@QuantumSpirituality I don't just believe whats fed to me. I would be a christian then. But science is repeatable and verifiable. You should know that as I said the Astronauts received 5 RADs. The average radiotherapy dose is 6000-8000 rads (or 60-80 J/kg). That is why they didn't get cancer. Because they did simply not receive the radiation necessary for it to be a significant risk.
first off all, there are no "radioactive rays" around the earth. complete ignorance right there like usual. the magnetic field and of the planet protects it, so in fact no solar wind is "around" the earth. and it's called solar wind, get it right please. solar wind will not kill an astronaut who goes to the moon and back. are people insane? an astronaut can easily survive in his suit for that period of time on the moon. also, the moon is not some complete vacuum, not even intergalactic space is
@BER2ERKER in fact The external magnetic field of the Moon is very weak.if there would have bin a solar wind there would have bin grild Astronaut and i don't think that there is led in a space suit imagine moving i hope you are satisfied XD
and why didnt they use regalith (don't know how to spell it) if it's the closest thing to the stuff on the moon why didint they use that for the footprint
at 4:41 , does anyone else agree that it almost looks like the contrast and exposure of the shot were enhanced? i'm not sure if its appropriate to assume a digital photo, even if taken with an old camera, will yield the same results as film.
how do u get past the Radioactive Rays around the earth? ... if its so easy to leave the earths Atmosphere, out to the moon beyond the radioactive waves, why didnt the russians go first? they had perfect tech and better space tech than the USA at that time - and Y havnt there been any more moon landing ever since?
Did the russians ever say "We're not going because of radiation?" Did they? Can you give quote or a link or anything? Cause thats not what they said at the time. They said their booster rocket screwed up and 30 sec of googling would have told you that.
We went "back" 5 times. So how many does it take? If 5 isnt enough then why is 10? 15? I want a number and I want you to justify it.
What I'm saying is, as we look to see if this conspiracy theory is a hoax, we are presented with information that supports the astronaut looking so bright as he climbs down to the surface. Well that would make sense IF the shadow of the ship was not so completely dark. You can't explain why the astronaut is so bright when compared to the extreme dark shadow of the ship. How can there be such a dark shadow if there is so much reflective ambient light? I'm not convinced its a hoax.
The two NASA clown-astronauts Mr Bean and Mr Gernan to this day don't know where the radiation belts are.!!These two loonies are very funny ,perhaps funnier than shitbag Aldrin so far believed to be the most ridiculous moron in his own right .
If the reflective quality of the moon surface was enough to keep the astronaut lit while coming down the stairs, then why is the shadow of the ship soooo dark? Wouldn't it go to say that to be consistent, there should be NO black shadow like that, but instead a semi dark grey shadow? The test was incomplete and one sided. Now if you can proove that under the same circumstances, the ship can cast a totally black shadow of the ship, ONLY THEN will you have proven anything.
@DerAntimensch Hey, I like your answer. Normally, i hate it when people don't answer a question, and then simply follow up with a question of their own. But your response is fair and makes a good point. I'm leaning toward believing it was not a hoax and feel very strongly this video should not be taken down. But there are still things that are not adding up, like the photos and the + sign anomalies. Keep up the good work. -Methos.
@DerAntimensch Because you have never taken a science class in your entire life. Reflectivity is ALSO a function of materials and apparent color (White reflects greater than Black). By the way, I'm seeing a LOT of the ship reflected in the second source lighting from the regolith (Nasa photo) - I have no idea what you are looking at to make this claim (4:43)
@DerAntimensch Well they couldve photoshopped it or something. Not saying those hoax myths are true, but the unnatural lighting can be something faked,
@Toni112007 Yeah but can you PROVE any "fake?" You cant just invent a whole other conspiracy to explain your first conspiracy. Thats called making up your story as yo ugo.
@DerAntimensch Wrinkled isolation gold foil on moon module is different wrinkled then on mythbusters model and reflects mostly black picture of space.
@wrestlingfan4ever95 Because you're looking at the reflected light. Shine a light on a ball in a dark room. The light is hitting the ball. If you look at the ball you still see the light. It doesn't mean that there are two light sources, just one light source. Same deal with the moon. You stand on the moon and look at the earth (ball) you still see light because the light is hitting it. Doesn't mean the earth is reflecting/making light at all.
there's obviously a bias with these American nationalists. You can't test the occurance without actually going to the moon because, well ... Earth is not like the moon
@RandomGuyOfAwesome The very fact that the moon orbits the Earth, not the other way around, means by definition it has less mass and less gravity. You can find out exactly how much smaller without ever leaving your couch using F = G(m1 * m2) / r^2 (an equation of gravitation found in the first chapter of almost any physics textbook). Scientists knew the gravitational pull of the moon hundreds of years before Apollo 11 got there.
Gravity is based on mass. Large objects have a lot, small objects have a little. We've known for centuries that the Moon is smaller than us based on its eclipse shadow and tidal forces and etc etc.
At 1:23 you see the photo of the lit astrunaut. Well I can explain this... The moon is a barron place were there are no objects to block the sun. The sun reflected off the space modual thing. It reflects of and bounces the light round everywhere. Even the back were the sun is not directly there. The light still cause a shadow of the space ship modual but the light is reflected and lights up the astruanut. As I said there is nothing blocking the sun so it just reflects of the craft lighting him.
I think the whole moon is a hoax. It doesn't exist.
assassinscreed112 2 days ago
The astronaut in the shadow: obviously there is no way that the film could have been processed with increased contrast either..... and anyway the moon in made of cheese, everyone knows that.
the247s 3 days ago
also they dont show you the other evidence about the sun needing to be smaller than what it is in some of the visor shots we have.no talk about radiation belts yet either.im going to post a link to all you who dont belive the facts
deadrekon10 6 days ago
@deadrekon10 - The claim the sun in the visor in some shots should be smaller is as uninformed as the claim we should see stars in Apollo photos & film. As for the radiation belts, also known as the Van Allen belts, Dr Van Allen himself said & I quote "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense".
MTMind2 6 days ago
@deadrekon10 dude. you need to wake and shut the fuck up.
toadape 2 days ago
i cant belive this ,even when they show the evidence right in front of you ,hahahahahah,all you have to do is realize ,the actual sun would be further away than that ''spot light '' they are using, also they jumble the facts.anybody who said the rock diverging shadows were from two lights is fake.we know it comes from one light.and the position where you have your spot light is exactly where the light would have been when faked on a real scale.artificial light.
deadrekon10 6 days ago
One good observation.....they are Yanks, don't they gain from not proving the moon landing was fake. I mean the Yanks keep their "first on the moon" claim and the MB audience witch are mostly other Yanks feel all so proud and fuzzy inside....
Raggi86 6 days ago
@Raggi86 so what ur asking is to mythbuasters make a show where they bust the myth that they are not busting this myth at all? even if u see fact like this, u refuse to believe because that human nature, its hard to accept that ur wrong so u claim something like "well they got paid by us coverment!!!"
Jop3lius 6 days ago
Its funny how people believe the media about a lie that was propagated by the media in the first place
branclooster 1 week ago in playlist Mythbusters: Moon Landing Isn't A Hoax
the shaft is a little tight in the hole lol
ReallyFunnyIssh 2 weeks ago
tbh, they should have turned the lights off to eliminate any suspicion of the spacesuit on the ladder of the LEM having another light
mangomonkey278 2 weeks ago
Stop at 0:00 to look panic
supersamonhalo 2 weeks ago
Oh yes, the moon's reflectivity index must be 8 percent, because that's what NASA told them...
BlackHoleMan77 4 weeks ago
@BlackHoleMan77 - All other's who have carried out that same experiment have achieved the same results, for example, watch the following documentary;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
Watch from 23:23 to 24:23, they show how the light from the ground reflects the light back up and illuminates the astronaut (and the presenter). Therefore the claim that everything in shadow should be black is fully debunked, it's now up to moon hoax believers to do the same experiments to prove them wrong :)
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
whatever you tell these conspiracy theorists, they will stick to their claim. proof them wrong, they blabla again, you proof them wrong again and they start insulting you as "naive" or "blind". there's no arguing. wasted intellect.
L0rdR3v4n 1 month ago 9
NASA GOT BUSTED BY MYTHBUSTERS~! >:D
DragonBleu01 1 month ago
PEOPLE JUST GOT PWNED! ;)
MsRainBowTights 1 month ago
moon doesn't reflect back at you.. you can see light and there is light from the sun on the moon and that's why you can see it..
GloomY1HaveN 1 month ago
@GloomY1HaveN spreading nonsense? watch out what you're saying, there are people who believe everything they read. ask your physics person of reliance about light, color and stuff. before posting.
L0rdR3v4n 1 month ago
@L0rdR3v4n The moon's surface is reflective but if it wasn't we will still be able to see it.. He said it like that's the only reason why we see it.
GloomY1HaveN 1 month ago
@GloomY1HaveN Um, how? If the moon was 100% non reflective, or a 0.0% albedo all we would 'see' would be a silhouette against the sky.
loperspest 2 weeks ago
geeks
TheBoylansean 1 month ago
5:19 :)
TheTypoGoddess 1 month ago
thanks for uploading
I enjoy weed
80sMeavyHetal 1 month ago
Would've still like to have seen the other photos and such tested by the Mythbusters ...
93ZzZ93 1 month ago
But they haven't explained how the cross hair got behind the various photos.. But I really wish they wouldn't use the phrase conspiracy theorists, it is such a damaging word which prevents free thinking in millions of people
crisisofconsciousnes 1 month ago
@crisisofconsciousnes
Actually the reason is "emulsion bleed" where a very overexposed area of the film 'bleeds' outwards slightly, and as the fiducials are very thin they can easily be partly or completely covered.
This is very noticeable in some of the images where only the overexposed section of an object 'covers' the crosshairs and the rest does not.
"free thinking"
Personally I prefer verifiable evidence.
ytmoog 1 month ago
@crisisofconsciousnes The "crosshair" is ridiculous on the face of it. So what do you think? That NASA went out on its "set" and planted crosshairs all over it so they'd show up in the photo? Really?
This is about chemical film. You take a pic of a bright background with a tiny dark object and the brightness can bleed over. Take a pic on a bright day, with chemical film, of thin power lines against a bright sky and you'll see the exact same thing.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
the only reason I don't like to admit this is because the people who dismiss conspiracy theories usually group all these phenomena together, I believe they went to the moon but I am certain 911 was an inside job.
crisisofconsciousnes 1 month ago
cosmic radiation means the film would be ruined so they are busted ha
royrichardsify 1 month ago
@royrichardsify "cosmic" radiation is 88% particle radiation, which cannot penetrate anything made of plastic. So try again.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
I bow to your superior knowledge. However, the Moon is the highest emitter of gamma radiation in the solar system. Gamma rays are penetrating and are not good for photographic film. That would be the least of Neil and Buzz's problems though because they would be dead.
royrichardsify 1 month ago
@royrichardsify Errr, I would have thought that the sun is the highest emitter. And since the moon has no interior emitters of its own, and only reflects what the sun blasts its way...
But anywho. How big of a dose of gamma rays does it take to kill a person? And what is the dose rate on the moon? See, if you have no idea what the fatal dose is, then you have no business saying that the moon "has to" have that amount, now do you?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
You may be right that the Sun is the highest emitter but I believe you are not. I read something about it once and the source was said to be cosmic, rather than solar radiation. I don't know, off hand, the fatal dose of gamma rays or even the units used to measure them. I seem to recall that the intensity on the moon approached a million times that on Earth. It doesn't get much more fatal than that. Check it out, you'll find Apollo was a hoax.
royrichardsify 1 month ago
@royrichardsify "million times" Well, thats not even close. Thats such a gargantuan inflated ridiculous number that I would be surprised at all if you told me you got it from a dork hoaxpage. A hoaxpage that strangely never worked a Radiation or technical job in their life. Why would you gullibly believe that?
See, I AM a rad worker. I actually work in this stuff so I know everything you read is certifiable BS. There's no evidence of "fake" that hasnt been refuted. None
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
If I'm not even close perhaps you would let us know the true levels on the moon. Information is so hard to come by. It seems to be accepted that a small amount of cosmic gamma rays make it to Earth - a tiny fraction of the radiation that is deflected and scattered by Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. Gamma rays are blocked almost totally yet are a health risk to frequent flyers. The moon has no magnetic field, no atmosphere. A million times doesn't sound so far out.
royrichardsify 1 month ago
@royrichardsify For starters, the Earth's magnetic field doesnt stop ANY Gamma radiation, as gamma is neutral charged. The VABs only catch Alpha (pos) and Beta (neg). So thats lesson 1 ;)
Lesson 2: Gammas are the WEAKEST of those 3 kinds, having only 1/10th the danger of beta, 1/20th of alpha.
Lesson 3: The dose rates on the moon are equal to a year on Earth. One day on the moon gives you a years normal radiation.
So, have you died in the last year and just...didnt notice? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse This is unfair. You know this stuff from your work but won't reveal how you know it. I only know things from Wikipedia but the point is I am trying to understand. As I see it, gamma is the highest energy radiation there is. It is bad for you. How can you know the amount of gamma on the moon? Just how do you know this?
royrichardsify 5 days ago
@royrichardsify "As I see it" isnt correct unfortunately. Gamma is the WEAKEST of radiations, having only 1/10th the damage of beta, 1/20th that of alpha. Thats freely available radiation safety knowledge. A "danger" level of gamma is over 1000 counts per minute, whereas alphas danger level is 20
MEANWHILE: Its not what I say the gamma levels are. YOU are the one saying "DEATH!" without any numbers for support. If you dont know the gamma, then why "must" it be danger level?
SpreadingtheMuse 4 days ago
@royrichardsify Cosmic or rather galactic radiation comes from deep space. The sun emits solar magnetic rays that sweeps out through the solar system and disipates the very dangerous galactic radiation, By the time galactic radiation reaches the inner solar system they are very much reduced in intensity. Solar radiation is not a high risk for the short time astronauts spend in space. Solar flares are though, luckily they can be anticipated much like the weather and avoided.
Spindry96 1 month ago
@Spindry96
What about ultraviolet and infrared lol? These "astronauts" would be cooked by every type of radiation there is. The temperature on the moon is well above the boiling point of water. They were wandering around in a vacuum, a sort of giant thermos flask. If they were water-cooled, or whatever, that water would boil very fast. You couldn't put it through a radiator for air cooling cos there's no air. It's a joke.
royrichardsify 1 month ago
@royrichardsify -153c to +107c are the moons temperature range. To deal with these extrems spacesuits even back then were designed with 12+ layers. lncluding a reflective layer for the Sunlight, ultraviolet protective layer, insulation layer, internal heating and cooling systems and internal heat exchange pumps that remove excess heat. My coffee is in a thermos (vaccum) but doesn't boil.
Spindry96 1 month ago
@Spindry96 Yes but if you put coffee in a transparent thermos flask and then put it on the moon it will explode. It's very well to say, oh, it was a high tech space suit but what is an internal heat exhanger? I mean where does the heat go.
royrichardsify 5 days ago
@royrichardsify The apollo space suit had five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dracon for heat protection. A three layer Liquid cooling and Ventilation Garment with plastic tubing circulated water to cool the astronaut down, minimize sweating and fogging of the suit helmet. Water was supplied from the backpack where water was chilled by an ice subliator. Not sure why you think a thermos would explode in space. Space itself is a vaccum and spaceships don't explode
Spindry96 5 days ago
@royrichardsify A heat exchanger is something like a radiator on your car, where cool liquid is circulated around the hot spots. The heat goes into the liquid and away from the engine. I'm not certain as the specifics of the spacesuits except that it was similar. One doesnt need a radiator either to expel the heat, as another option is a heat sink, containing the heat in an isolated element away from the body
SpreadingtheMuse 4 days ago
@royrichardsify Why would a thermos explode? Internal pressure can be predicted, and you just have to build a ship/suit/thermos strong enough to withstand it.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 days ago
@royrichardsify What ABOUT Ultravoilet and infrared? Are those ever mentioned?
Lesson 4: 88% of space radiation is Alpha and Beta (the suns solar wind)
Lesson : Both alpha and beta, being PARTICLES, not light, can be blocked by anything. Nuke reactors use plexiglass
Lesson 5: Infrared is heat. But the moon is the same distance from the sun that we are, so it gets equal heat. Even then, they didnt land at high noon, but at a twilight meridian. Less light ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@royrichardsify Before you fly off on any more newb assumptions, best let you know what I do for a living. I WORK in radiation. I've BEEN in high rad fields and high charged-particle environments. I've done the work with my own two hands. I know exactly what it takes to block and be safe from every single kind of radiation you've mentioned. And I was using a Geiger counter only yesterday. Whatever you think you read on a dork webpage is wannabe idiot manure.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse lol you have absorbed too many gamma rays and are mutating. Do you really think the moon is the same temperature as the earth? And you say I read dork idiot manure.
royrichardsify 5 days ago
@royrichardsify The moon DOES have spots where the temp is the same. That provable with a simple thought experiment:
So the moon is -300 degrees on the dark side. Just ask any hoax pusher. The moon is +300 on the day side, high noon. Therefore, how can there not be some location BETWEEN the two spots? Where the temp is between +300 and -300?
Hint, there is, and in the perfectly predictable spot: Twilight. 0 degrees.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Gamma rays, my man.
royrichardsify 1 month ago
Comment removed
BeatBoyCrow 1 month ago
Why did the silt in the moon video's fall back to earth so abruptly? YOU KNOW WHAT! Someone could actually measure the force of the kick on the silt (from the video), and propose a possible max height (using a proposed angle of impact) that the silt should have gone before it fell to the moon's surface. If the max height achieved correlates with the earth's gravity then they are on EARTH. If the max height achieved correlates with the moon's gravity then they are on the MOON. Love physics <3
BeatBoyCrow 1 month ago
@BeatBoyCrow - Yep, and has been done for many Apollo clips, where in each case the dust and objects correlates with the moon's gravity (allowing for a margin or error). For example;
/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE
/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs
All examples of dust being thrown up, by astronauts and rover, matches the moon's gravity. To make it appear to match earth's gravity, the video must be sped up 2.46x, but then the astronauts movements are too fast, proving it wasn't filmed on earth and slowed down :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
NASA ALLOWED THE SERIES TO SHOW THIS..FIRST TIME ANYONE TRIED TO PROVE THEM WRONG on national television.You really think NASA would communicate and give MYTHBUSTERS everthing they need to know about what they are testing just to show (ON AIR) that the biggest event in history was a lie..and all your school textbooks need to be changed.I THINK NOT..LOL.even if 50 years technology proves it to be wrong the government will still deny it,USA cant let us loose their trust and risk anarchy or riots
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 - But what's stopping others from doing the same experiments as MBs? What's stopping TV program, documentary and film makers from around the world from performing the same experiments as MBs and more? Why have none of the moon hoax film makers ever carried out experiments to show how the landings were faked, such as rigging up an actor on wires over a dust covered stage and using slo-mo to 'prove' it can be done on earth? MBs have done what NO moon hoax maker has ever dared to do :-)
MTMind2 2 months ago
@MTMind2 true, they have.but look at how long it took them to do it.people were skeptical about the walking on the soon after the release of the pictures and poor video, but it took well over 30 years for NASA to put this together for mythbusters.Some people believe we never went in the first place, and not going back for 40+ years doesn't help the argument that we did.
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 - But NASA didn't 'put this together', Mythbusters did, it's their programme.
Recently I found another programme that carried out similar experiments with the same results, and NASA had no involvement;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
I disagree with the poor video claim, considering it was a live TV broadcast from the moon (i.e. at record distances), the video quality is good and it got better with every mission.
True not going back doesn't help, but we didn't go because it was cheap or easy.
MTMind2 2 months ago
@MTMind2 I dont think JFK would have let us fake it, Hense his untimely death. try myth busting 2001: space odessey. they didnt go to the other planets, but it looks JUST like space walking. and thats what NASA bought. in my opinion. think of this. what if NASA did go to the moon. Just not in 1969? What if NASA dont wanna go back because todays technology is 1080 progressive HD recording, and everything in the first moon landing pics would look different from today?
leroijr407 2 months ago
@MTMind2 All space flight missions (apart from the moon missions) have been in the safety of earths magnetic field, protecting from harmful radiation, the non-believers say that the first extra-terrestrial explorers would come back and generate all sorts off bodily problems that are related to high doses of radiation (thats why you have a thick lead plate resting on your body when you get a relativity weak x-ray). None of the astronauts have developed any kind of problems relating to radiation.
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 I thought several astronauts had developed cataracts, specifically cause they WERE exposed to radiation. One of them even died of cancer.
But "radiation" is 9/10ths fear-mongering by laymen who dont know the first thing. One, the VABs were passed thru in mere minutes. Two, the VABs are mostly alpha and beta radiationh, both of which are blocked by plastic.
Even Dr. Van Allen himself said the claim of hoax was baseless.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@MTMind2 if it was faked in a studio with the great director Stanley Kubrick (RIP) and was all an act. i think about how much money president JFK was allowing NASA to spend to get to the moon on HIS (JFK"S) promise in that decade. NO business would pass that up. Greedy CEO's, right. millions and millions could have been spent on special effects to fake it just so corporate NASA could keep the money anyway.
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 - The Stanley Kubrick claim is based upon his 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, however his film is full of so many errors that's it's nonsense to think he could have faked the footage :) As shown here;
/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
No sci-fi movie has ever matched the Apollo footage using wires and slo-mo as claimed, and don't you find it strange that NO moon hoax film has ever recreated the Apollo footage to prove it could be done on earth? Surely that's the best proof?
MTMind2 2 months ago
@MTMind2 at the time of 1969 stanley was the only director remotely close to what NASA wanted to acheive. with kubricks directing and NASA's knowledge of weightless environments from there weightless tubes they have, together with all the MONEY nasa has , they could make possibly anything happen. REMEMBER,funds were limited in 2001 a space odessey. (NOT WITH NASA)So you cant compare that movie.
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 - With all due respect my friend, a weightless tube the size you're suggesting is impossible. You can't just make up tech to suit your theory :-), you have to go with what's known and proven to exist. Today, they still use airplanes on a parabolic flight path to simulate 20-30 seconds or so of weightlessness or lower gravity. Why hasn't a better solution been found to simulate lower gravity over 40 years later? Because simply throwing money at something doesn't make it possible.
MTMind2 2 months ago
@leroijr407 Except when Kubrick DID fake the moon for his movie 2001, it looked fake as all hell.
The logic for bringing kubrick into this goes like "Well he made a movie about space, and the moon is in space, therefore he faked it." Its retarded as all hell.
2001 looks FAKE. Even ten years later, the moon sequence of Superman II, big budget of trillions of dollars, THAT looked even more fake. The special fx did not exist.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@leroijr407 "FIRST TIME ANYONE TRIED" EXCUSE ME? Are you high? What about Fox's "Moon was fake" documentary in 2000? Which was shown not once but twice and is now uploaded 50+ times right here on youtube?
So you're dead wrong. THe USA DID allow a contrary voice. THey DID risk anarchy. And since that hoax doc is all over youtube, it swas pretty inexcusible for you not to know about it, and speaks a lot about your "research." : /
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse FOX broadcast was NOT, i repeat NOT a demonstation broadcast for proving the hoax wrong or right, simply a discussion, like what all of us are having here on youtube. Mythbusters was a demonstration with a specific job of acting out exact theories of the hoax in a controlled environment to experiment the outcome.
leroijr407 2 months ago
@leroijr407 The hell it wasnt. That FOX show drew conclusions and made statements. They said "FAKE" in front of a national audience. It was totally slanted in one direction.
Considering the FOX show WAS slanted against NASA, why were they obligated to help them with anything? They were supposed to assist in their own smear? Thats stupid and you know it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse YOU GO ASK NASA FOR THE DOCUMENTS THEY GAVE MYTHBUSTERS AND SAY YOUR GOING TO AIR A TV BROADCAST ABOUT THE OUTCOME AND TELL THEM (NASA) , THEY WILL SEE WHAT UR RESULTS ARE AFTER ITS ON AIR...THEY WONT GIVE YOU SQUAT THEN, UNLESS THEY CONTROL IT...THATS ALL I WAS SAYING. ACT LIKE UR IN NASA'S SHOES, WOULD U RISK IT IF YOU DIDNT KNOW THE OUTCOME. I SURE WOULDNT. THATS POLITICS FOR YA. everybody.....lets get HiGH now...PUFF PUFF ,PASS IT HERE SpreadingtheCHEEKS
leroijr407 2 months ago
@Dmac11a666 I know that! If you read my comment properly, you will see I was arguing that there wouldn't be wind even if it was a hoax (which it isn't) because they claim it was done inside a building, which would mean there would be no wind. I know why the flag was flapping, I just watched the same discovery documentary you did.....
cronnyberg 2 months ago
28 people are blatantly retarded
cheesetownbaseball10 2 months ago
28 people don't like getting PWNED!!!
Dmac11a666 2 months ago 24
HQ?
Landersdorfer 2 months ago
THE MYTH BUSTERS PWNED THE COSPIRARY THEORISTS !
Dathinkingman 2 months ago 44
@Dathinkingman Sadly, conspiracy theorists are rednecks from the southern states. They'll just move on and claim the Free Masons brought the Mythbusters. Funny how the idiots in the USA works.
lediadruid 1 month ago
@Dathinkingman the only way this could have ended, don't you think? I mean, denying moon landing is as obvious as denying holocaust... =/
stuchly1 2 weeks ago
@stuchly1 well i am from pakistan. and my nation must have conspricy theories in there genes. almost all of them they deny both the holocaust (thats a standard position arising due to anti-isrealiism) and 9/11 (almost all say its inside job again arising due to anti-americanism) and also some even go on to say that moon landing was hoax. imagine what i have to deal with daily :( - and dont get them started on freemasons, HARP etc
Dathinkingman 2 weeks ago
@Dathinkingman Wow... I don't envy you your position. That's out of question. But hey, some americans think Obama is the same person as Osama, so...
stuchly1 2 weeks ago
I wonder how much they paid these jerks, to help try to put the lid back on this?
TVlandFill 2 months ago
@TVlandFill - So which of the MB experiments do you believe are wrong, and how are they wrong? What's stopping TV studios or moon hoax film makers from carrying out the same experiments as MBs to prove them wrong? The fact is, MB did what moon hoax film makers should have done years ago but they NEVER did (because they know the results would not be in their favour). Haven't you ever wondered why no moon hoax film re-enacts the Apollo footage to prove to everyone that it *can* be faked on earth?
MTMind2 2 months ago
@MTMind2 Go back and watch the moon hoax videos again. For Petes sake, there are pictures of mountains with the Landing Module in front of them. And then later, we see the same exact mountains with no Module. Explain that! Unless they left someone behind, thats not possible.
TVlandFill 2 months ago
@TVlandFill - *Sigh*. If I'm on a landscape and I take a photo that includes mountains in the distance, and then I walk say 100 feet in any direction and then take a photo that includes exactly the same mountains, the foreground has changed but the mountains would be EXACTLY THE SAME. Please explain why you think the mountains should change at such a distance!
MTMind2 2 months ago
@TVlandFill
Parallax. That explains things perfectly. As MTMind2 mentions, a far away object isn't going to change much in appearance, if at all, from a relatively small change in position compared to a close up object. Moving to the side and/or in front of the LM would allow just the kind of phenomena you described. Also, the moon lacks a significant atmosphere, so no atmospheric haze, which also makes judging distance difficult, so a mountain far away can look like a close up hill.
loperspest 2 months ago
hang on, if they hoaxed this in a studio, surely there would be no wind in the studio for the flag to flap either? and so saying, "the flag is flapping, there must be wind, it must be hoaxed on earth", is pointless? there would be no wind if it were real OR a hoax, and so the flag flapping would instantly need another explanation than 'wind'
cronnyberg 2 months ago
@cronnyberg The lack of air is the reason it is flapping...Its moving cause they moved it while setting it up and there is no air to stop it and very little gravity so it takes longer to stop flapping around...
Dmac11a666 2 months ago
You can see the photo ASSI-40-5869 is fake it looks a lot like my toy
daniel481k 3 months ago
@daniel481k - Looks perfectly fine to me, but I guess anything can look fake to someone who's looking for it.
MTMind2 3 months ago
prove this /watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM moon landing was fake IMO , and why have we never went back? what about the radiation belt?
lpslostagain 3 months ago
@lpslostagain
Your a moron, do the world a favour, stop commenting on things you have no expertise in and fucking kill yourself!! Im British, I have no reason to lie. YOU LANDED ON THE MOON YOU MORON!!! Ask ANYONE outside of the USA who has no reason to lie to the American Public...YOU LANDED ON THE MOON YOU MORON!! The only people that think you didnt land on the moon, are cretins like you who know NOTHING OF THE FACTS! IDIOT!! FUCKTARD!!! GO GET A DARWIN AWARD FOR FUCKS SAKE!!
DeamonStorm666 3 months ago
@DeamonStorm666 thank you, someone that isnt retarded!! respect bro
InfectedInHD 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lpslostagain We went BACK five times, for six total. So how many times does it take? 10? 20? I want a number and I want it justified.
And what ABOUT the radiation belt? What are you pretending to know about it? How much radiation dose is in it? How much radiation is even lethal to humans anyway? Dont just cut and paste big words, prove that you actually know something.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@lpslostagain We went back like 7 other fucking times
BANTYxROOSTER 3 months ago
7:00 . Its a portable booby squeezer.
generalbagsik 4 months ago
"You're actually gonna let us use it."
"Yeah, sure."
"He's obviously never seen this show before..."
(shows shots of explosions and Buster getting killed)
xD
KittyGal9213 4 months ago
The flag you see here uses the same physics that I would imagined be applied to jet packs in space, let's say, a possibility in the Halo franchise. In space, there is no weight, but there is still mass and inertia.
SirGabriel2076 4 months ago
@SirGabriel2076 Speaking of which, did you see that Pirate hat at 7:55? If Samus Aran fights against space pirates as well as Halo Spartans, she should do well against a spartan pirate that would be stealing ships with jet packs as I had explained before.
SirGabriel2076 4 months ago
I'm your father join the dark side
Ironbat147 4 months ago
NASA "lost" the landing tapes. They claim they needed to erase the video (what about film?) to recycle them for some other project. (like a man reusing the wedding video tape for the superbowl) Now they are "re-creating" the tapes, based upon TV footage saved by an aussie TV station (which did not need to recycle those tapes, or did not receive the order to DESTROY them)
light4darkness 4 months ago
@light4darkness bahahahahaahahahahahahashahahahahahaha, I love this haha. Okay light4darkness, I'll play along, where's your proof? Who gave this order?
newel8888 4 months ago
@newel8888 look for example at 9/11 when every security camera, and every amateur that had filmed, was asked to submit the tapes to the fbi for investigation. Some did not send them, so there are still some amateur videos around, but not many. About NASA, this is from official news, mainstream. Why had no one except an aussie station kept the tapes? The order to destroy is usually carried out by having someone "borrow" it, and then, oops it got lost. Or blame it on the janitor.
light4darkness 4 months ago
@light4darkness - It was recorded on video because it was broadcast live via the Apollo TV cameras and watched all over the world, it was not recorded by a film camera and returned, and so video was the only way to record it. It's also not clear how it was lost/deleted (it may still turn up in future years if misplaced/labelled), but given that there are copies around the world of the missing footage, I don't see what anyone thinks NASA had to gain by losing those few minutes of Apollo footage.
MTMind2 4 months ago
We werent on the moon 1969. The USA was humiliated when Russian get Juri Gagarin in the space so they wanted to do something greater becuse USA was and always will be greedy. There is so much evidence that it's a hoax and please to your good watch Zeitgiest adn see what you precious countrey did :))
Ludach123 4 months ago
@Ludach123 here, wear this nice and comfortable straightjacket, Napoleon.
BortolanAlexandre 4 months ago
those who says the moon landing was real, i bet their parents must have work for nasa or something :P
afiq210595 4 months ago
@afiq210595
Then you lost the bet. ;) How much were you dumb enough to lose?
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
every myth was busted its not just coincidense its real right infront of us you can either believe it or not its up to you but all the evidence backs up that there was a moon landing.
yellowcorba1 4 months ago
Think about this. If NASA actually wanted to trick us, WHY WOULD THEY MAKE SUCH STUPID ASS MISTAKES? Of course there's not air on the moon, why would they flap the flag in a studio? That's ridiculous. Give them some credit, seriously.
Roflcopter4b 5 months ago
@Roflcopter4b Got to love how these conspiracy theorists can make such assumptions without any backup evidence.
yellowcorba1 4 months ago
Guys, about the flag that shouldn't be waving, it's clear that they put an additional bar on the upper horizontal side of the flag (real footage), to make it more stable, so maybe it's because of that that it seems to be waving. If you look at the upper border of the flag, it's completely straight.
Fidelis94 5 months ago
LOL Flag Assy.
Ascianic 5 months ago
Lol conspiracy theorists are such idiots. They speak out of their ass! I'm glad this show puts them to shame :)
TheNexxtGreatThing 5 months ago
she barely steps in the fucking stand
NYG17ever 5 months ago
6:40 she has a price at on her shoe :S lolololololol
Meeemmz 5 months ago
Comment removed
Meeemmz 5 months ago
Did you notice the lack of film footage of the astronaut in the shadow of the ship, only a photo.
4:07
(sorry, don't know how to do that time stamp thing)
iTchySkiDs 5 months ago
This episode is pretty condescending and lazy IMO
fishsandwichpatrol 5 months ago
I guess you'll just believe what's fed to you. I am sorry but I cannot trust a media that has lied to us in the past and feeds us false stories. No one ever tackles the Van Allen Radiation belt and the fact that 9 of 12 "moonwalkers" are still alive. No cancer or radiation poisoning. The point is not if it was faked or not, and it was, its the way they feed information to it's people as a means of control. So go on and order your RFID chip and get it over with.
QuantumSpirituality 5 months ago
@QuantumSpirituality I don't just believe whats fed to me. I would be a christian then. But science is repeatable and verifiable. You should know that as I said the Astronauts received 5 RADs. The average radiotherapy dose is 6000-8000 rads (or 60-80 J/kg). That is why they didn't get cancer. Because they did simply not receive the radiation necessary for it to be a significant risk.
XtremeGoose 5 months ago
i saw a picture in a german doc on tv were one of the little + on the picture was half hiden by a rock i would mean that it was work't on
macintosh39 5 months ago
first off all, there are no "radioactive rays" around the earth. complete ignorance right there like usual. the magnetic field and of the planet protects it, so in fact no solar wind is "around" the earth. and it's called solar wind, get it right please. solar wind will not kill an astronaut who goes to the moon and back. are people insane? an astronaut can easily survive in his suit for that period of time on the moon. also, the moon is not some complete vacuum, not even intergalactic space is
BER2ERKER 5 months ago
@BER2ERKER in fact The external magnetic field of the Moon is very weak.if there would have bin a solar wind there would have bin grild Astronaut and i don't think that there is led in a space suit imagine moving i hope you are satisfied XD
macintosh39 5 months ago
they did the footprint in the "vacuum" chamber after this; this was just an introduction I think to the myth.
BER2ERKER 5 months ago
All I disagree with is the footprint part, because I'd imagine dust would be plentiful, and thin enough to keep the shape of the print like wet sand.
HoroGirl 5 months ago
and why didnt they use regalith (don't know how to spell it) if it's the closest thing to the stuff on the moon why didint they use that for the footprint
MrDip02 5 months ago
at 4:41 , does anyone else agree that it almost looks like the contrast and exposure of the shot were enhanced? i'm not sure if its appropriate to assume a digital photo, even if taken with an old camera, will yield the same results as film.
louis424 6 months ago in playlist Mythbusters: Moon Landing Isn't A Hoax
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 6 months ago
Comment removed
HamerD 6 months ago
how do u get past the Radioactive Rays around the earth? ... if its so easy to leave the earths Atmosphere, out to the moon beyond the radioactive waves, why didnt the russians go first? they had perfect tech and better space tech than the USA at that time - and Y havnt there been any more moon landing ever since?
joshebizonline 6 months ago
@joshebizonline
Did the russians ever say "We're not going because of radiation?" Did they? Can you give quote or a link or anything? Cause thats not what they said at the time. They said their booster rocket screwed up and 30 sec of googling would have told you that.
We went "back" 5 times. So how many does it take? If 5 isnt enough then why is 10? 15? I want a number and I want you to justify it.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshebizonline You have no idea what you are talking about.
jgriff251 6 months ago
5:20 shaft is a little tight in the hole hm?
boardfu 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAIL! IDIOTS,THEY LANDED ON THE MOON AND THAT'S IT!
TheAITlab 6 months ago
5:20 ....thats what she said.
warriorhockey055 6 months ago
what about the crosshairs on all the photos?
shouldent they do somthing about that?
SuperPatbob 6 months ago
What I'm saying is, as we look to see if this conspiracy theory is a hoax, we are presented with information that supports the astronaut looking so bright as he climbs down to the surface. Well that would make sense IF the shadow of the ship was not so completely dark. You can't explain why the astronaut is so bright when compared to the extreme dark shadow of the ship. How can there be such a dark shadow if there is so much reflective ambient light? I'm not convinced its a hoax.
mwmethos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The two NASA clown-astronauts Mr Bean and Mr Gernan to this day don't know where the radiation belts are.!!These two loonies are very funny ,perhaps funnier than shitbag Aldrin so far believed to be the most ridiculous moron in his own right .
watch?v=TgmGZlyZObE
potrodsas 6 months ago
7:00
XKillerBoy 6 months ago
If the reflective quality of the moon surface was enough to keep the astronaut lit while coming down the stairs, then why is the shadow of the ship soooo dark? Wouldn't it go to say that to be consistent, there should be NO black shadow like that, but instead a semi dark grey shadow? The test was incomplete and one sided. Now if you can proove that under the same circumstances, the ship can cast a totally black shadow of the ship, ONLY THEN will you have proven anything.
mwmethos 6 months ago
@mwmethos Isn't it what they did? oO on the picture they took the shadow of the ship is totally black
monsterak471 6 months ago
@mwmethos what
TheVisibleWind 6 months ago
@mwmethos If there was second light source, why was only the astronaut illuminated and the ship still so dark?
DerAntimensch 6 months ago 26
@DerAntimensch so true man
007MrYang 5 months ago
@DerAntimensch Hey, I like your answer. Normally, i hate it when people don't answer a question, and then simply follow up with a question of their own. But your response is fair and makes a good point. I'm leaning toward believing it was not a hoax and feel very strongly this video should not be taken down. But there are still things that are not adding up, like the photos and the + sign anomalies. Keep up the good work. -Methos.
mwmethos 5 months ago
@DerAntimensch Because you have never taken a science class in your entire life. Reflectivity is ALSO a function of materials and apparent color (White reflects greater than Black). By the way, I'm seeing a LOT of the ship reflected in the second source lighting from the regolith (Nasa photo) - I have no idea what you are looking at to make this claim (4:43)
myrtlebox 4 months ago
@DerAntimensch Well they couldve photoshopped it or something. Not saying those hoax myths are true, but the unnatural lighting can be something faked,
GameLUVer0920 4 months ago
@GameLUVer0920
ya they photopshopped it in 1969
korbindallis 3 months ago
@DerAntimensch you dont think they could edit picture???pictures or videos can be easly faked
Toni112007 3 months ago
@Toni112007 Yeah but can you PROVE any "fake?" You cant just invent a whole other conspiracy to explain your first conspiracy. Thats called making up your story as yo ugo.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@DerAntimensch Wrinkled isolation gold foil on moon module is different wrinkled then on mythbusters model and reflects mostly black picture of space.
Vladek385 2 months ago
I want to fuck Kari. So. Bad.
xzckx 6 months ago
@xzckx lol why? she looks lik she's sisters with that girl from those insurance commercial with the funny hair
moody516 6 months ago
what command strip? amstrong did not have that.. did he?
MrJan9k 6 months ago
theres two light sources on the moon which is the sun and earth!!!
wrestlingfan4ever95 6 months ago
@wrestlingfan4ever95 The Earth is lit BY the Sun. =.=
Animesketcher1234 6 months ago
@Animesketcher1234 yes but when your on the moon and look at the earth you see light not pitch dark
wrestlingfan4ever95 6 months ago
@wrestlingfan4ever95 Because you're looking at the reflected light. Shine a light on a ball in a dark room. The light is hitting the ball. If you look at the ball you still see the light. It doesn't mean that there are two light sources, just one light source. Same deal with the moon. You stand on the moon and look at the earth (ball) you still see light because the light is hitting it. Doesn't mean the earth is reflecting/making light at all.
oosyaoo 6 months ago
5:19 that's what she said
malfunction06 6 months ago
there's obviously a bias with these American nationalists. You can't test the occurance without actually going to the moon because, well ... Earth is not like the moon
zskater11 7 months ago
why would there of been a breeze in the movie set anyway? myth busted
jangbanger7 7 months ago 39
@jangbanger7
fans
MightyFire 5 months ago
@MightyFire Why the fuck would they put fans in a movie set?
Roflcopter4b 4 months ago
@jangbanger7 because if the astronauts were wearing space suits on sets they'd still be hot.
but, they weren't on sets, so....
goldenplumbob 3 months ago
LOL @ an asian guy saying "the shaft was tight in the hole"
theBartone9119 7 months ago
How would they know that the moons gravitational pull is less than earths without going there?
RandomGuyOfAwesome 7 months ago
@RandomGuyOfAwesome The very fact that the moon orbits the Earth, not the other way around, means by definition it has less mass and less gravity. You can find out exactly how much smaller without ever leaving your couch using F = G(m1 * m2) / r^2 (an equation of gravitation found in the first chapter of almost any physics textbook). Scientists knew the gravitational pull of the moon hundreds of years before Apollo 11 got there.
kwolfangel 7 months ago
@RandomGuyOfAwesome
Gravity is based on mass. Large objects have a lot, small objects have a little. We've known for centuries that the Moon is smaller than us based on its eclipse shadow and tidal forces and etc etc.
SpreadingtheMuse 7 months ago
Jamie is a GEEENEEUUUSSS!!! I want to be like him when I join engineering!
baeronautics 7 months ago
@baeronautics same... oh and i want that awesome mustache of his
RokkerBoyy 7 months ago
@RokkerBoyy u gotta work hard for it lol!
baeronautics 7 months ago
At 1:23 you see the photo of the lit astrunaut. Well I can explain this... The moon is a barron place were there are no objects to block the sun. The sun reflected off the space modual thing. It reflects of and bounces the light round everywhere. Even the back were the sun is not directly there. The light still cause a shadow of the space ship modual but the light is reflected and lights up the astruanut. As I said there is nothing blocking the sun so it just reflects of the craft lighting him.
razza779 8 months ago
LOL! Jarrah White is totally owning the MythBusters!
IshmaelKipling 8 months ago