Biggest waste of youtube space ever. They failed this experiment so horribly it's beyond words. Please don't take anything these two bafoons say seriously.
@DavidAWA If you do a search for the "Flat Earth Society" you'll see the flat-earthers are alive and well (though not many in number)... the forum is pretty active and is a great read for a laugh (although I suspect that everyone on there who says they believe is really just trolling everyone else, and perhaps there really is no one left who believes in the flat earth)
They truth-busters didn't put the wire supports and the slow motion effects together to hide what happens when you do. They are nasa shills btw and it's a proven fact.
myth busters are retarded morons, which is why i don't watch it. Its also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts, so genius's how did astronauts do it in the Apollo missions, and and how come they do not venture past the van Allen belts since the Apollo missions, simple.. they never have. Hopefully when humans stop lying to each other we can collaborate together to get past these hurdles together to achieve great things. Rather than killing each other over oil.
@mraperish "ts also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts" Actually that is a hoaxtard fantasy. Facts are not based on wishful thinking. Try again. Maybe back it up with a citation. This is how "facts" work. "Hopefully when humans stop lying to each other..." Thankfully we don't have to wait for the hoaxtards to stop lying to themselves. We achieved something great 40 years ago, an event back up by facts. YOU need to STOP LYING ABOUT IT and saying it didn't happen.
@SirMildredPierce you did forget the word "safely". There are many known studies in the dangers of solar radiation. Even polar flight time is limited....for safety.
@mraperish "Its also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts" I wonder if you might explain to us how it was possible that animals were able to be sent through the Van Allen belts safely without any residual effects, but why it would be impossible to do the same with humans?
there is no such a thing like "conspiracy guys". There are only people who you cant lie to them...They have very very sharp senses and almost paranormal intuition...And luckily the most of them are fighting for a good cause!
@nfexp they in fact have no sharp senses. they just see things that are not there. schizophrenic people "see" things that nobody else can.
it is called delusions. friend of mine suffered from a severe form of it, at first he just saw enemies in apple etc. believed to be jesus, then he suddenly believed he was a killer robot and started assaulting people.
conspiracists have a mild form of schizoprenia and paranoya. they get VERY emotional when you even suggest it. typical for ppl in denial
@maffoid I could say the same about you! If you don't recognize and ignore all those anomalies about the moon landing than you prove that you have no understanding of basic physics laws...no offense . And if you really into the psychological aspect just do research about the educational level of those who have arguments that the moon landing is a fakery and those who proudly believe in this grate achievement...
@nfexp I have studied the anomalies, and each of them is easily debunked. drawing conclusions of shadows on a 3d enviroment on 2d pictures. a few seconds of a waving flag when there is a camera filming it the whole time without any sign of movement after the astronauts have set it up.
Telling me I do not know anything about physics is, no offense, just a cheap try to ignore facts. 400 000 people involved in the apollo missions, very intelligent and educated ppl. compared to a handful of people
who use a few anomalies, that are easily explained, to exploit a lot of people. Please stop for a second and think. why is none of them going to court? why has there been nobody actually stepping up? newsflash, they are just in for the money. publishing books etc. NONE of them would actually do something about it, because the people who get cash from these books actually know the truth. trust me, I have spent a lot of time researching this.
@maffoid You sad that a " few seconds of waving flag.."u right! Actually there is only one video that shows the real proof of waving flag (check here:youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y and pay attention at 2:37!) And shadows do not change in size and orientation, not much to be visible almost at all! (all in details..) A. Einstein sad one time, and i believe that it could have a wider meaning, that: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
@nfexp Einstein said a lot of things. some of them right, some of them in anger about the world since he had severe psychological problems. watch this video. watch?v=MunPi3ifqpw this is something you propably have never watched since your precious hoaxers do not want you to see.
@maffoid I watched your link and in that specific film actually the proof of faker is the variation of the length of the astronauts shadows as they move around...their shadows must be the same length no matter were they move in the frame except if the light source was very close to them...but they didn't have any other light sources except the Sun! The proof of the waving flag in the air currents is in the link that I posted...You shouldn't tag people so easy with "psychological problems"..
@nfexp no that is simply not true. you can not draw conclusions on a 3d world from a 2d image. a slope can easily shorten a shadow, while the other one is longer.
I am not tagging them with problems, I just point out that there are stunning similarities. I´d never dare to actually say that they have a disorder.
if u read about photography u'll see that there is allot of information in a 2D picture (using the lens parameters and some trigonometry), but in this case is way too obvious.Do an experiment: go out on a sunny day with a camera and do some pictures of the same object in different position and distances of u. Analyze the pictures and u'll see that the ratio between the size of the object and its shadow(on the picture) is the same no matter where the object is located. Same shadow orientation too
@nfexp there clearly is a slope visible. and, the shadow closer to the lightsource is bigger than the one farther away. that clearly indicates the terrain is not flat.
If it was because of a very close lightsource, the shadow closer to the source would in fact be smaller than the other one.
Proves nothing except that the terrain is not flat.
@punished1134 Why would they tell us that when you can clearly see a "blast pattern" Hey at least you didn't say "crater". Blast pattern is quite an apt description of it.
In the Apollo surface photography the regolith underneath the landing pad is caked and compacted, the material around it though has been blasted away by the engine. Distinct lined radiate out from the area.
In LRO the are that has been disturbed with a light dusting is quite large and can be seen in the LRO pics.
I have yet to encounter a conspiracy theorist how has been able to tell why, if there should have been one, why the producers of the alleged hoax didn't add one?
Maybe the tape is really lagged, I mean, can you spect a hundreth percent of timming from a camera that is several kilometers from the earth?, and beside with that time technology.
If you put togheter the 1/6 of the grabity and a little lag in the video, verything matchs.
The fact that looks important here is the helmet, the grabity of the helment under moon gravity and earth gravity
Wow, hostility. Two months ago I had no clue that the moon landings were fake. Now I've stumbled into some ancient family spat. In the grand scheme of things, Apollo means nothing. Dress up some p.r. hacks in lab coats and pocket protectors, get your injections and your aspartame and your info from child rapists, your dreams formulated by psychologists trained in blood-spattered rooms. There are worse things than smoke and mirrors.
@hozayamz hostility? uh no... merely pointing out that you failed to address any of the questions I posted to you after you challenged me to specifically do just that isn't the same as "hostility".. My post didn't contain anything hostile.. things like "child rape" and "blood-spattered rooms"...
So do you know what the question was that was put to Collins when he answered about not being able to see stars? Now THAT is a softball, I'm merely asking you to look up a quote is all, easy peasy!
Ah, Sir Mildred- Cosmic radiation is given short shrift in 2001: A Space Odyssey-doppelganger of Apollo.. Do you honestly believe that a man could withstand the effects of high energy particles for days on end? Cooling the LEM? STANDARD FILM in an unmodified camera? David Bowman, Neil Armstrong, fact and fiction. Line them up and I'll knock them down. "Remember what Mr. Hallorann said- it's just like pictures in a book, Danny, it isn't real." Tony speaks the truth,- all work and no play- A 11.
Line 'em up you'll knock them down? Cool! We'll start with my video "The Truth Illuminated..." (just search for that title)
Explain to me how they were able to fake the UV photos taken of the stars AND the earth from the moon. Explain to me how they faked them when they didn't have the data to do so (that was the point of the experiment, was to get that data). Explain to me how they managed to shoot the Earth against the stars at the exact day AND hour they claimed to have been on the moon.
@SirMildredPierce I don't understand the loyalty people feel toward Apollo- Collins said he saw no stars- but he must have seen them in the shadow of the moon, c'mon. You and I aren't intelligence officers-(?) our stock and trade aren't lies and deception. Admit that the Chinese spacewalk was done in a water tank and we can begin to find common ground- collectivism isn't working- too many people approach a crumbling lie. Apollo as testbed, for T.V. heads, mass mind-control. Science fiction.
@hozayamz I don't understand the loyalty people feel towards half-truths and lies. The Collins seeing "no stars" thing has been beat to death. I know it, you know it (well maybe you don't?), that quote was taken out of context, funny how the hoaxers never show us what question he was being asked when he mentioned he didn't see any stars.
Sigh.. I set them up, I thought you were gonna knock them down, like you said you were, but alas, as usual, the hoaxtards have nothin' but hot air
@hozayamz If that one's to hard for you (Considering there's no way to explain it other than that they were on the bloody moon, I imagine it would be) I'll toss you a softball.
Explain to me how your average two-hour Hollywood flick can contain literally dozens upon dozens of continuity errors. But this "production" which produced hundreds of hours of video, thousands of photographs and thousands of documents has not a single continuity error in all of that material....
"Seven day flights along the trajectories of the Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
cdsweb*cern*ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf
As for the film, they went in the lunar morning when it was cooler. The camera was silvered to reflect infrared radiation the only way to transfer heat in a vacuum.
Listen, the moon landings were faked- as Arthur C. Clarke noted- NASA was soaking up 10 million dollars a day. What has the last 40 years taught us about the puppet-masters of this world? Images are more powerful than facts, evil is stronger than good, compartmentalized knowledge trumps the "wisdom" of ages. Plato understood that the key is entertaining ideas without feeling the need to accept them. Accept that you were born into a fallen world- the conquest of space must start from within.
Well hello??? if they prove that the moon landing is fake! I bet the government would shout down their program!! We are in the US come on, we like to be fake and we like to be lied
The moon landings were faked and I will never watch Mythbusters again because of this epasode. I am VERY disapointed in them and the Discovery Channel.
Well.. i think the most important issue about travel to the moon, is the radiation from the sun. not astronauts nor spaceship could support the solar winds, without the electromagnetic field.
well everyone has the own opinions...nasa believed they went to the moon...some scientist do and some don't....so do some physicists.Some nation were marvelled and some are doubtful.....whatever it is it's not all about nasa,it's about mythbusters mini projects to me.Used to be a fan,not anymore
Not correct: there are *no* respectable scientists anywhere in the world who believe in the hoax theory, and *no* governments who have supported the hoax theory.
"There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top."
...on MoonMythBusted's channel page. It was impossible. It's quite difficult to post hoax evidence on the channel pages of pro-Apollo people.
I am amazed at the ignorance of the hoaxers. They all seem to be experts in astronomy, physics, astrophysics engineering, chemistry, radiology with out actually having to get a degree. Just go on to some ones blog and learn. Yay. Moon landing is as real as dinosaurs. Join us in the 21st century.
Yes. Although some versions of the theory claim the Russians colluded (there is no agreed, comprehensive hoax theory).
This idea has strong emotional appeal to some people and they become fanatical about it. If you read the comments to this video you can see how they don't want to learn if the hoax theory is, or is not, nonsense.
Also, all scientist are shills of NASA. I wonder where my pay cheque got to!
2. There are blueprints of the Saturn V but many components are no longer made so it is not practical to copy it.
2a. There seems to be no set of drawings of the lunar module, but there are three actual LMs in museums. Also, many of the people involved are still alive.
3. The explanation for no recent moon missions is money and politics. There were no votes in spending so much.
4. Most of the work on reaching the moon was done before Nixon was president.
Actually, Nixon WASNT president during all of Apollo. By the time he came around they were already onto Apollo 8-9 thereabouts. : /
And this new mission isnt using the old ship anyway, so we dont need any "blurprints," They're inventing a new ship that can land and be reusable like the shuttle, not dumped in the ocean every time like Apollo. So it sounds like you dont know much about it.
Lunokhod 2 1970 photos, look like Arizona back yard.
Most are pics of its own wheel tracks. Real or hoax, you have to admit the moon terrain appears like it could be hoaxed by a 10yr old and a disposable camera.
Was hoping for bolders, hills, mountains, craters, etc
Any video links , these are all similar boring stills not worth framing.
Russians can't pony up budget for new rover ? How about a moon walk ? I guess they liked be bitch to NASA until the end of time ?
No plants at all, black sky, no evidence of wind erosion. Not like Arizona.
And there is the laser reflector proving that something man-made got on to the moon in one piece in that location, and which is still in use by more than one country.
How do you explain that, Mr Conspiracy Expert?
Going to the moon costs a vast amount of money which is why it stopped happening once governments had no political reason to continue paying for it.
Laser mirror is lame. Russia aimed laser off plain surface and got same results for distance measurment. The mirror is only so large, the laser spreads miles wide hitting surface just as Russians hit surface ONLY, NO MIRROR REQUIRED.
Laser beams have been bounced off the moon without reflectors but no distance measurement has ever been made that way.
The American experiment used a laser pulse 150km long -far too long for a useful measurement. I don't have data on the Russian one but a calculation suggests something similar is likely.
A simple calculation shows that the return from a small reflector would be roughly 100x brighter than from the moon's surface. Mythbusters demonstrated this clear difference.
"The first laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters."
Mythbusters vs NASA vs Truthers vs Armchair Debunkers
Yes but that was USING THE REFLECTOR. Without a reflector they have not achieved any meaningful distance measurement. Their experiment without the reflector was accurate to about (150km/2=) 75km or 7,500,000cm!
Incidentally, the accuracy these days is even better.
Mirror proves nothing to those that believe Kubrick filmed Apollo in a hanger in desert with front screen mirror projection innovation used in 2010 film
It proves that there are three American things and one Franco-Russian thing on the moon that have been detected hundreds of times per year for 40 years by people wholly outside the control of NASA or the US government.
Many of the astronomers involved were not born when Apollo happened and others have retired with their pensions secure, yet not one of them has ever blown the whistle.
In short, there is nobody who might know what they are talking about who doubts the reflectors exist.
Yes, I would suspect it would be impossible to reproduce something that didn't exist.
What they were able to repoduce perfectly was the walk and gait of being in real 1/6 G, how did they manage that? By going in real 1/6 G! Check out part two and try to explain how they managed that... on the FIRST TRY...!
None of you kids were even alive when this happened and I can sort of see how it might be unbelievable as we never went back, but I lived through the whole space program from day one and saw the build up in stages. You had to be there. There is no question about these things. Get a life...
Er... yes, that is where the first landing happened and where a laser reflector was placed. We know it is there because it is still in use by astronomers outside American control.
In 2020, when we really do put a man on the moon, the truth will be evident. Do they even mention the Van Allen Belts in this show? This type of sycophancy towards NASA can make a ginger very rich.
I bet they would think differently if they had a replica astronaut suit, the real suits look like quite puffed and sturdy, Jamie's suit is all loose, also, they could have used a stronger tension wire, that would have given him more height with less loose suit shaking effort. I do enjoy Mythbusters, but many a time I find myself wondering "myth busted? hang on, if they just did this different then..."
"they could have used a stronger tension wire, that would have given him more height with less loose suit shaking effort"
Perhaps, but also keep in mind the wire has to be COMPLETELY INVISIBLE as we never actually see the wire in the actual moon footage.
wires aside, the fact that he got the unusual moon walking motions EXACTLY in the real 1/6th G should give one pause. That is the icing on the cake. This absurd myth is beyond busted. The reality is CONFIRMED.
I don't know about 'completely' invisible, with the quality of the film I bet you could hide quite a bit...If you had a reason to lol. If some small amendments were made to the wire and the suit, or even maybe play around the various video speed settings, I bet these professional special effects artists could replicate the moon walk footage, then the myth would be plausible.
"I don't know about 'completely' invisible, with the quality of the film I bet you could hide quite a bit..."
This claim is a double edged sword. But first, you also correctly point out that you could theoretically hide "quite a bit", but quite a bit is it. To pull this off you have to go more than "quite a bit" to "EVERYTHING"... in hundreds of hours of footage. In an average movie you only have to pull it off a few minutes to a few hours.
But more importantly, as you pointed out with the quality of the film: but that doesn't go just for film, it also goes for special effects. And a project like this, this filming hundreds of hours of footage, photographing in minute detail TENS OF THOUSANDS of photographs of the result of what would be a special effects bonanza in a period of time that NO ONE was making films that looked completely and utterly real. To suggest such a thing is possible is living in a completely fantasy.
I do doubt that the event was faked, but for the possibility of being able to fake the footage, with a huge budget, huge resources national pride on the line, I think it could be possible, I'm not implying the moon landing was a hoax, just that regarding faking such footage with the know-how at the time, is possible
"but for the possibility of being able to fake the footage, with a huge budget, huge resources national pride on the line, I think it could be possible."
Well, anything is possible, right? But not anything, within reason. We could just as easily say that aliens with magical abilities faked the moon landings, but that would sound a bit beyond reason. To suggest there is someone with the "know-how", one would have to present evidence such individuals exist.
So, who would have the know-how? What are the best analogies to The Great Moon Hoax? Well, I think movies are a good analogy, as I mentioned before, but even a movie like 2001, or Star Wars, which used the best special effects at the time, were full of continuity errors, full of scientific errors, these people that crafted these movies had the know-how, and yet the special effects they used looked dated within the decade, a problem the actual moon footage does not suffer from.
The second analogy would be actual hoaxes, of course we don't have many to choose from. A recent example would be the United States selling the idea to the UN that Iraq is in possession of WMD's. They did not produce tens of thousands of photographs to make their case, they presented 1 photograph... of a truck. They presented a cherry picked claim about yellow cake. But most importantly they did not present a lot of information because EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION can be scrutinised.
If you are going to hoax something, you do not give people tens of thousands of photographs because every single one of those photographs is not only a fake, but it is also EVIDENCE OF THE HOAX. You do not DOCUMENT THE HOAX. You do not produce hundreds of hours of video. You do not create HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of pages of documentation of every little bit of minutia, because if it is fake then that is all evidence showing it is fake.
lies only creates more lies, and truth with flower even more truth. There's not some in-between area or something.
You suggested quite correctly that they would need people with the "know-how" to pull it off. Someone that could pull off a hoax would know this lesson more than anyone, and as such they would know the danger in providing so much information because every single thing you present is a lie, and the only way to lie succesfully is to keep the lies to a minimum.
Oh yeah and I agree with what you said about getting the motions exactly right on the first go, proving such footage could be replicated, that is food for thought
@aril79 first and foremost it is entertainment. That does not mean they lack standards, nor does that mean they do not produce results.
You still have yet to explain to me how he managed to get the walk exactly right ON THE FIRST TRY in real 1/6 G on the plane, according to you it should require thousands of practices first, and yet it came naturally to him right off the bat. Could it be because that's just the natural way someone would walk in 1/6th G?
i don't really agree with mythbusters all the times..the do the test of things as if they are the trained pros....like the floating ninja platform....i think they need really lots of practice physically in that test before saying its busted.He tried like thrice???i need to kick a ball like a 1000 times b4 i can play football ya know...get wat i mean?
"i don't really agree with mythbusters all the times..the do the test of things as if they are the trained pros...i need to kick a ball like a 1000 times b4 i can play footbal..."
Mythbusters isn't science, that's for sure. And that is something they stress often and readily admit. But they do work through a lot of stuff pretty well.
What I would take from this is, even without *any* practice he *was* able to replicate the way the astronauts moved in the true 1/6g, no practice required.
and by the way...to remove parts of quote is the same as the same as puting it in own words and not the original speaker..thats how miscommunication always occur....especially when examples are cited... ; )
@aril79 No, sorry, it is a fairly well known and established practice to cul bits of a quote that are not pertinent using an ellipses. Of course it might be a little confusing when quoting *you* because you have adopted the odd practice of finishing every sentence with an ellipses. Additionally with youtube's restrictive limit off about 500 characters it becomes all the more necessary to trim down a quote to the bare essentials. It is still in the "original speakers" words.
you are correct at 4:20 seconds the comparison is dead on, even with adam rushing his hop to obviously favor NASAS side. on the 6:53 version it is very apparent that the close encounter caused Myth busters to speed up, most likely in complience with not an agreement with NASA.
i have to call BS on this even tho the rest of the show seemed accurate
farse why dont the wire man pull him up on the jump as im sure they would have for the astonaughts and helmet moving about may have something to do with being 10 sizes to big for that pea brain plus his suits not inflated.
someone give them a budget of 30billion dollar, and take away Phil Plaits from theyre team (Bad Astronomy) and they should be able to do it... Oh, and let someone outside investigate it...
While it is true you can bounce a laser off the moon without a retroreflector, more joules are needed per pulse, and it is fundamentally less accurate. The accuracy we have today is undeniable proof of an artificial corner reflector on the moon at the locations claimed, in the time frames claimed.
sciencemag*org/cgi/content/abstract/166/3901/99
adsabs*harvard*edu/full/1975SvA....19..236A
w w w*k3pgp*org/lasereme*htm
Remove spaces and asterisks after copying links into address bar.
"the problem they do not watch how laser device can measure Distance,volume,height,Area and so on...."
With all due respect, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I mean seriously. The whole reason they put the reflectors there was so they could measure distance and they are able to do so within a few cm! What volume, height, and area are you talking about? No one ever claimed the laser experiments were used to measure such things.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Cost?????Comeon wake up???The EPL is spending much more money than Nasa needs to spend to go to the moon...THe Ship is already there rite..dont they have they old plan..those tech come in cheap now i guess....AHHAAAAAA
I hope there is one! coz i don't think doz moonwalkers wants to die moonwalking!
I'd rather watch soccer than watching those tests by the mythbusters,they are entertainers allright,I'm sure they did alot of homework b4 busting things out.
y don't nasa go to the moon again since?it would be the best prove yet to shut all the conspiracy theorist and also prevent people from arguing al together.If the 1969 technology can do it...y not go next year...J.F.K make them did it in less then a decade with that technology...
Thankfully they did spend a good spot of money to send up the LRO. Now of course they didn't send it up to prove the Apollo landings were real, but I think it's great they didn't waste any time releasing shots from the landing sites that show dozens of objects recognisable as things we have seen in the photos from the Apollo missions. The LRO is an embarassing blow to the hoaxers, they have no way to explain it. They just ignore the evidence and move on to more nonsense...
They come very close to replicating it, but conclude that IT DOESN'T MATCH! Uh, huh. Now, if I had another $40 billion (like NASA) I know I could work out the bugs. But these two clowns? Uhhh....NOT!
those 2 geeks are special effects specialists, and you take their word for it? they can fake anything. It doesn't matter if cocksuckers got on the moon, what I hate is that most sheeps blindly believe anything the government shoves down their throats.
Guys I just get pissed off when people like, myth busters go after the big tax money? for this hoax see you on the moon. But the Hydrogen car busted haha im driving on it adam.
Well you couldn't get much more biased than to get an obvious NASA fanatic who has replica spacesuits in his wardrobe.
Oh well, LROC images of the moon hardware should be available in a few days. But watch how it will mysteriously crash into the moons surface BEFORE getting pictures of the lunar hardware lol. Using the moon videos as evidence of the landings is like me using the Thunderbirds TV series as evidence that Virgil Tracy really existed.
Fare invastogation is not avalible? Why look at the great fames Busters( Yes they my heros). But here something is not opjective? I see NASA all over the place. And i think they know but dont want to speak the truth! Why hahaha you blow your changes when you suggest the moon landing was a haox! Money over principle, wonder what nasa paid them?
They failed to do whats fucking ovbious.Combine the speed adjustment and the wires.The part on here where he falls to the ground matches perfecly with the astronaut on apollo16,when he get yanked up from behind by some invisable force.These guy didnt even try.
Fucking hell bellend.TYPE ,yes,TYPE, MOONLANDING HOAX -WIRES FOOTAGE into YOUTUBE (thats the site you are on now).Then watch at about 2:10s in the astronaut get`s yanked off the floor as if some invisable force was at work(wires).Why are all you NASA groupies so retarded or at best stupidly naive.
No, no it didn't. Watch the video again, and keep your eye on the astronauts LEFT ARM.
Jesus christ, this is like explaining that the earth is round to a bunch of monkeys. The evidence is slapping them in the cock, but they still don't have the mindpower to comprehend it.
HEY MYTHBUSTERS, do WTC BUILDING 7...
jonescool1fly 3 months ago
@jonescool1fly with both of them inside
player13091980 2 months ago
Biggest waste of youtube space ever. They failed this experiment so horribly it's beyond words. Please don't take anything these two bafoons say seriously.
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny If you're going to question the validity of someone's testing, please ensure you're intelligent enough to spell buffoon properly.
danceswithchihuahuas 5 months ago
I wonder when the last "the earth is flat" holdout gave it up. Late 1800s maybe? So by 2469 these moon myth people will give it up. Right?
DavidAWA 9 months ago
@DavidAWA If you do a search for the "Flat Earth Society" you'll see the flat-earthers are alive and well (though not many in number)... the forum is pretty active and is a great read for a laugh (although I suspect that everyone on there who says they believe is really just trolling everyone else, and perhaps there really is no one left who believes in the flat earth)
SirMildred76 9 months ago
@DavidAWA The Flat Earth Society still exists. By the way, in the year 2026, NASA is going to admit that Apollo was faked.
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
They truth-busters didn't put the wire supports and the slow motion effects together to hide what happens when you do. They are nasa shills btw and it's a proven fact.
stalkervision 1 year ago
DISCOVERY SPIN DOCTORS
lonenut740 1 year ago
myth busters are retarded morons, which is why i don't watch it. Its also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts, so genius's how did astronauts do it in the Apollo missions, and and how come they do not venture past the van Allen belts since the Apollo missions, simple.. they never have. Hopefully when humans stop lying to each other we can collaborate together to get past these hurdles together to achieve great things. Rather than killing each other over oil.
mraperish 1 year ago
@mraperish "ts also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts" Actually that is a hoaxtard fantasy. Facts are not based on wishful thinking. Try again. Maybe back it up with a citation. This is how "facts" work. "Hopefully when humans stop lying to each other..." Thankfully we don't have to wait for the hoaxtards to stop lying to themselves. We achieved something great 40 years ago, an event back up by facts. YOU need to STOP LYING ABOUT IT and saying it didn't happen.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce you did forget the word "safely". There are many known studies in the dangers of solar radiation. Even polar flight time is limited....for safety.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@mraperish "Its also fact humans cannot pass through the Van Allen belts" I wonder if you might explain to us how it was possible that animals were able to be sent through the Van Allen belts safely without any residual effects, but why it would be impossible to do the same with humans?
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
there is no such a thing like "conspiracy guys". There are only people who you cant lie to them...They have very very sharp senses and almost paranormal intuition...And luckily the most of them are fighting for a good cause!
nfexp 1 year ago
@nfexp they in fact have no sharp senses. they just see things that are not there. schizophrenic people "see" things that nobody else can.
it is called delusions. friend of mine suffered from a severe form of it, at first he just saw enemies in apple etc. believed to be jesus, then he suddenly believed he was a killer robot and started assaulting people.
conspiracists have a mild form of schizoprenia and paranoya. they get VERY emotional when you even suggest it. typical for ppl in denial
maffoid 1 year ago
@maffoid I could say the same about you! If you don't recognize and ignore all those anomalies about the moon landing than you prove that you have no understanding of basic physics laws...no offense . And if you really into the psychological aspect just do research about the educational level of those who have arguments that the moon landing is a fakery and those who proudly believe in this grate achievement...
nfexp 1 year ago
@nfexp I have studied the anomalies, and each of them is easily debunked. drawing conclusions of shadows on a 3d enviroment on 2d pictures. a few seconds of a waving flag when there is a camera filming it the whole time without any sign of movement after the astronauts have set it up.
Telling me I do not know anything about physics is, no offense, just a cheap try to ignore facts. 400 000 people involved in the apollo missions, very intelligent and educated ppl. compared to a handful of people
maffoid 1 year ago
@nfexp an, by the way, intelligence and education does not make you immune to delusional thoughts.
maffoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
nfexp 1 year ago
who use a few anomalies, that are easily explained, to exploit a lot of people. Please stop for a second and think. why is none of them going to court? why has there been nobody actually stepping up? newsflash, they are just in for the money. publishing books etc. NONE of them would actually do something about it, because the people who get cash from these books actually know the truth. trust me, I have spent a lot of time researching this.
maffoid 1 year ago
@maffoid You sad that a " few seconds of waving flag.."u right! Actually there is only one video that shows the real proof of waving flag (check here:youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y and pay attention at 2:37!) And shadows do not change in size and orientation, not much to be visible almost at all! (all in details..) A. Einstein sad one time, and i believe that it could have a wider meaning, that: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
nfexp 1 year ago
@nfexp Einstein said a lot of things. some of them right, some of them in anger about the world since he had severe psychological problems. watch this video. watch?v=MunPi3ifqpw this is something you propably have never watched since your precious hoaxers do not want you to see.
maffoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
nfexp 1 year ago
@maffoid I watched your link and in that specific film actually the proof of faker is the variation of the length of the astronauts shadows as they move around...their shadows must be the same length no matter were they move in the frame except if the light source was very close to them...but they didn't have any other light sources except the Sun! The proof of the waving flag in the air currents is in the link that I posted...You shouldn't tag people so easy with "psychological problems"..
nfexp 1 year ago
@nfexp no that is simply not true. you can not draw conclusions on a 3d world from a 2d image. a slope can easily shorten a shadow, while the other one is longer.
I am not tagging them with problems, I just point out that there are stunning similarities. I´d never dare to actually say that they have a disorder.
maffoid 1 year ago
if u read about photography u'll see that there is allot of information in a 2D picture (using the lens parameters and some trigonometry), but in this case is way too obvious.Do an experiment: go out on a sunny day with a camera and do some pictures of the same object in different position and distances of u. Analyze the pictures and u'll see that the ratio between the size of the object and its shadow(on the picture) is the same no matter where the object is located. Same shadow orientation too
nfexp 1 year ago
Comment removed
maffoid 1 year ago
@nfexp there clearly is a slope visible. and, the shadow closer to the lightsource is bigger than the one farther away. that clearly indicates the terrain is not flat.
If it was because of a very close lightsource, the shadow closer to the source would in fact be smaller than the other one.
Proves nothing except that the terrain is not flat.
maffoid 1 year ago
NO STARS
quickkill2010 1 year ago
@quickkill2010 NO BRAINS
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
Mythbuster Spastics
and their 10 year old fake experiments
Nasa Propaganda Faggots
APOLLO FAKE MISSIONS
1969-1972
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit Haha, NO.
AlexWearsHatsArt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlexWearsHatsArt
6 Faked moon landings
mythbusters are spastics
nasafakedit 1 year ago
did the myth busters tell us why there was not a blast pattern on the moons surface?
punished1134 1 year ago
@punished1134 Why would they tell us that when you can clearly see a "blast pattern" Hey at least you didn't say "crater". Blast pattern is quite an apt description of it.
In the Apollo surface photography the regolith underneath the landing pad is caked and compacted, the material around it though has been blasted away by the engine. Distinct lined radiate out from the area.
In LRO the are that has been disturbed with a light dusting is quite large and can be seen in the LRO pics.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@punished1134
I have yet to encounter a conspiracy theorist how has been able to tell why, if there should have been one, why the producers of the alleged hoax didn't add one?
loperspest 1 year ago
Maybe the tape is really lagged, I mean, can you spect a hundreth percent of timming from a camera that is several kilometers from the earth?, and beside with that time technology.
If you put togheter the 1/6 of the grabity and a little lag in the video, verything matchs.
The fact that looks important here is the helmet, the grabity of the helment under moon gravity and earth gravity
olvvvvlo 1 year ago
Wow, hostility. Two months ago I had no clue that the moon landings were fake. Now I've stumbled into some ancient family spat. In the grand scheme of things, Apollo means nothing. Dress up some p.r. hacks in lab coats and pocket protectors, get your injections and your aspartame and your info from child rapists, your dreams formulated by psychologists trained in blood-spattered rooms. There are worse things than smoke and mirrors.
hozayamz 1 year ago
@hozayamz hostility? uh no... merely pointing out that you failed to address any of the questions I posted to you after you challenged me to specifically do just that isn't the same as "hostility".. My post didn't contain anything hostile.. things like "child rape" and "blood-spattered rooms"...
So do you know what the question was that was put to Collins when he answered about not being able to see stars? Now THAT is a softball, I'm merely asking you to look up a quote is all, easy peasy!
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@hozayamz So are you ever going to answer the question? I set them up for you to knock down, just like you said you were gonna do...
What was the question Collins was asked about not being able to see the stars? You've had almost a month to find out.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
Ah, Sir Mildred- Cosmic radiation is given short shrift in 2001: A Space Odyssey-doppelganger of Apollo.. Do you honestly believe that a man could withstand the effects of high energy particles for days on end? Cooling the LEM? STANDARD FILM in an unmodified camera? David Bowman, Neil Armstrong, fact and fiction. Line them up and I'll knock them down. "Remember what Mr. Hallorann said- it's just like pictures in a book, Danny, it isn't real." Tony speaks the truth,- all work and no play- A 11.
hozayamz 1 year ago
Line 'em up you'll knock them down? Cool! We'll start with my video "The Truth Illuminated..." (just search for that title)
Explain to me how they were able to fake the UV photos taken of the stars AND the earth from the moon. Explain to me how they faked them when they didn't have the data to do so (that was the point of the experiment, was to get that data). Explain to me how they managed to shoot the Earth against the stars at the exact day AND hour they claimed to have been on the moon.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce I don't understand the loyalty people feel toward Apollo- Collins said he saw no stars- but he must have seen them in the shadow of the moon, c'mon. You and I aren't intelligence officers-(?) our stock and trade aren't lies and deception. Admit that the Chinese spacewalk was done in a water tank and we can begin to find common ground- collectivism isn't working- too many people approach a crumbling lie. Apollo as testbed, for T.V. heads, mass mind-control. Science fiction.
hozayamz 1 year ago
@hozayamz I don't understand the loyalty people feel towards half-truths and lies. The Collins seeing "no stars" thing has been beat to death. I know it, you know it (well maybe you don't?), that quote was taken out of context, funny how the hoaxers never show us what question he was being asked when he mentioned he didn't see any stars.
Sigh.. I set them up, I thought you were gonna knock them down, like you said you were, but alas, as usual, the hoaxtards have nothin' but hot air
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@hozayamz If that one's to hard for you (Considering there's no way to explain it other than that they were on the bloody moon, I imagine it would be) I'll toss you a softball.
Explain to me how your average two-hour Hollywood flick can contain literally dozens upon dozens of continuity errors. But this "production" which produced hundreds of hours of video, thousands of photographs and thousands of documents has not a single continuity error in all of that material....
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hozayamz
The USSR thought they could.
"Seven day flights along the trajectories of the Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
cdsweb*cern*ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf
As for the film, they went in the lunar morning when it was cooler. The camera was silvered to reflect infrared radiation the only way to transfer heat in a vacuum.
myspacemuseumcom/apollocams*htm#The%20Hasselblad%2070mm
lunarpedia*org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature
loperspest 1 year ago
Listen, the moon landings were faked- as Arthur C. Clarke noted- NASA was soaking up 10 million dollars a day. What has the last 40 years taught us about the puppet-masters of this world? Images are more powerful than facts, evil is stronger than good, compartmentalized knowledge trumps the "wisdom" of ages. Plato understood that the key is entertaining ideas without feeling the need to accept them. Accept that you were born into a fallen world- the conquest of space must start from within.
hozayamz 1 year ago
"Listen, the moon landings were faked"
Listen, there's not a single piece of evidence to that, and there are literally thousands of pieces of evidence that prove otherwise.
"as Arthur C. Clarke noted- NASA was soaking up 10 million dollars a day."
Yeah, and? Getting to the moon ain't cheap.
"Images are more powerful than facts, evil is stronger than good, compartmentalized knowledge trumps the "wisdom" of ages."
And apparently for you disinformation is more powerful than evidence.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
Well hello??? if they prove that the moon landing is fake! I bet the government would shout down their program!! We are in the US come on, we like to be fake and we like to be lied
henryh144 1 year ago
The moon landings were faked and I will never watch Mythbusters again because of this epasode. I am VERY disapointed in them and the Discovery Channel.
imjasonc 1 year ago
@imjasonc your idiot!
stephanooctobre 1 year ago
It's PATHETIC how they use Mythbusters to try to cover up the fraud.
Watchdis44 1 year ago
wow ur a dumbass
TrevorMTopham 1 year ago
@TrevorMTopham Just Guessing you never watched Was It a Paper Moon? Watch it and you'll change your mind... unless YOU are a Dumbass.
Watchdis44 1 year ago
NASA MICKEY MOUSE DISNEY PRODUCTIONS
6 Faked Moonlandings
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Mythbusters are Spastics
Nasa Paid Whores
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Well nasa obviously tested all these the details before actually making the montage
nimaiss1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nasa Faked it 6 times
Nasa monkeys cannot go more than 400 miles from earth in 2010, moonlanding is a sick joke to steal $billions from the american taxpayers
nasafakedit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mythbuster Morons
Nasa paid propaganda whores
experiments for 10 year olds
Bunch of spastics
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Well.. i think the most important issue about travel to the moon, is the radiation from the sun. not astronauts nor spaceship could support the solar winds, without the electromagnetic field.
miloedo 2 years ago
well everyone has the own opinions...nasa believed they went to the moon...some scientist do and some don't....so do some physicists.Some nation were marvelled and some are doubtful.....whatever it is it's not all about nasa,it's about mythbusters mini projects to me.Used to be a fan,not anymore
aril79 2 years ago
Not correct: there are *no* respectable scientists anywhere in the world who believe in the hoax theory, and *no* governments who have supported the hoax theory.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
@aril79
Not true . No country or legitimate scientists believe the landings were faked. Only morons.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just tried to post this...
"There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top."
...on MoonMythBusted's channel page. It was impossible. It's quite difficult to post hoax evidence on the channel pages of pro-Apollo people.
FatFreddy88 2 years ago
Give Mythbusters 6 months, they will nail it.
Pretty good for a days work of hoaxing
euro944t 2 years ago
I am amazed at the ignorance of the hoaxers. They all seem to be experts in astronomy, physics, astrophysics engineering, chemistry, radiology with out actually having to get a degree. Just go on to some ones blog and learn. Yay. Moon landing is as real as dinosaurs. Join us in the 21st century.
IamYucky 2 years ago
u are so right! they know nothing, and simply refuse to listen!
steeldragon20002000 2 years ago
@steeldragon20002000 And you REFUSE to watch any real evidence. Watch Was It Just a Paper Moon?!
Watchdis44 1 year ago
so wait, are people actually saying that man didn't land on moon and russians were dumb enough to believe it and didn't bring it up??
illuminatuzz 2 years ago
Yes. Although some versions of the theory claim the Russians colluded (there is no agreed, comprehensive hoax theory).
This idea has strong emotional appeal to some people and they become fanatical about it. If you read the comments to this video you can see how they don't want to learn if the hoax theory is, or is not, nonsense.
Also, all scientist are shills of NASA. I wonder where my pay cheque got to!
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
When is NASA walking on moon next ?
I'm not holding my breath, orig Apollo fim is missing, rocket blueprints are trashed along with hardware in junk yard, mission control are dead now.
Nixon was President during entire Apollo program............LOL
euro944t 2 years ago
"We must build a space station between earth and moon to dock before making it to moon, Mars walk in plans"(Bush 2004)
Or just replicate Apollo which had sliderule and compass and invisible thrust from highly unstable lander............lol
euro944t 2 years ago
1. Most film is NOT missing.
2. There are blueprints of the Saturn V but many components are no longer made so it is not practical to copy it.
2a. There seems to be no set of drawings of the lunar module, but there are three actual LMs in museums. Also, many of the people involved are still alive.
3. The explanation for no recent moon missions is money and politics. There were no votes in spending so much.
4. Most of the work on reaching the moon was done before Nixon was president.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
$50 Billion for Entire Apollo
euro944t 2 years ago
Actually, Nixon WASNT president during all of Apollo. By the time he came around they were already onto Apollo 8-9 thereabouts. : /
And this new mission isnt using the old ship anyway, so we dont need any "blurprints," They're inventing a new ship that can land and be reusable like the shuttle, not dumped in the ocean every time like Apollo. So it sounds like you dont know much about it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Obama scraped 2020 moon mission last week.
Come out of your cave Bin Laden !
It's over, only $9 Billion wasted on that program, all remaining funding focused on space stations.
Don't cry
euro944t 1 year ago
You saying that after Nixon, his VP Jerry Ford was Prez ? The same Ford that was member of JFK Warren Commission ?
Perfect
euro944t 1 year ago
No, I saying that Apollo started BEFORE Nixon. Not only a different president but an entirely different political party.
You DID know that, didnt you? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@euro944t No Apollo began in 61, Nixon became president in 69.
mercatormac 1 year ago
Russians were given wheat at below cost for 10yrs.
They don't seem interested in breaking the contract and speaking much about moon at all.
Where is the freelander rover on moon ? Can do Mars but not moon robots ?
euro944t 2 years ago
The Russians sent two rovers to the moon. One of them is still regularly detected via its laser reflector (as are three of the American sites).
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
Russians have a moon rover with a cam ?
cool , send the link.. I can't wait to see moon video that is not 40yrs old produced by Kubrick
euro944t 2 years ago
Look up Lunokhod on Wikipedia and follow links. There are only still images. Lunokhod 2 is the one that is still detected regularly.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
Lunokhod 2 1970 photos, look like Arizona back yard.
Most are pics of its own wheel tracks. Real or hoax, you have to admit the moon terrain appears like it could be hoaxed by a 10yr old and a disposable camera.
Was hoping for bolders, hills, mountains, craters, etc
Any video links , these are all similar boring stills not worth framing.
Russians can't pony up budget for new rover ? How about a moon walk ? I guess they liked be bitch to NASA until the end of time ?
euro944t 2 years ago
@euro944t
No plants at all, black sky, no evidence of wind erosion. Not like Arizona.
And there is the laser reflector proving that something man-made got on to the moon in one piece in that location, and which is still in use by more than one country.
How do you explain that, Mr Conspiracy Expert?
Going to the moon costs a vast amount of money which is why it stopped happening once governments had no political reason to continue paying for it.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
Laser mirror is lame. Russia aimed laser off plain surface and got same results for distance measurment. The mirror is only so large, the laser spreads miles wide hitting surface just as Russians hit surface ONLY, NO MIRROR REQUIRED.
Explained by "Mr. Conspiracy Expert"
euro944t 2 years ago
Not true.
Laser beams have been bounced off the moon without reflectors but no distance measurement has ever been made that way.
The American experiment used a laser pulse 150km long -far too long for a useful measurement. I don't have data on the Russian one but a calculation suggests something similar is likely.
A simple calculation shows that the return from a small reflector would be roughly 100x brighter than from the moon's surface. Mythbusters demonstrated this clear difference.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
NASA claims
"The first laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts. By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters."
Mythbusters vs NASA vs Truthers vs Armchair Debunkers
euro944t 2 years ago
Yes but that was USING THE REFLECTOR. Without a reflector they have not achieved any meaningful distance measurement. Their experiment without the reflector was accurate to about (150km/2=) 75km or 7,500,000cm!
Incidentally, the accuracy these days is even better.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
Mirror proves nothing to those that believe Kubrick filmed Apollo in a hanger in desert with front screen mirror projection innovation used in 2010 film
euro944t 2 years ago
It proves that there are three American things and one Franco-Russian thing on the moon that have been detected hundreds of times per year for 40 years by people wholly outside the control of NASA or the US government.
Many of the astronomers involved were not born when Apollo happened and others have retired with their pensions secure, yet not one of them has ever blown the whistle.
In short, there is nobody who might know what they are talking about who doubts the reflectors exist.
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
@illuminatuzz They knew.
Watchdis44 1 year ago
The picked the easiest thing to debunk... no way could anyone reproduce NASA's wire tension.
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
Yes, I would suspect it would be impossible to reproduce something that didn't exist.
What they were able to repoduce perfectly was the walk and gait of being in real 1/6 G, how did they manage that? By going in real 1/6 G! Check out part two and try to explain how they managed that... on the FIRST TRY...!
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 3
shame on you, no science here.
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
None of you kids were even alive when this happened and I can sort of see how it might be unbelievable as we never went back, but I lived through the whole space program from day one and saw the build up in stages. You had to be there. There is no question about these things. Get a life...
boxferret 2 years ago
So sayeth the sheep.
Let me guess, we landed in the Sea of Tranquility too right?
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
Er... yes, that is where the first landing happened and where a laser reflector was placed. We know it is there because it is still in use by astronomers outside American control.
How do YOU think it got there?
Boozyscientist 2 years ago
In 2020, when we really do put a man on the moon, the truth will be evident. Do they even mention the Van Allen Belts in this show? This type of sycophancy towards NASA can make a ginger very rich.
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
DR, CHANDRA????
MIGUEL2005LIMA 2 years ago
@MrBobBalaban:
The Soviet Union showed the Van Allen belts were surviable.
Exhibit A: Cosmos 110 spent 22 days going in and out of the lower Van Allen belt with two dogs aboard. The total dose was 12 rads.
Exhibit B: Human cells on Zond 5 & 7 survived a lunar flyby and return to Earth.
Exhibit C: Photographs take by Zond probes on lunar flybys were returned to Earth unfogged by radiation.
ncbi*nlm*nih*gov/pubmed/11942358
ncbi*nlm*nih*gov/pubmed/12197540
mentallandscape*com/C_CatalogMoon*htm
loperspest 2 years ago
Has anyone been to the moon since NASA claims? No
Can NASA produce telemetry data from any of the Apollo Missions? No
Has anyone ever been -through- the Van Allen Belt since Apollo? No
Has anyone been more than 400 miles away from the Earth since Apollo's 300,000 mile trips to the moon? NO!!!!
WAKE UP! The moon landing was a HOAX!
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
@MrBobBalaban
Others tracked Apollo as well, both visually and by radio and one amateur radio astronomer was able to pick up the conversations on the moon.
novosti-kosmonavtiki*ru/content/numbers/271/03*shtml
depletedcranium*com/fascinating-recording-of-apollo-11-at-jodrell-bank-released/
jefferson.kctcs*edu/observatory/apollo11/
astr*ua*edu/keel/space/apollo*html
The N1 failed, that's why the USSR never went. They did send human cells on lunar flybys though. ncbi*nlm*nih*gov/pubmed/11942358
loperspest 2 years ago
I bet they would think differently if they had a replica astronaut suit, the real suits look like quite puffed and sturdy, Jamie's suit is all loose, also, they could have used a stronger tension wire, that would have given him more height with less loose suit shaking effort. I do enjoy Mythbusters, but many a time I find myself wondering "myth busted? hang on, if they just did this different then..."
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
"they could have used a stronger tension wire, that would have given him more height with less loose suit shaking effort"
Perhaps, but also keep in mind the wire has to be COMPLETELY INVISIBLE as we never actually see the wire in the actual moon footage.
wires aside, the fact that he got the unusual moon walking motions EXACTLY in the real 1/6th G should give one pause. That is the icing on the cake. This absurd myth is beyond busted. The reality is CONFIRMED.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
I don't know about 'completely' invisible, with the quality of the film I bet you could hide quite a bit...If you had a reason to lol. If some small amendments were made to the wire and the suit, or even maybe play around the various video speed settings, I bet these professional special effects artists could replicate the moon walk footage, then the myth would be plausible.
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
"I don't know about 'completely' invisible, with the quality of the film I bet you could hide quite a bit..."
This claim is a double edged sword. But first, you also correctly point out that you could theoretically hide "quite a bit", but quite a bit is it. To pull this off you have to go more than "quite a bit" to "EVERYTHING"... in hundreds of hours of footage. In an average movie you only have to pull it off a few minutes to a few hours.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
But more importantly, as you pointed out with the quality of the film: but that doesn't go just for film, it also goes for special effects. And a project like this, this filming hundreds of hours of footage, photographing in minute detail TENS OF THOUSANDS of photographs of the result of what would be a special effects bonanza in a period of time that NO ONE was making films that looked completely and utterly real. To suggest such a thing is possible is living in a completely fantasy.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 7
I do doubt that the event was faked, but for the possibility of being able to fake the footage, with a huge budget, huge resources national pride on the line, I think it could be possible, I'm not implying the moon landing was a hoax, just that regarding faking such footage with the know-how at the time, is possible
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
"but for the possibility of being able to fake the footage, with a huge budget, huge resources national pride on the line, I think it could be possible."
Well, anything is possible, right? But not anything, within reason. We could just as easily say that aliens with magical abilities faked the moon landings, but that would sound a bit beyond reason. To suggest there is someone with the "know-how", one would have to present evidence such individuals exist.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
So, who would have the know-how? What are the best analogies to The Great Moon Hoax? Well, I think movies are a good analogy, as I mentioned before, but even a movie like 2001, or Star Wars, which used the best special effects at the time, were full of continuity errors, full of scientific errors, these people that crafted these movies had the know-how, and yet the special effects they used looked dated within the decade, a problem the actual moon footage does not suffer from.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
The second analogy would be actual hoaxes, of course we don't have many to choose from. A recent example would be the United States selling the idea to the UN that Iraq is in possession of WMD's. They did not produce tens of thousands of photographs to make their case, they presented 1 photograph... of a truck. They presented a cherry picked claim about yellow cake. But most importantly they did not present a lot of information because EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION can be scrutinised.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
If you are going to hoax something, you do not give people tens of thousands of photographs because every single one of those photographs is not only a fake, but it is also EVIDENCE OF THE HOAX. You do not DOCUMENT THE HOAX. You do not produce hundreds of hours of video. You do not create HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of pages of documentation of every little bit of minutia, because if it is fake then that is all evidence showing it is fake.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 8
lies only creates more lies, and truth with flower even more truth. There's not some in-between area or something.
You suggested quite correctly that they would need people with the "know-how" to pull it off. Someone that could pull off a hoax would know this lesson more than anyone, and as such they would know the danger in providing so much information because every single thing you present is a lie, and the only way to lie succesfully is to keep the lies to a minimum.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
@SirMildredPierce Then is easier to go to the moon than create a montage on Earth. No doubt Cameron Diaz can go to Jupiter if he wants to
AstDerek 1 year ago
WRONG! I've seen plenty of wires.
MrBobBalaban 2 years ago
Where are the wires do you have photos? Videos depicting the wires? I am curious to see that footage.
IamYucky 2 years ago
Oh yeah and I agree with what you said about getting the motions exactly right on the first go, proving such footage could be replicated, that is food for thought
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
@JeanLouie1106 "the real suits look like quite puffed and sturdy, Jamie's suit is all loose,"
Pressurized suit in a vacuum. Need I say more?
IsawaMitaka 1 year ago
@IsawaMitaka Reals suits aren't loose when unpressurized and not in a vacuum, need I say more?
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106 helium filled space suit
gell7 1 year ago
well if they admit it isnt science...then what is it?
aril79 2 years ago
@aril79 first and foremost it is entertainment. That does not mean they lack standards, nor does that mean they do not produce results.
You still have yet to explain to me how he managed to get the walk exactly right ON THE FIRST TRY in real 1/6 G on the plane, according to you it should require thousands of practices first, and yet it came naturally to him right off the bat. Could it be because that's just the natural way someone would walk in 1/6th G?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
"snoopy cap" n_____n
frithandinle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are the mustached morons going to go to Germany to dig up the remains of Jews and do a head count next?
MaryOMackie 2 years ago
technically alot were burnt..
but anyway dont hate on these guys
foxytr900 2 years ago
i don't really agree with mythbusters all the times..the do the test of things as if they are the trained pros....like the floating ninja platform....i think they need really lots of practice physically in that test before saying its busted.He tried like thrice???i need to kick a ball like a 1000 times b4 i can play football ya know...get wat i mean?
aril79 2 years ago
"i don't really agree with mythbusters all the times..the do the test of things as if they are the trained pros...i need to kick a ball like a 1000 times b4 i can play footbal..."
Mythbusters isn't science, that's for sure. And that is something they stress often and readily admit. But they do work through a lot of stuff pretty well.
What I would take from this is, even without *any* practice he *was* able to replicate the way the astronauts moved in the true 1/6g, no practice required.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
and by the way...to remove parts of quote is the same as the same as puting it in own words and not the original speaker..thats how miscommunication always occur....especially when examples are cited... ; )
aril79 2 years ago
@aril79 No, sorry, it is a fairly well known and established practice to cul bits of a quote that are not pertinent using an ellipses. Of course it might be a little confusing when quoting *you* because you have adopted the odd practice of finishing every sentence with an ellipses. Additionally with youtube's restrictive limit off about 500 characters it becomes all the more necessary to trim down a quote to the bare essentials. It is still in the "original speakers" words.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
did NASA pay them? hehehehe
tigershark075 2 years ago
oops take out the "not" in my last comment.
nmrecording 2 years ago
you are correct at 4:20 seconds the comparison is dead on, even with adam rushing his hop to obviously favor NASAS side. on the 6:53 version it is very apparent that the close encounter caused Myth busters to speed up, most likely in complience with not an agreement with NASA.
i have to call BS on this even tho the rest of the show seemed accurate
nmrecording 2 years ago
quit the weed dude.
cutterschoicenotmine 2 years ago
lol at jamie 5:10
0871356005 2 years ago
farse why dont the wire man pull him up on the jump as im sure they would have for the astonaughts and helmet moving about may have something to do with being 10 sizes to big for that pea brain plus his suits not inflated.
bigfist255 2 years ago
someone give them a budget of 30billion dollar, and take away Phil Plaits from theyre team (Bad Astronomy) and they should be able to do it... Oh, and let someone outside investigate it...
gullungen84 2 years ago
There is No need to use mirror on any object surface using Laser technology !!!
Get with it.
Again, learn more about Laser technology for mesuring distance before you post idiotic comment, and including Myth stupid comedy video.
Caio
hadiway 2 years ago
While it is true you can bounce a laser off the moon without a retroreflector, more joules are needed per pulse, and it is fundamentally less accurate. The accuracy we have today is undeniable proof of an artificial corner reflector on the moon at the locations claimed, in the time frames claimed.
sciencemag*org/cgi/content/abstract/166/3901/99
adsabs*harvard*edu/full/1975SvA....19..236A
w w w*k3pgp*org/lasereme*htm
Remove spaces and asterisks after copying links into address bar.
loperspest 2 years ago 2
i will not waste my time to respond to you!
you dont know that they using Laser and shot the surface of the Moon?? uhhhh.
kid you dont know anything,then do not argument .
it seems you living in no where LOL
hadiway 2 years ago
charlienecro,
YES, this is what i wanted to mention here!!
bunch of Liar!! what you can say lol.
it is the same lie in their video Laser beam on moon surface, they said there is mirror to reflect the laser beam hahaha
the problem they do not watch how laser device can measure Distance,volume,height,Area and so on....
poor those mythy guys!
hadiway 2 years ago
"the problem they do not watch how laser device can measure Distance,volume,height,Area and so on...."
With all due respect, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I mean seriously. The whole reason they put the reflectors there was so they could measure distance and they are able to do so within a few cm! What volume, height, and area are you talking about? No one ever claimed the laser experiments were used to measure such things.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 2
at 4:19 watch the side by side comparison
now watch the all too brief three way footage at 6:53....do you notice anything?
different speeds...not the same slow motion speed between their two tests
charlienecro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think adam is a faggot
OfficerMcGroist 2 years ago
they failed to do the moonwalk!
aril79 2 years ago
Conclusion "Mythbusters tests are flawed".
Who can i trust these days????
aril79 2 years ago
"Conclusion "Mythbusters tests are flawed"."
Because they didn't come to the same untested preconceived notion you hold? If their test is flawed... where is the flaw? What did they fail to do?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
Cost?????Comeon wake up???The EPL is spending much more money than Nasa needs to spend to go to the moon...THe Ship is already there rite..dont they have they old plan..those tech come in cheap now i guess....AHHAAAAAA
aril79 2 years ago
"The EPL is spending much more money than Nasa needs to spend to go to the moon..."
The English Premier League? what does football have to do with the moon? I guess they are both round...
"THe Ship is already there rite.."
Would that be the mothership? Waiting to take you home?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
I hope there is one! coz i don't think doz moonwalkers wants to die moonwalking!
I'd rather watch soccer than watching those tests by the mythbusters,they are entertainers allright,I'm sure they did alot of homework b4 busting things out.
aril79 2 years ago
Of corse we didnt go to the the moon! Its the moon for christ sake! Come on!
punyo4u 2 years ago
and.......?
codythunder 2 years ago
the busters are simply showing you how NASA did their research.
jazzmaster1972 2 years ago
They also used wires, as can be seen in many of the videos.
sheilakc 2 years ago
Antennas, not wires!
G1NZOU 2 years ago
y don't nasa go to the moon again since?it would be the best prove yet to shut all the conspiracy theorist and also prevent people from arguing al together.If the 1969 technology can do it...y not go next year...J.F.K make them did it in less then a decade with that technology...
aril79 2 years ago
because NASA is not going to waste billions just to go "ah haaaa told you"
codythunder 2 years ago
Thankfully they did spend a good spot of money to send up the LRO. Now of course they didn't send it up to prove the Apollo landings were real, but I think it's great they didn't waste any time releasing shots from the landing sites that show dozens of objects recognisable as things we have seen in the photos from the Apollo missions. The LRO is an embarassing blow to the hoaxers, they have no way to explain it. They just ignore the evidence and move on to more nonsense...
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
They come very close to replicating it, but conclude that IT DOESN'T MATCH! Uh, huh. Now, if I had another $40 billion (like NASA) I know I could work out the bugs. But these two clowns? Uhhh....NOT!
bondurango 2 years ago
those 2 geeks are special effects specialists, and you take their word for it? they can fake anything. It doesn't matter if cocksuckers got on the moon, what I hate is that most sheeps blindly believe anything the government shoves down their throats.
jimmybrite 2 years ago
"what I hate is that most sheeps blindly believe anything the government shoves down their throats."
Oh so you don't mind the conspiracy nuts who blindly swallow any and every old conspiracy theory no matter how absurd....
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 3
they should be jumpin 6-8 fet at a time, not the 2ft youd expect here on earth
rockync7 2 years ago
Guys I just get pissed off when people like, myth busters go after the big tax money? for this hoax see you on the moon. But the Hydrogen car busted haha im driving on it adam.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Well you couldn't get much more biased than to get an obvious NASA fanatic who has replica spacesuits in his wardrobe.
Oh well, LROC images of the moon hardware should be available in a few days. But watch how it will mysteriously crash into the moons surface BEFORE getting pictures of the lunar hardware lol. Using the moon videos as evidence of the landings is like me using the Thunderbirds TV series as evidence that Virgil Tracy really existed.
GJOrange 2 years ago
Fare invastogation is not avalible? Why look at the great fames Busters( Yes they my heros). But here something is not opjective? I see NASA all over the place. And i think they know but dont want to speak the truth! Why hahaha you blow your changes when you suggest the moon landing was a haox! Money over principle, wonder what nasa paid them?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
40 years later....ad still nobody can reproduce the videos that they claim NASA faked....?
why is that?
bigrob981 2 years ago
They failed to do whats fucking ovbious.Combine the speed adjustment and the wires.The part on here where he falls to the ground matches perfecly with the astronaut on apollo16,when he get yanked up from behind by some invisable force.These guy didnt even try.
1THETRUTH10 2 years ago
where is your video??
bigrob981 2 years ago
Moon landing hoax-wires footage, 2:10s.
1THETRUTH10 2 years ago
so like all other conspiracy idiots.....you are all talk, and no substance.
please post your video proof...
bigrob981 2 years ago
Fucking hell bellend.TYPE ,yes,TYPE, MOONLANDING HOAX -WIRES FOOTAGE into YOUTUBE (thats the site you are on now).Then watch at about 2:10s in the astronaut get`s yanked off the floor as if some invisable force was at work(wires).Why are all you NASA groupies so retarded or at best stupidly naive.
1THETRUTH10 2 years ago
Well have you watched it or are you on the run mrs NASA!
1THETRUTH10 2 years ago
No, no it didn't. Watch the video again, and keep your eye on the astronauts LEFT ARM.
Jesus christ, this is like explaining that the earth is round to a bunch of monkeys. The evidence is slapping them in the cock, but they still don't have the mindpower to comprehend it.
Gorilla199abuser 2 years ago