Mythbusters Moon Hoax Photo Explanations

Apollo doubters never seem to come up with their own photos of seedy, back-room hoax meetings, actors, directors or sets in the desert. However, they love to pick on Apollo photos! Unfortunately, they often lack even basic understanding of photographic realities. Here, the crew from "Mythbusters" defuses 2 popularly proposed Apollo photo objections. No, in a half-hour show, they can't explain 100s of photos.

Don't bother suggesting that Mythbusters is actually proving that photos can be faked. These little photos aren't THAT good! And that's not the point of their experiment.

The purpose was not to prove it's impossible duplicate an effect. They proved that shadows can appear at uneven angles. They proved shadows don't always look parallel on uneven surfaces. They've proved that an astronaut's image can properly be exposed even if he's in a shadow.

Taking a couple of (less than convincing) still image of a toy model doesn't explain thousands of images and dozens of hours of video, retroreflectors on the moon, rock samples, etc.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Mythbusters
• Apollo
• photos
• hoax
• lunar
• fake
• NASA
• moon

[MrToiletface]

its mythbusters you faggits, theyre enterainers; special effects artists, not scientists of any type. theyd loose their show and be labelled as anti american if they said it was a fake. their experiments dont prove anything, in fact it shows it was faked by their standards. go fuck yourself lunar tuner you faggit fuck face cock brain

[LunarTuner]

@MrToiletface, you're entitled to your opinion about the Apollo program and about Mythbusters, but give me one reason why I should let you make childish, profane insults to me. This is my page. THIS IS A WARNING: Don't abuse me, because if you do it again, you will disappear.

[oleecow]

@LunarTuner , why wait?

[LunarTuner]

@oleecow, I value people's rights to free speech--and their rights to be idiots. That actually serves a purpose ;)

[LunarTuner]

@Chev4206, I defend the truth when it's attacked by ignorant people. You, being among them.

Any butthead with a telescope can see that the moon is uneven! Can you say C R A T E R ?

You're done here. You serve no purpose. Not only did you come to "my house" and call me "stupid," but you have nothing intelligent to offer. I could have offered your thoughts politely, but your mamma didn't teach you manners. Therefore....YOU ARE BLOCKED!!! HAAAA! :D

(I love that!)

[Mozart1220]

You gotta love these hoaxers. ANYONE providing concrete unquestionable obvious, evidence that we actually went to the Moon, is obviously "on the government payroll" or some kind of "shill". Hilarious.

[ytmoog]

@zimbol

It does not matter how dark the sky is a 1/256 s at F 5.6 second exposure will never show stars.

And those are typical exposure values used when photographing in a very brightly lit environment.

[LunarTuner]

@zimbol, any astronomer will tell you that the earth's atmospheric effect on starlight is much more distortion than reduction of magnitude. No matter how clear the sky, a star is 1,000s of times less bright than the sunlit surface. You will not see stars in ANY photos of astronauts or cosmonauts in space. You need exposure times of at least 8 seconds or more. It's s a bald fact. In fact, if I see stars, I know it's science fiction.

[zimbol]

@zimbol haha plz, read it botton to top plz...

[zimbol]

for that matter, his arms reflected more light to that doll, than the ground did... lol

To me, the biggest hoax is mythbuster itself...

but, after this, I'm starting to believe that we actually never went to the moon. Is it just me or in moons sky in those pictures has NO STARS??????? and since theres no atmosphere, theres no clouds. with a open sky it should be PLENTY of stars...

[zimbol]

But it is not totally plain. So part of the mainstream beam can be reflected to others direction. Altought this is right, the very thing that makes it possible to have light beams in dark spots, makes it impossible by the amount. What I mean is, ground irregularity makes it possible to have light beams reflected in many directions, but that same irregularity makes it almost impossible to really light something. That reduces a great deal of that 8% reflection.

[zimbol]

If u doubt me,go to a completly dark room with a flashlight and try to film anything that is not in the flash lights beam. And the compare it to this video.

If that wasnt enough, they clearly dont know how reflection works. unless they thing light makes curves(and plz, light can make curves, just not in this environment). If the terrain is totally plain(I mean TOTALLY and fully fulfilled, like a glass),the surface would work like a mirror, so u cant have any light beam on dark spots.

[zimbol]

or, theres always the possibility that they are very stupid and didnt think of that.. which might be the case lol Anyway, they didnt demonstrate anything at all.

In the second part, they reeeeally assume we are stupid. They are NOT in an environment that only one light soource. On 7:16 you can cleary see the wooden table lit. If the reflection is causing the problem, how the hell is that part of the table lit?