Mythbusters Busted

Errors the Mythbusters made on their Apollo photo observation.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Mythbuster
• Mythbusters
• Moon Hoax
• Moon Landing

[durkadurka2323]

So you doctored a picture to disprove an effort to prove that the picture wasn't doctored? How does that make any sense. The two picture might not be exact, but that's the best you're going to get with models and toy astronauts.

Also, how on Earth would a secondary light illuminate JUST the astronaut and nothing else?

[Gigaloader]

@durkadurka2323 I hear you... That's why the Mythbusters episode is pathetic in the first place. But you can get a acceptable result even with models! They failed doing so!! In actuality the proved that NASA's picture is fake.... and obviously 'doctored' with their picture to make it work. This is what I show in the video, not more and not less!

[Gigaloader]

@durkadurka2323 furthermore most of NASA's s pictures are edited together from multiple negatives. That's why the illumination is not consistence.

It has been 100 % proven that the Apollo 11 pictures are fake because of the light reflections on metal object on the astronauts suits. NASA realized their error and covered all metal parts in further missions.

[CyFiM]

(Last Mini-essay, I swear!) There couldn't have been a secondary source of light in the NASA photo, because the shadow of the astronaut would have been visible beyond the shadow of the LEM. If the lights where positioned so that the astronaut's shadow wouldn't be visible, then he would have been lit from above, not from below as he is in the photo. If lights where used, then the LEM would be sparkling like a Christmas tree; try pointing a flashlight at a piece of foil, and see how it lights up.

[CyFiM]

Also, the differences in lighting are too minor to be of any consequence to begin with. The results won't be exact, that would be asking too way much of some make-shift dust and a little plastic toy. The difference between the photographs and the video stills is also irrelevant, because they where with different cameras with different exposure times from different angles.

[CyFiM]

I would like to note that the lunar surface in the NASA photograph is much rougher, with more bumps and hills and rocks than the Mythbusters photo. It looks darker because it is more porous. The little astronaut model is the same: you can tell that it has more exaggerated folds and details on it, which cast shadows and make it look darker. The model was also a darker color than the space suit to begin with.

[trevor7960]

@barbaivica because they were on a race with russia to space... so they cud risk anything to get the victory of them having their man az the first one to hit the moon lol ;)

[barbaivica]

Ok lets say this picture is fake, but all the other stuff isnt. Even NASA let Mythbusters to test mits in theyr vacuum chamber. and if it is just a fake why would NASA pay to lounch rockets in space and then again drop them on Earth for no reason?

[luccaskunk]

@xzktplm I know what refraction is. You have a reading comprehension problem. I said that light does not reflect, then listed several things it does do. Also, I said "ambient light and global illumination", not "light and illumination". You missed the "ambient" and "global" qualifiers, probably dismissed them due to not understanding what I said. Look it up. I'm not here to educate you.

[luccaskunk]

@xzktplm It's not contradictory at all. Air does not absorb all light that passes through it, just certain wavelengths and only to a degree. Sunglasses absorb light, but you can still see through them. To your sponge analogy, if you hold a sponge infront of a garden hose, you will see that the water passes through the sponge.

Air scatters blue light, and refracts all light. All transparent substances refract light. Even a vacuum has a refractive index.