...not a simulation? The real deal? Get your facts straight ms.Zero G

Downvote for turning skepticism into an Anti-Bush tirade.

Wow, is that how it came across to you? It wasn't an anti-Bush tirade, rougy. It is making fun of 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. I was certain I'd made that extremely obvious.

Downvote for the anti-Rice Krispies tirade! Yeah, yeah, we know, Lucky, those elves don't have the marshmallows in the hilariously purposeless obligatory shapes.

Trying to fight Moon Landing Conspiracies with logic is like trying to put out a fire in a KKK camp with semen; sure it might technically be possible, but compare to the ridiciouls amount of work you have to put in it's just not worth it. And even if you succeed who's going to thank you?

And yes, I'm sticking with that analogy, I find the image of a circle jerk full of bigots very apt in the context.

Still doesn't explain how the Lunar Lander touched down on the face of the moon without it's thruster both creating a crater, or disturbing one single iota of moon dust underneath it....

There, I said it!!

its 2008. we should have had colonies on mars by now
we dont have flying cars either...

Duckman, have you not seen a landing? Skip to about 5:30 for the actual landing and plenty of dust flying at high velocity from the thrusters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyeq8tquq1I&feature=related Or Apollo 12 at about 7:30 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZCXHS1EVA

Otherwise though, fake! That totally wasn't actually Buzz Aldrin telling us about the extra content! I could tell! Look at the way he's moving! Buzz totally doesn't shake like that when he's talking!

>> ^lavoll:
its 2008. we should have had colonies on mars by now
we dont have flying cars either...


Fo Realz. I mean, we should've had giant spinning space stations with insane AI computers running them. What gives NASA? pshaw I say, pshaw.

I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5873.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5927.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5931.jpg

The first linked picture pretty much sums up my point. I suppose they moved the lander to a different spot then took the pictures because the blast crater created by the thruster was unsightly? I'm not saying it was fake or not. But there are many discrepancies in NASA's own pictures that need to be answered.

I think you're wrong about that Duckman, in that the force from the descent thrusters were very slight thanks to the low gravity. And they didn't come straight down onto a single point like a shuttle launch in reverse; they descended like a plane so the powder-dirt that was blown around was along their long path toward their final landing point. Before they actually reached their final landing spot they were already slowed enough to touch down.

I don't think there're necessarily lots of discrepancies, just misconceptions of lunar physics and optical illusions. For example, most people believe flag movement should be impossible, but in fact in an airless environment a flag waves 100 times more and longer than in Earth's atmosphere. For another example, the shadows that appear to be coming from two different light sources were just a result of topography that isn't visible from the camera's pov.

>> ^Duckman33:
I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5873.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5927.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5931.jpg
The first linked picture pretty much sums up my point. I suppose they moved the lander to a different spot then took the pictures because the blast crater created by the thruster was unsightly? I'm not saying it was fake or not. But there are many discrepancies in NASA's own pictures that need to be answered.


What does disturbed dust look like as opposed to undisturbed dust? What does a blast crater in a bunch of craters look like? Even more so, this isn't earth dust, most of it is very ridged and doesn't behave in the same manor as the rounded dust you and I are exposed to everyday. You are using your experiences of unlike conditions on earth to equate to the entirely different conditions on the moon and trying to pass that as a reasonable.

I tell you who doesn't doubt the moon landing; radio telescope operators who traced its decent and ascent to and from the moons surface. Not to mention that the government couldn't keep the Manhattan project a secret and NASA is 20 times as large as. The Russians would have been the first ones to call our bluff.

>> ^Duckman33:
I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures


You want to check those pictures again professor, on pictures 2 and 4 you can clearly see the scorch marks under the lander. The engine at approach was not powerful enough to create any big crater in the surface of tightly packed regolith, neither is it expected to.

badastronomy.com sums it up rather nicely:

"Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."

That being the case, wouldn't the pads of the lander have at least slid/skidded a little in the dust before they came to a complete stop if they were coming in like a plane? Or did they just float down to a nice soft landing at the last second? If the dust is as fine as they claim it is on the moon, I would at least expect to see some scattering of the dust from underneath the landing pads when they touched down. But I don't see any of that here:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg

Or here:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5902.jpg

There's not even any dust inside the cupped area on top of the pads, which I would fully expect to see if they plopped down into a fine dust. Drop a penny in some flour if you need a visual of what I'm talking about. Either way, it still doesn't add up in my book.

I have no problems with the flag movements. He was also moving the pole around while placing it in the ground, thus the flag appears to "flutter" in the non-existent wind.
I also have no issues with the shadows.

It's all really a mute point anyway until someone actually goes back to the moon and finds out for themselves. The evidence is still there. (Or not there depending on your point of view).

>>Drop a penny in some flour if you need a visual of what I'm talking about.

Again, you're equating Earth's gravitation and atmosphere with the moon's. As long as you continue thinking of standing on the moon like standing on Earth, I think it'll be easy to keep seeing inconsistencies.

Instead of a penny in flour, consider a bowling ball in snow.

>>The evidence is still there.

At the end of this episode of Mythbusters they used a giant laser to shoot a beam at the moon where there are, in fact, still mirrors (called retroreflectors) sitting there. And they did their sole job, bouncing the laser beam right back, proving the mirrors are there, so we actually don't have to go back to find the proof.

I clearly see shadows "professor" not scorching... Depends on your point of view I guess.

>> ^lucky760:
>> Drop a penny in some flour if you need a visual of what I'm talking about.
Again, you're equating Earth's gravitation and atmosphere with the moon's. As long as you continue thinking of standing on the moon like standing on Earth, I think it'll be easy to keep seeing inconsistencies.
Instead of a penny in flour, consider a bowling ball in snow.
>> The evidence is still there.
At the end of this episode of Mythbusters they used a giant laser to shoot a beam at the moon where there are, in fact, still mirrors sitting there. And they did their sole job, bouncing the laser beam right back, proving the mirrors are there, so we actually don't have to go back to find the proof.


Cool, I'll need to watch it then.

Like I said, and it seems some people (lucky760 excluded) didn't read that before they decided to start blasting me. I'm not saying we faked anything. I just like to play Devil's advocate sometimes.

I do look forward to the upcoming Mars and lunar missions. I just wish they didn't wait what, 40+ years to start up again? That's one of the biggest mistakes we have made in my opinion.

This proves nothing.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
This proves nothing.


Sure it does, it proves near weightlessness is really really really fun.

I don't believe any of the moon landing conspiracy theories but Ryjkyj is right; in classic Mythbusters fashion, this video doesn't prove anything.

From what I can tell, they've set out to prove that the footage was filmed in 1/6th G. First they used bungee cords and modified film speed in an attempt to produce counterfeit footage. Second, they filmed in artificial 1/6th G in an attempt to replicate the footage legitimately.

Ultimately they decide that the legit performance seemed like the truth, so that must mean it is. That's their biggest mistake, right there. The truth isn't what you feel it should be. Certainly this experiment provides evidence for consideration, but it doesn't prove either side.

The most ironic part, however, is what they did prove. They proved that you could shoot real footage in 1/6th G without actually going to the moon. They probably did more for the conspiracy theories than anyone else has.

Occam was a no-talent hack.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I don't believe any of the moon landing conspiracy theories but Ryjkyj is right; in classic Mythbusters fashion, this video doesn't prove anything.
From what I can tell, they've set out to prove that the footage was filmed in 1/6th G. First they used bungee cords and modified film speed in an attempt to produce counterfeit footage. Second, they filmed in artificial 1/6th G in an attempt to replicate the footage legitimately.
Ultimately they decide that the legit performance seemed like the truth, so that must mean it is. That's their biggest mistake, right there. The truth isn't what you feel it should be. Certainly this experiment provides evidence for consideration, but it doesn't prove either side.
The most ironic part, however, is what they did prove. They proved that you could shoot real footage in 1/6th G without actually going to the moon. They probably did more for the conspiracy theories than anyone else has.


Well, I have a basic problem with this statement. You can't prove something true with the stuff they do, you can only prove something false. What they had done with this whole episode is attack the claims that are charged against NASA, that these inconsistencies are the result of being in a studio not on the moon. All myth busters have to do to make the conspiracy theorists eat crow is to show that all the claims of “this is what would happen in a movie studio and not on the moon” as something that would indeed happen on the moon.

In other words, they just have to show that the phenomena that the conspiracy theorists hold would only happen on earth do, in fact, happen when you are on the moon too. They did this for every case they took on. They showed that it could indeed happen on the moon as it did in the footage, and that is all they need to show really. No one said that it couldn't be reproduced here on earth, that isn't their burden to show either. All they have to show is the supposed “clues” that it was done in a studio could occur on the moon as well. They did, and that is as much prove as you could ever ask for.

More CFR propaganda from lucky. We all know you are just here spreading disinformation for the CIA. It's not a moon, it's a space station.

>> ^lucky760:
Wow, is that how it came across to you? It wasn't an anti-Bush tirade, rougy. It is making fun of 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. I was certain I'd made that extremely obvious.


I think that making fun of people who are skeptical of their government is pretty shallow.

I think that equating moon landing conspiracies with all other conspiracies is likewise quite shallow.

I do think 9/11 was an inside job, just as I think that the JFK assasination was an inside job.

And I don't think these videos "bust" any myth.

^A successful conspiracy needs to be easy to pull off and include as few people as possible.

The only 9/11 conspiracy scenario I'd be willing to buy is that the Bush administration knew the terrorist plans in advance and allowed it to happen. Missiles into the Pentagon, planned demolition, dummy planes and all that are absurd and would have been impossible to cover up.

JFK? Just about everyone believes that was a conspiracy.

I'll give you one more possible conspiracy: The death of Paul Wellstone.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
More CFR propaganda from lucky. We all know you are just here spreading disinformation for the CIA. It's not a moon, it's a space station.


Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!

Fox made a pretty compelling conspiracy program about the moon landing, available for download here. As I recall (and I haven't seen it for some time), there were a few conspiracy claims that are not covered by the mythbusters. Specifically, some of the photographs of the moon appear to be manipulated.

Seems to me that the problem is that you might think that the moon is made completely of soft dust that would actually create a crater instead of a ball of rock with a thin layer of dust on it. In which said dust would be blown off by the thruster before the lander landed, and thus, not actually create a skidmark of any sort.

But then, I'm drunk right now, and this argument is ridiculous (not mine, yours), so I've got no more time for it.

>> ^Duckman33:
I clearly see shadows "professor" not scorching... Depends on your point of view I guess.


No, just no. Check it again. It does not depend on your point of view. The shadows are clear, so are the scorch marks, they are no where near each other.

That's the thing about playing devils advocate, if the side your advocating has next to no credible arguments in the first place you're just gonna end up looking like a fool.

Anyway...

This was a great episode! Lots of fun. Really interesting.

>> ^Lithic:
>> ^Duckman33:
I clearly see shadows "professor" not scorching... Depends on your point of view I guess.

No, just no. Check it again. It does not depend on your point of view. The shadows are clear, so are the scorch marks, they are no where near each other.
That's the thing about playing devils advocate, if the side your advocating has next to no credible arguments in the first place you're just gonna end up looking like a fool.


I posted 5 pictures and you pointed out 2 of the 5 that allegedly show "clear" scorch marks. Not very convincing, sorry. If they are there, then all 5 would show them. Not 2 of 5. Yeah, that's credible all right....

>> ^Duckman33:
I posted 5 pictures and you pointed out 2 of the 5 that allegedly show "clear" scorch marks. Not very convincing, sorry. If they are there, then all 5 would show them. Not 2 of 5. Yeah, that's credible all right....


Correction: I pointed out 2 pictures that show them clearly, it is actually showed in all of them. Very credible, especially since YOU provided the pictures claiming nothing was there.

I would take them and put them through photoshop, highlight the areas, give you a quick run-through of light sources and shading in photos, showing why they arent shadows (there are no light sources that could possible account for a BROWN area directly beneath the landing vessels main thruster in an otherwise, everywhere, in every picture, GREY lunar surface, claiming 'shadows' just wont do when every other object and light source has their shadows accounted for in the picture), but honestly all that would be redundant since they are VERY CLEARLY THERE already. If you simply choose not to see them now, then no 'evidence' put forward by me is likely to change it.

This is precisely why I said that trying to use logic to defeat these "theories" is an exercise in futility, since there is nothing logical about the theories in the first place, and they have already made up their mind about what they see and how to interpret it.

[EDIT] Ok I wanna apologise a bit because I feel I might have come across a bit more hostile in this and other posts then was called for. Duckman, if you are acting devils advocate in this matter I certainly applaud the exercise in critical thinking, although I would question the topic since I feel these things have been around to the point where they are less of a discussion and more of a googeling competition, but that's beside the point.

I've had lots of these discussions before, and I'm starting to be more then fed up with them, which is why I thought I'd try and stay out this time. But since I have the self control of a monkey in a mango tree I manage to get roped in every time regardless.

All of the discussions I have had on this topic invariably turn into one of two things when you present evidence to the self-proclaimed "free-thinkers" of the conspiracy crowd; they either disprove your argument by putting forth another more outlandish explanation for your evidence that will still be able to account for their conspiracy, or they dismiss your evidence with a "it dosent prove anything" because you didnt manage to dispell every fabric of lingering doubt in the universe.

Absolute certainty is a philosophical impossibility and there is, in my opinion, such a thing as having too much doubt. Not every argument can or should be held as creditable (which it seems to be today), not every theory out there is worth hearing out, there has to be a limit. There has to be a point where we can say 'no, we've been over this, let's move on'. These discussions have been around since the actual moon landing (if/when/how/or/maybe/plausibly/possibly such a thing occurred), and have been disproved again and again, but somehow those guys always seem to turn up that need it proven to them, personally, in crayon, again. And that just gets to me, sorry if I went on a bit much. [/RANT]

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:I'll give you one more possible conspiracy: The death of Paul Wellstone.


Wow, how gracious of you.

I don't want to get into another argument about 9/11 and WTC7 because as far as I'm concerned, if you can't see it, you're blind and nothing I say will change that.

"JFK? Just about everyone believes that was a conspiracy."

Oh really? Where did it say that in the Warren Commission Report? Isn't it "absurd" that a government report could be made to cover up a conspiracy? Wouldn't somebody have talked by now, etc. etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that using these Myth Buster videos as some kind of proof that all conspiracy theories are bunk is out of line.

And these videos haven't proved anything other than this: with NASA's help, these guys were able to recreate situations similar to what the conspiracy theorists claim as false, and they did it without going to the moon.

Does anybody else here see the irony in that?

>>Does anybody else here see the irony in that?

It's not ironic. It's the point. There was never any doubt that everything you see in photos and videos could be produced. The doubt is only by conspiracy theorists who believe the things in the photos and videos could not possibly have happened on the moon.

Mythbusters proved that all of those things can and do occur naturally on the moon.

>> ^lucky760:
Mythbusters proved that all of those things can and do occur naturally on the moon.


That may be, but that does not prove that we went to the moon.

I don't know if we went or not. I can totally see our government lying about it for some kind of "We're Number One!" propaganda drive.

I do think that some of the photos that we've seen were doctored, and that might be because NASA screwed up and lost some footage and had to deliver some kind of visual proof.

I also think that almost everything that happened on the moon - the setting of mirrors, the collection of rocks, etc. - could have been done remotely by robots, similar to what we're doing now on Mars.

My point is, Lucky, that I think using this to bash 9/11 conspiracies and conspiracies in general is just out of line, and I don't know how else to say it.

Haven't you ever wondered why we haven't been back since the early 1970's?

Haven't you ever wondered why nobody else went there?

We've got people in Antarctica, we've got people in orbit constantly, but we go to the moon, bop around for a while, and never go back again? And nobody else even tries? I think those questions provide plenty of cause for skepticism.

The problem is some people will always find reasonable doubt because they want to, and unless they are actually in a spacecraft watching the astronauts walk on the moon, they will simply refuse to believe any evidence that says otherwise. (I wouldn't be surprised if even in that case such a person would suggest maybe a TV monitor was taped to the other side of the window to play a pre-recorded video of actors walking on a moon set.)

The same may be said for any theorist of any conspiracy. That doesn't mean every conspiracy is incorrect, just that most life theorists brush off any solid evidence of the contrary to embrace the plot lines that are personally most attractive and fulfilling.

>> ^rougy:
That may be, but that does not prove that we went to the moon.

Yes it does. http://www.videosift.com/video/Laser-Pointer-Mythbusters-Bust-Moon-Landing-Conspiracies

It is also possible to see other reasons outside of conspiracy why we haven't gone back lately. Some basic cost vs benefit figures come to mind. Manned moon missions cost billions of dollars and put lives at risk. We've sent a number of manned missions basically just to prove it could be done. Since the conspiracy only focuses on the first landing while ignoring everything up to Apollo 17 and unmanned missions following, does this vast conspiracy continue to fabricate moon landings and scientific research?

Now, like you said, we have the technology to perform tasks remotely. So why spend billions trying to send more people when you can launch something that doesn't have to worry about oxygen, food, sleep, or any other human needs? Also, in regards to wondering why no one else went there, what is the rush now? There is nothing there and the race is over. Russia and China are still considering possible manned missions in the future. In the meantime, unmanned missions work just fine. It is easy to construct conspiracy theories after an event has occured. Take a dash of fact, mix with conjecture, bake till ignorant, and you've got a conspiracy. Works best if served while calling everyone blind.

i shit in the face of science

I find it completely baffling that the greatest and most mindblowing achievement in all of human history is thought to be a fraud by so many.

Seriously, if you think the moon landing was faked, shoot yourself. Please. Pull the trigger. Do it. Please.

*conspiracy

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by EndAll.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Zifnab.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*length=8:27

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 8:27 - length declared by Mandtis.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.