Mythbusters and Moon Hoaxes

[ar81]

If you want to prove that moon landing was a hoax without actually going there, it is like proving that US crisis does not exist while living in a Pacific island. If the film can be faked or not is irrelevant. Under such premise, war of Iraq could also be faked and would be therefore inexistent.

 

[Missioncmdr]

27% of college students have serious doubts about apollo, another 10% say the landings are "highly unlikely." The state of space science education in this country is quite poor, which is really sad considering that we have some of the best educational resources in the world when it comes to space.

I bet the same percentage were inebriated at the time, too. :lol:

I think part of the problem lies with the Internet. Some people see on YouTube video and take everything it says as 100% fact. And, of course, this generation is a lot more into the Internet than any previous one.

But, to get back on topic, I did enjoy this episode of Mythbusters (as I usually do). They should have done the no stars myth, too, because it seems like that is one of the most common claims. Although, there were a few factual errors (like how Adam said Armstrong's spacesuit had red stripes), but nothing major.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

But, to get back on topic, I did enjoy this episode of Mythbusters (as I usually do). They should have done the no stars myth, too, because it seems like that is one of the most common claims.

Actually, National Geographic Channel addressed the photographic evidence a couple of years ago. "Mysteries of the Moon", I think the episode was called, as part of their Naked Science series.

I didn't like the part where they said that the retroreflector was "The Nail in the Coffin" for the conspiracy - evidence of hardware is not evidence of manned landings. :rofl: To me, the final nail would have been their duplication of the walking styles done in the jet. Special effects can come close, but NOTHING can duplicate the footage exactly... except for someone actually walking in 1/6 gravity...

 

[Andy44]

evidence of hardware is not evidence of manned landings.

No, but it is evidence of the ability to fly in space using rocket technology, which the conspiratards deny is possible. There was a video a while back in which a young woman tried to explain that there is no way a Saturn V is powerful enough to reach the Moon.

 

[Missioncmdr]

There was a video a while back in which a young woman tried to explain that there is no way a Saturn V is powerful enough to reach the Moon.

Was that the one where she was reading from a book that was published in the 40s?

 

[W35M4N]

Was that the one where she was reading from a book that was published in the 40s?

Haha, nice. I think so far the common trait between Apollo Hoax believers is that they don't know much about physics. Like the guy that said that because there is no air to push off of rockets don't work in space, and thus anyone who has claimed to use a rocket in space is part of a conspiracy. Same as the 9/11 deniers, they usually have little experience with physics/engineering, although maybe I should stop bringing up 9/11 since it is a lot more recent and has a lot more of a following, since there hasn't been as much time to debunk it yet.

27% of college students have serious doubts about apollo, another 10% say the landings are "highly unlikely."

Because college students are always the most knowledgeable about science.

 

[Messierhunter]

Because college students are always the most knowledgeable about science.

Quite the contrary, which is kinda scary. They enter the "real world" in 4 years or less. I watched a physics major try to argue with our astronomy professor over the reality of the moon landings. That's just depressing. My generation is far too reliant on questionable websites and videos for their "evidence."

 

[W35M4N]

Quite the contrary, which is kinda scary. They enter the "real world" in 4 years or less. I watched a physics major try to argue with our astronomy professor over the reality of the moon landings. That's just depressing. My generation is far too reliant on questionable websites and videos for their "evidence."

I'm younger than you actually if you are in college, I'm in high school. I do remember how a guy thought that the moon landings were fake because the moon must continually heat up since "it's in a vacuum, which is a perfect insulator" so when someone said that it radiates heat, it doesn't just get hotter and hotter he though that heat radiation was related to nuclear radiation and would make it too readioactive on the surface of the moon for astronauts. It's that kind of thing which makes me think of hoax believers as not having much knowledge of science, not that all of them don't, though it's still ridiculous.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

No, but it is evidence of the ability to fly in space using rocket technology, which the conspiratards deny is possible.

A few conspiritards (LOVE that word... :rofl contend that rocket travel is impossible - most seem to say that it's only *manned* flight that is the fraud.

And since the Mythbusters set out to prove that the Apollo landings weren't a hoax, they can't really use that argument.

 

[Missioncmdr]

Not sure how many people saw this. You can see an outtake on the Discovery website where they demonstrate the hammer and feather drop Dave Scott did on Apollo 15:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/play...0013704&lineupId=229524134&titleId=1717866549

Just go to the "Mythbusters Uncut" section.

 

[V8Li]

I can't wait to see how they "duplicate the result" on this one ...

 

[C3PO]

I can't wait to see how they "duplicate the result" on this one ...

How? They just have to fire up an Orbiter session with AMSO or NASSP.