 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / September 2008Mythbusters to bring finality to fake Moon landing
Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon mission in a tv studio it will bring life back into the controversy and possibly be a legitimate proof to the legend that the whole thing was NASA phoney baloney. I will watch the program with an open, unbiased mind. Everyone has taken note that Armstrong has been altogether too low key every since purportedly doing it and consequently making the history books, for better or worse. Does he harbor a guilty conscious? Or was it the embarassment of a brain fart when it came time to say, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind". There is a small but finite chance Armstrong really did step foot on the Moon and flubbed his lines. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it > Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon > landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon > mission in a tv studio it will bring life back into the controversy and > possibly be a legitimate proof to the legend that the whole thing was NASA > phoney baloney. I have high hopes that they'll do this subject justice, which is to say that they'll come to the conclusion that all of the conspiracy theories are complete bunk. > I will watch the program with an open, unbiased mind. Everyone has taken > note that Armstrong has been altogether too low key every since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > giant leap for mankind". There is a small but finite chance Armstrong > really did step foot on the Moon and flubbed his lines. Nope. Armstrong is just a very private kind of guy. He actually lives in the same county in Ohio that I do. Everyone here you talk to will tell you that's just the way he is. Jeff  SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon >> landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I have high hopes that they'll do this subject justice Given their track record, I can't see how you can maintain such optimism. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon >>> landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > D. Mythbusters? I consider Mythbusters one of the best science shows on TV, although they would never admit it between blowing things up. Since the first season, they have applied a pretty good engineering and science approach to testing the myths within the time & budget and entertainment constraints of a TV show. Perhaps the best experimental science show on mainstream TV. I caught the last part of the show last night (show is on the DVR) on the Discovery HD channel. The A team - Adam and Jamie - were trying to replicate the film shots of the astronauts walking on the moon and could not quite get it right, despite a counterweight rig hoisting Adam up to 1/6th of his weight. Of course, changing his weight to 1/6th normal still would not account for the differences in moving around of 9.8 m/sec-squared to 1/6th of that. The B team compared the behavior of the flapping flag in air and in vacuum. They replicated the flapping around in vacuum as there was no air to dampen the jostling the astronaut gave to it as they finish setting it up. Without having seen the rest of the show, I expect the moon conspiracy nuts will be unhappy with the Mythbusters conclusions. Alan F >>>> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon >>>> landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >entertainment constraints of a TV show. Perhaps the best experimental >science show on mainstream TV. And the Shuttle is the best winged reuseable spacecraft in service. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL In terms of "is it possible", back in the 1969, would it have been technically possible to fake it ? 0-g can be simulated in a plane. They were able to do that in 1969, right ? Vacuum can be simulated in a large chamber, didn't NASA already have such chamber in 1969 ? (to create the sand effects for landing). I realise that today, this is far easier to fake, but wouldn't it have been possible to do it in 1969 ? If they had sent some satellite towards the moon to take the pictures of the earth from afar, did they have the technology to send back high quality images via radio back then ? (In no way am I saying that they faked it, just wondering if there are true showstoppers that would have prevented Hollywood from faking it in 1969). > In terms of "is it possible", back in the 1969, would it have been > technically possible to fake it ? > > 0-g can be simulated in a plane. They were able to do that in 1969, right > ? No. Also, remember that the Moon astronauts were shown walking over a _very_ large area ('set' according to the nuts); it would be litterally impossible to duplicate 1/6g on that scale. > Vacuum can be simulated in a large chamber, didn't NASA already have > such chamber in 1969 ? (to create the sand effects for landing). Not 100m across - that's how far Armstrong walked from the LM. > I realise that today, this is far easier to fake, but wouldn't it have > been possible to do it in 1969 ? No. And it isn't easy to fake at all; if you have a look at any movie set on the Moon, they always move in slow-motion; that's not how people move on the Moon at all (movies also show people moving in slow-motion in 'zero' gravity - quite obviously fake). > If they had sent some satellite towards the moon to take the pictures of > the earth from afar, did they have the technology to send back high > quality images via radio back then ? Yes, they had that technology, but they didn't use it - the Soviets (remember them?) would have said "AHA! THE MOON LANDING BY THE IMPERIALIST AMERICANS IS FAKE!!!" or something similar - the Soviets said no such thing. > (In no way am I saying that they faked it, just wondering if there are > true showstoppers that would have prevented Hollywood from faking it in > 1969). There are many 'show-stoppers' that would have prevented a fake landing - the one's mentioned above as well as something else - the Soviets would have been aware of any kind of trickery; either by using 'bounced' signals or by using spies within the program. Remember that very little of the Apollo program was actually secret; most was confidential at best and mainly for industrial reasons rather than national security. The Soviets would have known if it were faked, and would have gleefully told the rest of us. Most of the conspiracy rubbish is based on things that are easily proved to be inaccurate assumptions by CT (Conspiracy Theorists). The flag waving on Apollo 11 is a good example; it was clearly shown during the EVA by Armstrong and Aldrin that they simply couldn't deploy the flag properly - the telescopic boom that was used to support the flag horizontally jammed when patially deployed - it looked 'wavy' for that reason. All other Apollo Lunar missions then copied this as it looked good; no other reason for it. One conspiracy nut, Bart Sibrel mentions the lack of shadow from the flag pole in the image of Aldrin saluting the flag; yet when you see the entire image, there is clearly a shadow from the flag - Sibrel and others simply cropped the image to exclude the shadow. If you look at the whole image, it is quite clear that there is a dip in the surface on Aldrin's right side; that's where the shadow disappears, only to reappear when the ground level rises further back. There are many nuts like Sibrel, but they are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go by and people go looking for 'evidence' on their own. Because of the internet, people are less likely to believe idiots and nuts like Sibrel than ever before. >In terms of "is it possible", back in the 1969, would it have been >technically possible to fake it ? No. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>In terms of "is it possible", back in the 1969, would it have been >>technically possible to fake it ? > > No. > > D. See the line above about "temperate"? Now, explain _why_ you think it's impossible. > In terms of "is it possible", back in the 1969, would it have been > technically possible to fake it ? > > 0-g can be simulated in a plane. They were able to do that in 1969, right > ? For a minute or two at a time. How would you fake live zero gravity video longer that that? Easy, stick the craft in space! If it's in space, it can be tracked by radar and amateur radio enthusiasts. Well, I guess that's not much of an argument, is it? > Vacuum can be simulated in a large chamber, didn't NASA already have > such chamber in 1969 ? (to create the sand effects for landing). Large enough to fake the live video of astronauts driving the lunar rover? Yea, right! > I realise that today, this is far easier to fake, but wouldn't it have > been possible to do it in 1969 ? It's harder to fake using 60's technology than simply sending them to the moon in the first place. After all, everyone saw the Saturn V take off. A rocket that frigging big has to go further than LEO! > If they had sent some satellite towards the moon to take the pictures of > the earth from afar, did they have the technology to send back high > quality images via radio back then ? When did spysats switch from film recovery to radio transmission? That would show the level of technology necessary to do what you're asking. > (In no way am I saying that they faked it, just wondering if there are > true showstoppers that would have prevented Hollywood from faking it in > 1969). I don't think it could be faked. Besides, something got launched on that Saturn V and something went to the moon. Apollo was tracked by radar, and not just US radar. The Russians, for one, would have happily exposed any US lunar landing hoax. Also, the live audio and video from the moon was definitely beamed from the moon. Anyone and everyone on earth receiving those signals knew where they were coming from, since they had their antennas pointed at the moon! Finally, something landed those retro-reflectors on the moon. If you've gone to the trouble to actually land unmanned landers on the moon and gone to the trouble to make a launch vehicle as big as the Saturn V, why fake the actual landings? Why not land for real, as was obviously done? Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Finally, something landed those retro-reflectors on the moon. If you've > gone to the trouble to actually land unmanned landers on the moon and gone > to the trouble to make a launch vehicle as big as the Saturn V, why fake the > actual landings? Why not land for real, as was obviously done? One major thing with those conspiracy believers is that while you surely could fake nearly every single aspect of the landings (with enough money and dedication behind it) you couldn't fake *all* aspects of it at the same time (at least not without ending up with a project that's more complex and more expensive than just landing on the moon). Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery >>I have high hopes that they'll do this subject justice > > Given their track record, I can't see how you can maintain such > optimism. Huh? Most of the episodes I've seen I've been very happy with. They stick just enough science in the show that they don't overload the average viewer. So I do think they tend to oversimplify things at times. I also like that they sometimes revisit myths based on viewer input. That at least shows they're willing to learn from their mistakes and try again. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Nope. �Armstrong is just a very private kind of guy. �He actually lives in > the same county in Ohio that I do. �Everyone here you talk to will tell you > that's just the way he is. > > Jeff nasa screwed up big time.......... the first man on the moon could of led the charge to mars, instead armstrong packed it in just like nasa did. i have no doubt at all they walked on the moon........ > Nope. ?Armstrong is just a very private kind of guy. ?He actually lives in > the same county in Ohio that I do. ?Everyone here you talk to will tell > you > that's just the way he is. > > Jeff nasa screwed up big time.......... the first man on the moon could of led the charge to mars, instead armstrong packed it in just like nasa did. Armstrong faced a big enough challenge for one lifetime without having to live up to your expectations. I do hope they will do it with technology available in the 1960s. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > >> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jeff > Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon > landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it Kinda hard to fake a moon rock. George > Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon > landing when they try to fake it. "finality"? Rubbish! They aren't the first to bust the myths and they won't be the last. Don't forget the argument CT (Conspiracy Theorists) will come up with - "The Myth Busters didn't have the $20 billion budget that the U.S. government had". Undoubtedly, CT will come up with other responses - "Obviously, the Myth Busters are a part of the conspiracy, along with the Soviet government and anyone else who believes the Moon landings actually happened" - there's no answering morons and nutcases like CT. > Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon > landing when they try to fake it. I didn't see the program. How did they do? Thanks, Tom PS - If you'd like a good example of what Hollywood can do with moonwalk scenes, find a copy of Tom Hanks' series "From the Earth to the Moon." The lunar surface scenes were superb. >> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake >> Moon >> landing when they try to fake it. > > I didn't see the program. How did they do? They took photos of scale models with different lighting to reproduce the original images. They put a flag in a vacuum chamber and showed how it responded to handling. They went on a training flight for astronauts. Dressed in a simulated space suit and duplicated the hopping and moving in 1/6 g >>> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake >>> Moon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >They went on a training flight for astronauts. Dressed in a simulated space >suit and duplicated the hopping and moving in 1/6 g Thanks! I'll look for it in reruns. Tom > >>> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake > >>> Moon [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! I'll look for it in reruns. Tom, you can catch most of the episode on YouTube: Parallel shadows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWOYtmHCNc Astronaut in shadows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&feature=related For the laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvMZn8L1f0 Footprints: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw&feature=related Flag flapping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NcMyoB66Zw Astronaut movement in lunar gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4&feature=related -Mike >Tom, you can catch most of the episode on YouTube: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >-Mike Great, Mike. Thanks! Tom >> Tom, you can catch most of the episode on YouTube: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Tom Does anybody know why the flag flapping video has been removed "due to terms of use violation"? You can watch it on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&feature=related What is the difference? Signatureth >>> Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake >>> Moon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They took photos of scale models with different lighting to reproduce the > original images. This dispelled two myths (claims by the conspiracy theorists): 1. That non-parallel shadows in the pictures *had* to be caused by two light sources proving that they couldn't have been taken on the moon with only one light source (the sun). Mythbusters showed that you could get non-parallel shadows due to sloping terrain with only one light source (a single spotlight to simulate the sun). 2. That a picture showing an astronaut in the shadow of the LEM had to have been faked because his suit didn't appear black. Mythbusters showed that you could get a good picture in this case because even the low reflectivity of lunar regolith scatters enough light to make a *white* spacesuit stand out in the shadow of the LEM. > They put a flag in a vacuum chamber and showed how it responded to > handling. Which showed that in vaccuum, the motion isn't damped by air resistance, so it keeps on flapping long after thier "astronaut" stopped wiggling the flagpole. > They went on a training flight for astronauts. Dressed in a simulated > space suit and duplicated the hopping and moving in 1/6 g That part of the show was pretty amazing. Zero-G got some free advertizing, and it was incredible how the motion of Adam, in his weighted "spacesuit" was absolutely dead on what you see in the Apollo videos. Using 1960's era special effects, it's pretty hard (next to impossible) to imitate the physics of 1/6 gravity when you're stuck on a movie set that's got 1 gravity. The sad part is that the conspiracy theorists won't be satisfied. The simplest explanation for this is that they're dumb as rocks. :-) Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >> They went on a training flight for astronauts. Dressed in a simulated >> space suit and duplicated the hopping and moving in 1/6 g The series "from the earth to the moon" simply attached glorified helium ballons that provided just the right amount of luft to the space suits and were able to do a pretty good reproduction of what it seemed like on the moon. To fake 1/6th gravity, you wouldn't need to be in a plane. You would need to be in a plane to reproduce 0g. I think the only scenario where NASA might have decided to "fake it" was if the LEM wasn't deemed ready and they decided to launch astronauts to LEO where they did their stuff in 0G, and faked the moon landing/EVAs in studio with different actors. That would have given them extra time to complete the LEM and eventually go to the moon. There is no credibility that NASA would have faked all moon landings. (and very very very very little credibility that they faked the first one). > To fake 1/6th gravity, you wouldn't > need to be in a plane. You would need to be in a plane to reproduce 0g. Little question: How do people know it was faked if they keep comparing all the fake methods to Apollo? Surely, that simply says "Apollo was real and we are trying to find ways of faking it". The question is, if it was faked, how did all those different corner cubes that you can bounce lasers off get to all those places? One factor that is true is that after the mission, some photo manipulation took place in order to get public awareness. When I was younger and had site, I can recall seeing the raw moon shots, and some of them were absolutely awful, underexposed, over exposed and with bits of the important scene missing. Much what you would expect from where the cameras were mounted. I just wonder if, over the years, if all the creatively modified ones just got lost in the see of photos, and look fake due to the fiddling that went on. Its not just since we had computers that folk have played with photos you know! One source of multiple shadows was reflection from the very shiny lem outer covering, so photos taken on the side where this occurred did not have the pitch black expected of a world with only one sun and no atmosphere. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > Tonite on Discovery Channel, Mythbusters is to bring finality to fake Moon > landing when they try to fake it. If they can really duplicate the moon [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it > The question is, if it was faked, how did all those different corner cubes > that you can bounce lasers off get to all those places? That has always in my opinion been one of the weakest arguments. The Russians landed I believe two. There's no reason the Americans couldn't have done the same. There are plenty of good convincing arguments, but this isn't one of them. > One factor that is true is that after the mission, some photo manipulation > took place in order to get public awareness. When I was younger and had [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have the pitch black expected of a world with only one sun and no > atmosphere. People also forget there was a second light source fairly close in the sky. > Brian > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info >> https://www.mixmaster.it SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.