Thread: Mythbusters on the moon landing fraud

I saw it. I thought that most of it was real, but maybe they pushed a few thiings to make it look like it was really done. Like the photos. Those were fake for sure.

I saw it the other day. Pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

Like the photos. Those were fake for sure.

Name one fake thing about the photos.

I just think maybe they hoaxed those results, I may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

I just think maybe they hoaxed those results, I may be wrong.

Who are you talking about? NASA or Mythbusters? Are you saying NASA's moon photos were faked?

I think that the photos were hoaxed by NASA and the results taying that they were not hoaxes were hoaxed by the MythBusters

So? The moon-landing wasn't fake, they even left a mirror on the moon. But I guess a huge, 40-year-lasting hoax is way more easy to pull off, and cooler to talk about wearing your tin-foil-hats.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

I think that the photos were hoaxed by NASA and the results taying that they were not hoaxes were hoaxed by the MythBusters

Ok. So what, specifically, about the photos screams "fake" to you? Are they too high quality, too many of them, visual artifacts, what?

Originally Posted by Neruo

So? The moon-landing wasn't fake, they even left a mirror on the moon. But I guess a huge, 40-year-lasting hoax is way more easy to pull off, and cooler to talk about wearing your tin-foil-hats.

Who is to say they didn't just say they got a reflection?

Yeah, they left a mirror up there. What do you mean, 'just say they got a reflection'? Anybody can confirm it if they're genuinely bothered. Which they're not.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

Who is to say they didn't just say they got a reflection?

If you have a sufficiently powerful laser and telescope, you can very easily test this. Just look up the location of the reflector on Google Moon or whatever.

And you still haven't answered my question.

I do not think that craters can alter the shaddows os the astronaunt or the rocks as much as is shown, and the moon's surface is not reflectione enough to luminate the astronanunt as much as he was.

Riiiiight.

Now the explanation for how the mirror got on the moon.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

I do not think that craters can alter the shaddows os the astronaunt or the rocks as much as is shown, and the moon's surface is not reflectione enough to luminate the astronanunt as much as he was.

Please watch the following from the show. It covers your concerns exactly.


Photos, part I


Photos, part II

I just say the first one was faked. The rest landings were real.

Notice that the "real" photo has a better lit astronaunt, but less reflective surface, and the oppoite is true for the Mythbusters picture.

The fact that they could manage to create those images says that it could have been done. Even with less technology back then, there was a hell of alot of money at the ready.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

Notice that the "real" photo has a better lit astronaunt, but less reflective surface, and the oppoite is true for the Mythbusters picture.

The fact that they could manage to create those images says that it could have been done. Even with less technology back then, there was a hell of alot of money at the ready.

But now you're shifting goal posts. You began by saying that the photos could only be done with multiple light sources, but now you're saying that since they showed it can be done with one light source, that somehow proves that they were faked? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah. I loved this episode (Adam has such awesome friends, to give him a fake space suit), but I knew when the first commercials aired for it that people would be all "OMGZORz, thats proves the moon landing was fake!" It doesn't prove the moon landing was fake, it proved it could be real. To prove it could be real they also had to prove that it could be fake, but the point of the episode was to debunk the reasons the conspiracy theorists say it had to be fake, not to disprove that it was fake.

And, RiaD, the Mythbusters had grey/brown sand, an electric lamp, and a miniature astronaut. The moon had grey dust, the sun with no atmosphere, and a full-sized astronaut. Of course the astronaut would look brighter in the mon pics, even if Nasa was just using a sound stage with really high-powered lamps and grey dust and an actor in a spacesuit.

I am saying that in the insttance of the second picture.
The NASA picture has:
1 well lit astronaunt
1 medium lit moon surface

The Mythbusters photo has:
1 medium lit astronaunt
1 well lit moon surface

See what may be going on?

Jet7EL, you make a good point. You right, and that makes sense. But sorry, I still need to keep it open as a posibility that some results were faked.

Rioght. I'm not saying either examples (moon landing or mythbusters) were faked, or could not have been faked (although I don't really see how you could fake an intentional replica of a scene), just that the mythbusters had almost definitely tested it, and had come up with sensible evidence that it wasn't necessarily faked (Mythbusters I trust, Nasa, not so much). I'm not saying either way that they were faked or not, I just try to advocate whichever side of the conspiracy theory argument is being repressed in any given conversation.

And it does seem odd that the side of the landing pod was far more dim than the astronaut in the ML pic.

I just say the first one was faked. The rest landings were real.

:\

Motive?

Originally Posted by JET73L

And it does seem odd that the side of the landing pod was far more dim than the astronaut in the ML pic.

So one oddly lit photo now counts as proof that the US government perpetrated the largest hoax in human history?

I don't understand why some people have such a hard time believing the moon missions were real. Are these the same people that believe the earth is flat?