Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

People keep talking about 2-3 photons as if this is all that is returned, and as if Mythbusters are the only people ever to do it. Hundreds of pulses at a time are fired at the moon by these lasers, and 2-3 photons are returned per pulse. This experiment has been repeated by several observatories over many years and many hours of observations.

The presence of the LRRR hardware does not in itself prove a human presence on the moon, and it would be foolish to claim otherwise. It would be equally foolish, however, to deny that people put those reflectors there when there are photographs and videos of those reflectors being put in place, photographs and videos that also contain pictures of Earth that can be dated precisely. The LRRR also don't exist in isolation, in that there are lots of other pieces of equipment that were installed at the same time, equipment that could not have been set up by robots (such as the seismic and thermal probes), and equipment that was returned to Earth with experimental data that could not have been obtained on Earth (the solar wind experiments.

Picking out a tiny detail of the mission and dismissing it fails to account for all the other details, and makes it look like you're just cherry picking evidence to suit your point of view, ignoring the data that prove you wrong.

SJ missed out the best quote from the show - the one from the researcher at the observatory:

"I think they're crazy"

Doing tests with NASA about the moonlanding is ofcourse a no go ! And Mythbusters did that !

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


...i like mythbusters to watch. But they can't do everything right. In fact they even admit that saying : "I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE ATTEMPS OUTTHERE ARE AS CRAPPY AS HELL".

Watch the video at 4:00

webstra
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

...i like mythbusters to watch. But they can't do everything right. In fact they even admit that saying : "I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE ATTEMPS OUTTHERE ARE AS CRAPPY AS HELL".

Watch the video at 4:00

For one thing he appears to me to be referring to other shows that are not as good as Mythbusters, and for another (as I said in a response above) proving Mythbusters wrong is not the same as proving you right.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


No i don't think so...I sugest to you to watch the video again. And maybe write the sentences down what he says ?

onebigmonkey
"I think they're crazy"

Scientist can go very angry if you don't agree with them.

She talking at the the same level as if i would say about her 'I think she is fat'.

webstra
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

No i don't think so...I sugest to you to watch the video again. And maybe write the sentences down what he says ?

You know what, why should I? Provide me with a transcript if you care so much. He starts off by saying he'd be absolutely fine if another show came along and did it better then they do, but a lot of the attempts "out there" are crappy.

Scientists don't really get angry if you don't agree with them, scientific advancement has often been about disagreement. What they get angry about is stupidity. Claiming we didn't land on the moon when every scrap of evidence supports the fact that we did and not one scrap of evidence shows otherwise is stupid.

onebigmonkey

webstra
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

No i don't think so...I sugest to you to watch the video again. And maybe write the sentences down what he says ?

You know what, why should I? Provide me with a transcript if you care so much. He starts off by saying he'd be absolutely fine if another show came along and did it better then they do, but a lot of the attempts "out there" are crappy.

Scientists don't really get angry if you don't agree with them, scientific advancement has often been about disagreement. What they get angry about is stupidity. Claiming we didn't land on the moon when every scrap of evidence supports the fact that we did and not one scrap of evidence shows otherwise is stupid.

This is what he says "I know that we don't do it as good as we could every single time. Although we try. And i know the a lot of the attemps outthere are as crappy as hell."

What i noticed about scientist...they can be very intelligent but they are often naive.

reply to post by webstra


Even with your taking the quote out of context it still doesn't say what you're claiming it says. He is not saying his own show is 'crappy', he's saying other shows are. In fact he says his show is the best.

The question he was asked was how he felt about a very similar show to Mythbusters being produced on another network.

Here's more of his actual response:

"If there are more shows out there that lend people to do critical thinking and break something down and think about it like that, that's fantastic. I'd be happy to watch us lose to another show that did it better...erm..I know that we don't do it as good as we could every single time although we try...er..and I know that a lot of the attempts out there are crappy as hell..erm..but the fact that other people are trying to replicate our success by making science shows is absolutely not a bad thing."


'Other people' is the key phrase there.

reply to post by webstra


i think perhaps you should take the talking about mythbusters in another thread.. why are you going over what the mythbusters saying with a fine tooth comb?? what does it have to do with hoaxing the lunar landing??

why is there such a knee-jerk reaction to what the mythbusters are saying?? its their opinion that the moon hoax has been busted so why are you hoaxers having such a knee-jerk reaction to discredit them?? did they damage your pride by offering their opinion?? do you feel threatened by their opinion??

reply to post by choos

i think perhaps you should take the talking about mythbusters in another thread.. why are you going over what the mythbusters saying with a fine tooth comb?? what does it have to do with hoaxing the lunar landing??

Mythbusters did an episode #104 on the lunar landings. Phil Plait was a consultant to that episode.. That is a disclosure that people should be aware of. And it has everything to do with this thread.

It's no different than having Gerald Ford on the Warren Commission. Duh.

I'd gain some respect for Mythbusters if they did a 1-hr show on just moon rocks, if they examined NASA's poor inventory controls; if they looked into the specifics of the moon rock quarantines; and the contamination + provenance of moon rocks during the early years of Apollo. That I know they will not do. Jarrah White has already done like 8 hours on moon rocks. Mythbusters should use some of their insider connections to get some moon rocks and examine those moon rocks on the show. I'd hope they do a better job of science than they did with the lazer segment.

choos
why is there such a knee-jerk reaction to what the mythbusters are saying??

Simply because it shows up some of the lies the moon hoaxers have been pushing,

SayonaraJupiter
Mythbusters did an episode #104 on the lunar landings. Phil Plait was a consultant to that episode.. That is a disclosure that people should be aware of. And it has everything to do with this thread.

Email Phil Plait, or send him a tweet. He's not hard to get hold of.

I'd gain some respect for Mythbusters if they did a 1-hr show on just moon rocks, if they examined NASA's poor inventory controls; if they looked into the specifics of the moon rock quarantines; and the contamination + provenance of moon rocks during the early years of Apollo. That I know they will not do. Jarrah White has already done like 8 hours on moon rocks. Mythbusters should use some of their insider connections to get some moon rocks and examine those moon rocks on the show. I'd hope they do a better job of science than they did with the lazer segment.

So you'd gain some respect if they looked at the things you think are important but turn out to be completely irrelevant? I'd give you respect if you paid attention to the facts of Apollo instead of thinking that the politics invalidates the science.

The provenance of the moon rocks is the moon, not one single scientist who has looked at them disagrees. That would include those scientists that didn't look after them after NASA sent them their samples.

Jarrah White is not a scientist, he is a whining idiot who has convinced gullible people that his college film project matters - why would I believe him and not an astronomer, or a physicist, or a geologist, or a rocket scientist? What has his 8 hours of crap proved other than he doesn't understand the subject?

hellobruce

choos
why is there such a knee-jerk reaction to what the mythbusters are saying??

Simply because it shows up some of the lies the moon hoaxers have been pushing,

It seems that two well known Apollo Defenders, Phil Plait and Jay Windley, teamed up with the Mythbusters crew for episode #104 which was not a scientific investigation at all. There was nothing whatsoever convincing to me about MB episode #104.

The laser experiment does not prove humans were on the moon therefore Mythbusters has been BUSTED.

Here is what Jay Windley says on his web site,

Conspiracy theorists typically argue indirectly. They don't pit the merits of their theory against the merits of competing theories.

Well, that's EXACTLY what Mythbusters did when they completely ignored competing theories, such as, the robotic placement of the Apollo 15 LRRR. Why didn't Mythbusters invite Joe Rogan? Or David Percy or LunaCognita, Jarrah White or Michael Palomino, or Richard C. Hoagland? Eh?

Since the LRRR's are the only working experiments on the "moon" the Mythbusters could have just as easily shot lazers at the Lunokhod but they did not do that because it would undermine their un-scientific mischief.

SayonaraJupiter
There was nothing whatsoever convincing to me about MB episode #104.

Of course there was nothing convincing that they did for you - in fact nothing anyone did would ever convince you that your silly conspiracy theory was wrong. You like to ignore the facts and just make up nonsense about the moon landings.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

The provenance of the moon rocks is the moon, not one single scientist who has looked at them disagrees.

The fact is, every Apollo moon rock has a provenance that goes back to Richard Nixon's corrupt administration, with the poor inventory controls, ("extreme disagreements" was the wording they used) and, with the contamination/quarantine problems, and some of the A12 moon rocks were exposed and not protected from contamination. Here is Pete Conrad, as seen here, he is breathing all over the moon rocks and the moon rocks are not protected from contamination.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

The provenance of the moon rocks is the moon, not one single scientist who has looked at them disagrees.

The fact is, every Apollo moon rock has a provenance that goes back to Richard Nixon's corrupt administration, with the poor inventory controls, ("extreme disagreements" was the wording they used) and, with the contamination/quarantine problems, and some of the A12 moon rocks were exposed and not protected from contamination. Here is Pete Conrad, as seen here, he is breathing all over the moon rocks and the moon rocks are not protected from contamination.

Protected from contamination? You are very silly the rocks are studied in labs that contain an atmosphere breathing on them doesnt change their composition. The rocks themselves having set on the lunar surface with no atmosphere are void of volatiles and are completely lacking in hydrated minerals. Or to you means there is no chemicals to interact or contaminate.The only problem is moisture damaging the rocks but basalt the ones he is holding are not really affected. So before you make incredibly stupid statements take the time to learn about what you speak.

And they have some lnar samples kept in nitrogen at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston. This is to prevent moisture from ruining their internal structure. Meaning they cannot be held only manipulated via robots.

SayonaraJupiter

Here is what Jay Windley says on his web site,

Conspiracy theorists typically argue indirectly. They don't pit the merits of their theory against the merits of competing theories.

Well, that's EXACTLY what Mythbusters did when they completely ignored competing theories, such as, the robotic placement of the Apollo 15 LRRR. Why didn't Mythbusters invite Joe Rogan? Or David Percy or LunaCognita, Jarrah White or Michael Palomino, or Richard C. Hoagland? Eh?

Since the LRRR's are the only working experiments on the "moon" the Mythbusters could have just as easily shot lazers at the Lunokhod but they did not do that because it would undermine their un-scientific mischief.

blatantly wrong..

did you not watch the show at all?? are you only aware of the LRRR section?? the mythbusters did tackle the theories of hoaxers.. that was the whole point of that episode..

you sir, are a liar

choos

SayonaraJupiter

Here is what Jay Windley says on his web site,

Conspiracy theorists typically argue indirectly. They don't pit the merits of their theory against the merits of competing theories.

Well, that's EXACTLY what Mythbusters did when they completely ignored competing theories, such as, the robotic placement of the Apollo 15 LRRR. Why didn't Mythbusters invite Joe Rogan? Or David Percy or LunaCognita, Jarrah White or Michael Palomino, or Richard C. Hoagland? Eh?

Since the LRRR's are the only working experiments on the "moon" the Mythbusters could have just as easily shot lazers at the Lunokhod but they did not do that because it would undermine their un-scientific mischief.

blatantly wrong..

did you not watch the show at all?? are you only aware of the LRRR section?? the mythbusters did tackle the theories of hoaxers.. that was the whole point of that episode..

you sir, are a liar

Does it really surprize you he would lie to people really? Hes put forth no evidence of a hoax other than lies and innuendos.Show us what nixon watched and somehow thinks this proves something hes not been rational the entire thread.

SayonaraJupiter

Mythbusters did an episode #104 on the lunar landings. Phil Plait was a consultant to that episode.. That is a disclosure that people should be aware of. And it has everything to do with this thread.

what disclosure?? that the mythbusters used someone credible and knowledgable as a consultant??

would you take your car to a mechanic for a service or a guy on the street with a sign saying "mekanic, leeve ur car wit me for da day to fix free of charge"

I'd gain some respect for Mythbusters if they did a 1-hr show on just moon rocks, if they examined NASA's poor inventory controls; if they looked into the specifics of the moon rock quarantines; and the contamination + provenance of moon rocks during the early years of Apollo. That I know they will not do. Jarrah White has already done like 8 hours on moon rocks. Mythbusters should use some of their insider connections to get some moon rocks and examine those moon rocks on the show. I'd hope they do a better job of science than they did with the lazer segment.

you are far in the fringe group.. you are more willing to believe super advanced transforming bipedal/tracked remotely controlled mobots with unlimited fuel and power were used to setup the landing sites as presented in the pictures, which was designed and control by an omnipotent person/organisation, that which cannot even control the inventory of their lunar rocks properly.. no one really cares about having your respect..