ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: ipearse on January 02, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
-
I have finally managed to catch up with the Mythbusters episode looking at the Apollo Hoax claims... this should be good...
-
I really enjoyed that one, although it does mean Jason now wants his own scale Moon landscape like they had.
-
Me too, me too! And the Neil Armstrong figure..
-
I really enjoyed that one, although it does mean Jason now wants his own scale Moon landscape like they had.
Ooo... me too! If I ever buy a home with an unfinished basement I'm turning it into my very own Moon studio. ;)
-
Oh, please don't encourage him! Anyway, it will have to wait until after I have a permanent setup space for my train set.
-
Oh, please don't encourage him! Anyway, it will have to wait until after I have a permanent setup space for my train set.
Combine them and have a trainset on the moon. Everyone's a winner.
-
No, it's OK. I've already told you that when we have a house with a big garden I'm building a life size Lunar Module in it in place of a shed... :P
-
No, it's Ok, I've already told you that when we have a house with a big garden I'm building a life size Lunar Module in it in place of a shed... :p
Oh God...
-
My dream as a kid was to build a model CM in my back yard. My father declined to buy the materials, thus ending the potential career path for me as a model maker. :'(
-
I want a life-sized TARDIS as my garden shed.... think of the amount of stuff you'd get in there! ;D Actually, I want my railway in the gaden - OO outdoors, can't beat it!
-
No, it's OK. I've already told you that when we have a house with a big garden I'm building a life size Lunar Module in it in place of a shed... :P
*Imagines Jason trying to drag his riding mower up the ladder*
-
Reminds me of how much the HBs have tried to trash Mythbusters since that special came out.
-
Oh, please don't encourage him! Anyway, it will have to wait until after I have a permanent setup space for my train set.
I'm lucky. Not only do I get to teach people to fly, I get to play with one of the largest, if not the largest, 1:1 scale train sets in the world.
-
Reminds me of how much the HBs have tried to trash Mythbusters since that special came out.
And all they ever can think of is some sort of ad hom attack.
They never actually bother to even try to debunk the debunking.
-
Unfortunately (for me) I have not seen this. Only terrestrial TV so we only get a few old episodes repeated ad nauseam (Quest TV in the UK). I would rather watch them on the TV than on line (if they are available on line, not looked). Give it time, they will pop up, sods law I missed them when I was working though.
To be fair, I have not watched them religiously. It starts off with a good run and then they start to repeat so you ignore and forget and then one evening clock an unseen episode and realise you have missed a few, start watching again, then they repeat, you turn off and miss when they start a new one.............
-
Its a really good episide of the show!
-
Its a really good episide of the show!
Yes it is. Forum member JayUtah (owner of the Moonbase Clavius Apollo hoax debunking site) was a consultant for that episode.
-
Unfortunately (for me) I have not seen this. Only terrestrial TV so we only get a few old episodes repeated ad nauseam (Quest TV in the UK). I would rather watch them on the TV than on line (if they are available on line, not looked).
Well, if you change your mind (and if the link works where you are), here it is:
http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing
-
That particular episode is not available on Netflix in the U.S. but it is on Amazon Prime. :)
-
In this Youtube clip of Mythbusters, the presenter states "You can tell it's Neil because he has the red command stripe". The red command stripe was first worn on the moon by Al Shepard, although it should have been Jim Lovell.
-
Unfortunately (for me) I have not seen this. Only terrestrial TV so we only get a few old episodes repeated ad nauseam (Quest TV in the UK). I would rather watch them on the TV than on line (if they are available on line, not looked).
Well, if you change your mind (and if the link works where you are), here it is:
http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing
Cheers. Just a bit old fashioned, rather put me feet up in front of the telly rather than a laptop. Might give it whirl though seeing as I keep missing them.
Edit. Just bought a new disc thingamabob that has netflix and youtube...
-
mythbusters did a good job on this , but they used a lot of nasa based help,i think to really prove the truth it has to come other sources
-
mythbusters did a good job on this , but they used a lot of nasa based help,i think to really prove the truth it has to come other sources
Oh, you mean like engineers with experience in the aerospace industry, like Jay Windley, or astronomers who have debunked this hoax nonsense for years, like Phil Plait?
Oh, wait both of them were involved with the Mythbusters episode.
I'm curious..please give examples of other "sources" you think would be better suited to tell the "truth".
-
mythbusters did a good job on this , but they used a lot of nasa based help,i think to really prove the truth it has to come other sources
Why? Would the results from the vacuum chamber tests be any different if they used someone else's chamber? Would their tests aboard the "vomit comet" be different if they used someone else's plane?
-
How about Bart Sibrel?...he's a pretty "stand up guy"...that is until Buzz knocked him on his can for calling him a liar, a coward, and a thief.
-
mythbusters did a good job on this , but they used a lot of nasa based help,i think to really prove the truth it has to come other sources
The "proof" needs to come from anyone that says the missions were faked. Your claim, your proof.
-
mythbusters did a good job on this , but they used a lot of nasa based help,i think to really prove the truth it has to come other sources
Actually, they did much of the work without NASA, including the photographs of shadows, the visit to the lunar laser ranging telescope, and the tests of slow motion and wire supports. Even the 1/6g airplane rides were provided by a commercial company, not NASA's famous 'vomit comet'.
They did use a NASA vacuum chamber to recreate a bootprint and to see how a flag swings without air. But unless you're arguing that NASA centers have a magic reality distortion field that causes their vacuum to behave differently than elsewhere, this doesn't do much for your argument.
-
well if they used some nasa stuff and got their own results i guess thats ok, i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa, i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
-
i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa, i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.
-
well if they used some nasa stuff and got their own results i guess thats ok, i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa, i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
Are pulling all your criticisms out of your ass, or just this one.
-
i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa, i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.
It was Apache Point in New Mexico. It is affiliated with NM State U.
-
well if they used some nasa stuff and got their own results i guess thats ok...
What do you mean...you guess.
By what criteria are you evaluating NASA, and have found them to be deceptive??
i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa...
Your thinking was wrong.
...i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
So you are unfamiliar with the episode, yet still choose to criticise how they conducted their experiments?
Really????
-
i thought the lazer shooting to the moon , bouncing off the mirror was all nasa, i havent seen the episode for since it was first on.
I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.
It was Apache Point in New Mexico. It is affiliated with NM State U.
Thanks. I know they also do laser ranging from McDonald, so that's what had me confused. I've been in the observatory and seen the telescope at McDonald that they use, but it was during the day so I didn't get to see it in action.
-
Totally off topic, but my company's products have shown up in the background of both Mythbusters and McGyver. Oh yeah, we're cool! 8)
-
I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.
The McDonald Observatory did lunar laser ranging for many years, but I believe that site has since been shut down. The Mythbusters' episode featured the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.
-
I think that was McDonald Observatory, which is affiliated with the University of Texas.
The McDonald Observatory did lunar laser ranging for many years, but I believe that site has since been shut down. The Mythbusters' episode featured the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.
McDonald maintains a web page on their laser ranging program dated in October of 2012. It appears they are still in the lunar ranging business. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
The McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS) is a dedicated laser ranging station capable of measuring round trip light travel times to a constellation of artificial earth satellites and lunar retro-reflectors to a precision of about 1 centimeter and time of laser firing to about 35 picoseconds. Data from this station as well as 30-40 similar satellite-capable systems and one other regularly contributing lunar-capable system around the world are used for a variety of scientific pursuits including study of the earth's gravitational field, plate tectonics, earth's orientation in space, high precision time transfer, relativity, lunar and solar system dynamics, and providing high precision orbits for GPS and ocean top mapping missions.
-
McDonald maintains a web page on their laser ranging program dated in October of 2012. It appears they are still in the lunar ranging business. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
The telescope in the photo doesn't look like the same one that I remember seeing. It's been years since I was there, but I recall the laser ranging telescope being inside a dome on the same mountain as the two large domes in the background. Perhaps that telescope was shut down and the laser ranging was moved to the facility we see in the photo. If true, that would make ka9q half right. ;)
Edit:
The two domes in the background are the older 82" and 107" telescopes. The large 9.2-meter Hobby-Eberly telescope was built on an adjacent peak in the 1990s, which was under construction the last time I visited McDonald Observatory. It looks like the telescope in the photo foreground maybe on the same peak as Hobby-Eberly.
-
wow some of you guys need to relax,lol. first i didnt critisize anything,,the fact is if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it and use private sources who dont have that connection the better. after all anybody that isnt a believer think nasa and the us government are all liars . dont you think pics of the landing sites from a private company or say japan or china who have nothing to cover up would more believable? i really think that if there were good evidance that it didnt happen , such as the landing sites, im sure they have been seen before the nasa pics come out a few years ago, other countries would have exposed it, i dont know if russia could have tracked any of our orbiters back then but if they did and nothing orbited the moon i think they would have said something.
-
i really think that if there were good evidance that it didnt happen , such as the landing sites, im sure they have been seen before the nasa pics come out a few years ago, other countries would have exposed it, i dont know if russia could have tracked any of our orbiters back then but if they did and nothing orbited the moon i think they would have said something.
Are you asking if the Soviets tracked Apollo? They did.
P.S. Proper spelling and punctuation would make your posts easier to read.
-
dont you think pics of the landing sites from a private company or say japan or china who have nothing to cover up would more believable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs)
-
wow some of you guys need to relax,lol. first i didnt critisize anything,,the fact is if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it and use private sources who dont have that connection the better.
Okay, first off, I'm with Laurel--use better writing.
Second, there is this prevailing belief among some people that it's possible to "put the hoaxers to rest." You can't. The most outspoken of them aren't working on logic to begin with, so all the logic in the world won't change their minds. They are missing literally tons of evidence, so a little more won't change their minds. And there are always people gullible enough to fall for it.
Third, because of how expensive space travel is, NASA is the place in the US that has resources. Very few other organizations need lunar dust simulant, so if you want to simulate lunar regolith, you pretty much have to go to NASA. Most of the other resources in the US are private companies, and who's to say they'd even let the MythBusters putter around their labs for free? Or even at all?
Fourth, if they're so steeped in conspiracism that they'd call the results fraudulent because the MythBusters got a very small amount of help from NASA, they'll call the results fraudulent simply because of what they show.
-
Laural, thanks for the third party link. I never knew the soviets landed anything on the moon. And brought back samples.
-
Laural, thanks for the third party link. I never knew the soviets landed anything on the moon. And brought back samples.
The Soviets had the first soft landing in 1966, beating the Americans by about four months. For the manned landings, the Americans are ahead by about 43.5 years, and counting.
-
if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it
There is no putting them to rest. They are mostly politically motivated and notoriously resistant to evidence of any kind. They believe in hoaxes for reasons that are not related to facts and evidence and will not be dissuaded by the fact that some other government has taken a few snap shots. For example the standard response to the fact that the Russians agree that Apollo was real is answered by the unsupported claim that the U.S. governmental bought their compliance with a grain shipment agreement that saved the USSR from starvation. Hoax believers live in their own special world of rationalization not one of empiricism and reason.
-
...Would their tests aboard the "vomit comet" be different if they used someone else's plane?
Are Zero G Corporation (who's flight it was) connected to NASA?
-
...Would their tests aboard the "vomit comet" be different if they used someone else's plane?
Are Zero G Corporation (who's flight it was) connected to NASA?
They're a private company, but NASA does use them.
NASA Flight Opportunities Program (http://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=NASA_Research.welcome)
NASA depends on advances in technology, and yet, space testing and space qualification of promising technologies remains one of the most difficult of all NASA’s hurdles. High costs and risk of flight demonstration to incorporate advanced technologies into future missions have been a great challenge to NASA. Flying payloads on commercial parabolic aircraft, such as Zero Gravity Corporation’s specially-modified 727-200, named G-FORCE ONE™, and reusable suborbital vehicles will bridge the famed “valley of death” and help move technologies rapidly to maturity.
The NASA Flight Opportunities Program intends to mature towards flight readiness status new crosscutting technologies that advance or enable multiple future space missions. To facilitate this goal, NASA is providing access to certain flight opportunities available to the Agency, on a no-exchange-of funds basis, to entities that have technology payloads meeting specified criteria.
-
the fact is if you want to put the hoaxers to rest if you can keep nasa out of it and use private sources who dont have that connection the better.
The fact is that you can't put hoaxers to rest. They don't care about reality, they care about promiting their own self image. One of the most prominent, Bill Kaysing, once claimed that such independent verification of the landing sites would convince him that Apollo was real. When he was told that there would be such images soon he changed his story to say that nothing could convince him. He is literally on record changing his criteria for being convinced he was wrong in the space of a minute. And he is not unique.
Hoaxers have not concluded the landings were faked by rational examination of the evidence, therefore there is no way to use evidence to ratioanlly convince them they are incorrect. Many of them don't care.
-
For example the standard response to the fact that the Russians agree that Apollo was real is answered by the unsupported claim that the U.S. governmental bought their compliance with a grain shipment agreement that saved the USSR from starvation. Hoax believers live in their own special world of rationalization not one of empiricism and reason.
1966-1970 was the only time in Soviet Union history that grain production actually matched the 5 year plan. Things were fine.
When I ask any hoaxie who makes such a claim how the Soviet leadership could have known then that things would be so bad in the 70s I get no response.
As I keep saying the hoax is only possible if the conspirators had a time machine.