ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: wazman_nz on February 12, 2013, 06:49:23 AM
-
Have just watched a doco on the Discovery channel where the Mythbusters test out some of the ascertions made by the Moon Hoax fraternity. For me this doco helped me understand some of the things that happened and the reasons why MH's think the way they do. I liked they way they explained the hoax theory and then explained how they were going to go about proving or disproving whether it happened or didn't.
-
Yes, this was one of their best episodes -- though maybe I'm biased.
There are many Apollo hoax claims, some contradicting others, and even though the whole program was devoted to it they could only test a representative few.
Naturally this had the hoaxers claiming they're still not out. But judging from the huge amount of bile sent their way, the Mythbusters did a pretty good job on the claims they did test.
-
It's gotten to the point that conspiracy theorists occasionally try to claim that such and such claim Mythbusters tested is actually a strawman and no conspiracy theorist actually made this claim, at which point I like to drag out Dark Moon by David Percy and We Never Went to the Moon by the late Bill Kaysing (Thank Thoth for Google Books!) and show that yes, yes they did.
-
What was really good about the mythbusters doco was that they explained what the hoaxers thought they were seeing or they understood to be happening then went about putting together an experiment that would prove or disprove it. The boot print in the moon dust, the photo of the astronaut on the landers ladder, the flag waving in a vacumn, all very convincing.
-
My personal favorite was methods of faking 1/6g. This hoaxers have yelled "slow motion" and "I see wires!" so many times that it was great to see somebody actually try them for a change. While many of us could probably make a video and show it in slow motion, not very many have the resources to build complex wire rigs, or hire an airplane for reduced-gravity lobs, or even rent a replica of an Apollo suit and add all the necessary weights to make it an accurate model of the real thing.
Seeing Adam walk down the airplane in true 1/6g, exactly duplicating all the subtle body motions of the real Apollo astronauts on the moon, was one of those supremely satisfying moments you don't get very often while watching TV.
-
What was really good about the mythbusters doco was that they explained what the hoaxers thought they were seeing or they understood to be happening then went about putting together an experiment that would prove or disprove it.
This. Aside from arguments from incredulity, the most common hoax arguments are about things they don't understand ("I don't understand it, so it must be fake!"). The Mythbusters help people to understand what they are seeing in the Apollo photo & video records. It is a very educational show.
-
Yes, this was one of their best episodes -- though maybe I'm biased.
Not as biased as Jay . . . .
-
Indeed I'm highly biased toward that show. ;D
Mythbusters isn't a documentary though, at least in the way I typically use the word. Yes, it's based on fact and science, but it's also very much intended as entertainment. Part of the decision process for which myths to debunk involves whether they work in the show's format. The idea to address fake lunar landings came up in the show's first or second season. I remember discussing this with Phil Plait and with some other producer whose name I can't recall. The consensus at the time was that the myths that fit the show format and were "meaty" enough not to be a straw man were on the other hand too expensive to conduct. When the show became more popular and got larger budgets, they could do what they always intended, such as testing in full-size vacuum chambers.
-
Actually, I was a member of the message boards around the first or second season, and they were already taking suggestions about how they could do it. The only advice I was able to give them was "contact Phil Plait." I don't know if I'm the first person who suggested it, but it turns out to have been a worthwhile suggestion. (I was on that board before the BABB and didn't know you yet. I'd just read Phil's book.)
-
When the show became more popular and got larger budgets, they could do what they always intended, such as testing in full-size vacuum chambers.
Indeed. Nowhere is this increase in budget and entertainment clout more apparent than their jet engine taxi flip myth. In season 1 the insurers would not let them use an old plane for the myth for fear of accidentally damaging it (although, as Adam and Jamie pointed out, how you would damage a plane by using its engine to push something away from it remains a mystery to us all). In a later season not only was a plane found, it was a plane on flight status, with willing pilots to run the egnines, and they even allowed them to do it on a taxiway (which, by the way, the engine ripped up on the first test firing!) and to flip not only a taxi but a school bus and a light aircraft!
The moon hoax episode is superb. It's something of an oddity to me because most episodes of Mythbusters shown here in the UK have the narration re-recorded by an English guy. The Apollo hoax episode remains the only one I've seen here with the original US narration intact, though I have since seen the UK dubbed version. I particularly liked the section after they recreated the non-parallel shadows where Adam anticipates the 'but you guys just showed it could be faked' argument and reiterates that the point still stands: the argument that non-parallel shadows are evidence of it being faked by multiple light sources is wrong.
-
The Apollo hoax episode remains the only one I've seen here with the original US narration intact, though I have since seen the UK dubbed version. I particularly liked the section after they recreated the non-parallel shadows where Adam anticipates the 'but you guys just showed it could be faked' argument and reiterates that the point still stands: the argument that non-parallel shadows are evidence of it being faked by multiple light sources is wrong.
I really liked the way they took that "we're not proving Apollo, we're disproving myths" approach, and reiterated it through the whole episode. Like the one you mentioned, and also the low gravity experiments, where they concluded something like "well, we can't prove the video was shot in lunar gravity, but we weren't able to duplicate their movements with wires or slo-mo or a combination, and we confirmed that their movements are consistent with 1/6 G".
For UK broadcast, do they dub the participants voices, or just the voiceover narration? And is this a common practice with shows made in the US? Just seems a little odd - I know we're "separated by a common language", but is there a particular reason?
-
For UK broadcast, do they dub the participants voices, or just the voiceover narration? And is this a common practice with shows made in the US? Just seems a little odd - I know we're "separated by a common language", but is there a particular reason?
Just the voiceover.
It seems to be common practice when shows cross the Atlantic either way - David Attenborough's "Life ... " series have been voiced by Sigourney Weaver and others when shown in the US.
-
The moon hoax episode is superb. It's something of an oddity to me because most episodes of Mythbusters shown here in the UK have the narration re-recorded by an English guy. The Apollo hoax episode remains the only one I've seen here with the original US narration intact, though I have since seen the UK dubbed version. I particularly liked the section after they recreated the non-parallel shadows where Adam anticipates the 'but you guys just showed it could be faked' argument and reiterates that the point still stands: the argument that non-parallel shadows are evidence of it being faked by multiple light sources is wrong.
I had this argument on a personal basis with someone who was convinced that non-parallel shadows in a photo are evidence of multiple light sources and therefore, of fakery.
So, I set uip this demonstration in my shop. I have just repeated what I did so I can show it here
I set up two metal rulers parallel on the floor, to act as analogs for two shadows. I then took this photo from directly overhead
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/DSCF2697.JPG)
You can see they are parallel by the fact that they line up with the lines in the wooden flooring.
Then I moved back a few feet, and took, this photo
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/DSCF2698.JPG)
Already, you can see that the rulers no longer appear parallel, and we haven't even got to the shooting angle that most Apollo surface photos were taken at. Finally, I moved back to lower the shoot angle and took this photo
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/DSCF2699.JPG)
Now the apparent convergence of the parallel rulers is really obvious.
Needless to say, the person I showed this to was stumped. I made his belief system collapse right in front of his eyes. I further drove the nail in by telling him that this was a commonly known fact of imaging called "linear perspective", and it was first explained by a 15th century architect called Filippo Brunelleschi, and later in more detail by 15th century artist painter, Leon Battista Alberti in his book "On Painting". The explanation for non-parallel shadows in the Apollo surface lunar photographs was nearly 500 years old!!
But for any doubters, I also took a short video of the rulers in one continuous shot to show this effect..
-
So, I set uip this demonstration in my shop. I have just repeated what I did so I can show it here
Nice job. I like your bar stools too. We used to have a pair like that but in black.
-
I keep telling conspiracy theorists who try to discredit Mythbuster's results, "Do the experiment yourself!" Some, like the vacuum chamber experiments or wire rig work, may not be doable for the home experimenter, but the shadow angle one? Completely doable at home!
So far, none have done so to my knowledge.
-
For UK broadcast, do they dub the participants voices, or just the voiceover narration? And is this a common practice with shows made in the US? Just seems a little odd - I know we're "separated by a common language", but is there a particular reason?
Just the voiceover.
It seems to be common practice when shows cross the Atlantic either way - David Attenborough's "Life ... " series have been voiced by Sigourney Weaver and others when shown in the US.
One of the things the change in narration appears to do is insert metric units instead of American. That's probably not the biggest reason or anything, but it is there.
P.S. do you know if they also re-edit the footage to show as much of Kari Byron's (admittedly delectable) rear as possible, or is that native to the original? :P
-
I can't say I've noticed Kari's rear end being emphasised particularly in the show (well, apart from her first appearance, obviously, since that was all about her rear end!). I think the guys come off worse for that, for example the closeup shots of Tori making a body cast of Grant in one episode, or Tori having a thermometer pressed against his backside after being dragged along by a horse....
-
I can't say I've noticed Kari's rear end being emphasised particularly in the show (well, apart from her first appearance, obviously, since that was all about her rear end!). I think the guys come off worse for that, for example the closeup shots of Tori making a body cast of Grant in one episode, or Tori having a thermometer pressed against his backside after being dragged along by a horse....
Well, there was the pretty-girl-flatulence myth episode...
-
Yes, but that part wasn't originally shown and in any case the flatulence wasn't confined to Kari. There was far more emphasis on what Adam's backside was doing in that episode...
-
Was that also the one they proved that flatus can be lit?
-
Yes, again in a section that was not originally shown in the episode in question but appeared online later. It might have been included in an actual televised episode by now...
-
Was that also the one they proved that flatus can be lit?
I didn't even know that was considered a myth. I saw it done many times in the college years.
-
Was that also the one they proved that flatus can be lit?
I didn't even know that was considered a myth. I saw it done many times in the college years.
If whether girls fart can be considered a myth . . .
-
Was that also the one they proved that flatus can be lit?
I didn't even know that was considered a myth. I saw it done many times in the college years.
If whether girls fart can be considered a myth . . .
True. That whole episode had an air of "We're temporarily out of legitimate myths, so let's just do something silly."
And before we get moderated for going wildly OT, I would like to point out that "moon" has more than one meaning, and "hoax" certainly seems to fit.
-
Alright, no more dirty cracks out of you!
-
Butt why not? ???
-
Alimentary, my dear Watson...
-
Alimentary, my dear Watson...
I say, Holmes, we must get to the bottom of this before it rears up into something ass-inine, eh what?
-
Some may think it's getting a little rank in here, but I think Al Sheppard and Ken Mattingly might approve the present tack of this thread...
...both of them having retired as rear admirals :P (Baz attempts to duck flying rotten fruit)