Mythbusters to take on Moon Landing Hoax Myth!

[notoldschool]

Should be intersting to see what they come up with.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...n-hoax-part-i/

[Pleasurepays]

yay. score 1 for the idiots of the world getting more attention to their paranoid fantasies.

but wait a minute!? if the government is competent and powerful enough to fake a moon landing for the world.... how do we know this whole Myth Busters thing isn't propaganda??

those who "educated themselves" on the topic know better.

i don't trust their results already.

those fuckers.

[Z]

It was fake.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Hard to not like the Mythbusters guys.

[2012]

"Mythbusters" in some parts known as "The gay detectives"

[Brad Gosse]

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

[Ray@TastyDollars]

oh nice, should be good. I love that show!

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

we "can't go back today"

really?

why does some totally idiotic pornographer think he's an expert in rocket science and physics?

funny how its not the russians, the chinese or anyone else screaming "its fake" and "it didn't happen" ... its just basically a bunch of future "lone gunman" and serial rapists that have it all figured out.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

Why would we go back there? Spend gazillion of dollars to get some useless moon rocks?

[campimp]

i want to fuck Kari Byron

[BradM]

Originally Posted by woj

Why would we go back there? Spend gazillion of dollars to get some useless moon rocks?

No doubt.

[Gianna_CECash]

"Mythbusters" never heard of them

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

yay. score 1 for the idiots of the world getting more attention to their paranoid fantasies.

but wait a minute!? if the government is competent and powerful enough to fake a moon landing for the world.... how do we know this whole Myth Busters thing isn't propaganda??

those who "educated themselves" on the topic know better.

i don't trust their results already.

those fuckers.

They did a cabin de-pressurization failure on the ground, and said that being sucked form an airplane would not happen. Great way to test a 30k foot question.

[snaker]

sweet, love this show

[Anthony]

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04112....6pp9f0wx.html

You are all aware that there is a big race to be the first to mine the moon for it's resources, right?

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by pornguy

They did a cabin de-pressurization failure on the ground, and said that being sucked form an airplane would not happen. Great way to test a 30k foot question.

sorry... but i have to ask... do you know what "the moon" is and where its located?

[severe]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

funny how its not the russians, the chinese or anyone else screaming "its fake" and "it didn't happen" ... its just basically a bunch of future "lone gunman" and serial rapists that have it all figured out.

exactly, russia, a country directly competing in a space race with america, fully capable of intercepting and triangulating communication, and tracking space craft would have easily known that the event never took place, and would certainly have jumped on the chance to discredit all of america before a global audience

[D]

Cool Even if it silences just a handful more of the hoax whackos... "mission accomplished," imho.

People that still think it's fake - esp on this board - just aren't paying attention.

[EonBlue]

But don't all definitive answers for everything come from videos posted on YouTube by guys living in their parent's basement?

[bobby666]

i love (to watch only) the mythbusters

[Phoenix]

i think they landed...but i think they werent able to get any footage at all..save for some stuff from inside the cockpit or that the shuttle itself got.

hence the fake moon landing set...they needed more pics for the people

they went up there with a basic camera..they didnt think about the shit that earth protects us from..there is no way they had any footage from outside the moon lander etc....all that stuff is faked.

however i do think they landed there..just found out on the way back that they had fuck all for footage

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

By "we" I presume you mean Canada. How many times do we (the USA) have to go there to prove we can do it?

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

sorry... but i have to ask... do you know what "the moon" is and where its located?

Umm Yeah.

The point is. they tried to say that a plane losing pressurization would not suck comeone out of a small hole. The old story of a gun putting a hole in a window. They did this test on the ground. How can you test that on the ground?

How do they think they can test the moon shot?

[D]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Umm Yeah.

The point is. they tried to say that a plane losing pressurization would not suck comeone out of a small hole. The old story of a gun putting a hole in a window. They did this test on the ground. How can you test that on the ground?

Well, I don't know if I watched that episode or not, but it seems to me that, since the only physics that matter involve pressure differentials, you could test it on the ground by pressurizing a cabin on the ground a proportionate amount over ground level pressure to what a plane at high altitude would have over the outside environment.

That's high school level physics, man.

[mattz]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Umm Yeah.

The point is. they tried to say that a plane losing pressurization would not suck comeone out of a small hole. The old story of a gun putting a hole in a window. They did this test on the ground. How can you test that on the ground?

How do they think they can test the moon shot?

because the plane on the ground had the exact same pressurization as one would in the air...so what's the difference if it's on the ground or in the air?

[Bojangles]

The Mythbusters rock.

[Dollarmansteve]

What does Dylan Avery think - is he not the greatest intellectual mind of the 21st century

bwhahaahahahahahaha.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by D

Well, I don't know if I watched that episode or not, but it seems to me that, since the only physics that matter involve pressure differentials, you could test it on the ground by pressurizing a cabin on the ground a proportionate amount over ground level pressure to what a plane at high altitude would have over the outside environment.

That's high school level physics, man.

that works for the inside of the cabin. But what about the pressure OUT side the cabin.

[Casa Nova]

That's definitely gonna be an interesting watch.

[D]

Originally Posted by pornguy

that works for the inside of the cabin. But what about the pressure OUT side the cabin.

The pressure outside wouldn't need to be changed. That was the whole point of raising the pressure inside to a proportionate level.

Again, this is high school level physics. Pressure differentiation.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by pornguy

They did a cabin de-pressurization failure on the ground, and said that being sucked form an airplane would not happen. Great way to test a 30k foot question.

You can and they did simulate the phsyics required. Once you know your base readings you can apply the science anywhere. Inside the plane and outside.

Not to mention the oposite has happened with a jet loosing its top before. Then of course you do have to deal with wind speed possibly blowing you off the plane since your no longer enclosed.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

You can and they did simulate the phsyics required. Once you know your base readings you can apply the science anywhere. Inside the plane and outside.

Not to mention the oposite has happened with a jet loosing its top before. Then of course you do have to deal with wind speed possibly blowing you off the plane since your no longer enclosed.

the video of that plane coming back to land is one of the most surreal things ever.

[Brad Gosse]

Originally Posted by baddog

By "we" I presume you mean Canada. How many times do we (the USA) have to go there to prove we can do it?

LOL I mean we the human race.

Sorry I just don't buy that tin foil craft going to the moon and back. I am entitled to my opinion right or wrong

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

Guessing we just tossed the mirrors up there that we left, the ones you can see for yourself with gear you can purchase?

Going back today? We have plans to go back however robots will beat us to the punch. They will be on site building a station well before we send humans back. Other than that the whole ordeal of it taking over 10,000.00 per pound just to get someone into outer space not counting the extra fuel to get them to the moon and back. Currently for what purpose? Until a station is intact there is zero reason to go back as we have what we need from the moon already science wise, any other trips is about profit and making space travel less expensive.

These costs should shoot way down with the space elevators that are real close to actual development. Just a matter of finding better ways (cheaper) to mass produce the super fibers that would be used as a cable.

[D]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

LOL I mean we the human race.

Sorry I just don't buy that tin foil craft going to the moon and back. I am entitled to my opinion right or wrong

Well.. yes and no.

You're speaking of history. If you were in here saying, "The Cuban Missile Crisis Never Happened," it's not so much an _opinion_ as a simple falsehood.

Do yourself a favor, since you've seemed to have missed the myriad of discussions on this ordeal before now: google "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array" and read. Make some phonecalls. Maybe even go on field trip... many of the facilities involved with that ongoing experiment welcome visitors.

[D]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Going back today? We have plans to go back however robots will beat us to the punch. They will be on site building a station well before we send humans back. Other than that the whole ordeal of it taking over 10,000.00 per pound just to get someone into outer space not counting the extra fuel to get them to the moon and back. Currently for what purpose? Until a station is intact there is zero reason to go back as we have what we need from the moon already science wise, any other trips is about profit and making space travel less expensive.

Assuming we continue to find evidence of ice water on the moon, our current plans for the next manned mission are 2019. The Chinese plan to be there by 2020.

[L-Pink]

[D]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

[Useless Warrior]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

we "can't go back today"

really?

why does some totally idiotic pornographer think he's an expert in rocket science and physics?

funny how its not the russians, the chinese or anyone else screaming "its fake" and "it didn't happen" ... its just basically a bunch of future "lone gunman" and serial rapists that have it all figured out.

The pot calling the kettle black.

I can tell you right now why we never had a moon landing. Everyone knows that the moon is comprised of a precise mixture of Sharp Cheddar and Monterey Jack. There's no way that chemical composition could possibly withstand the heat from rockets. What a bunch of silly geese.

I'm amazed at how angry people get when others don't agree with their concept of reality. I assume a lot of you came from homes where domestic violence was a daily event.

[Fredde]

Mythbusters rocks!

[Scott McD]

"who ya gonna call??"


Mythbusters !!

[Roald]

Every time I see that show MaDalton (AmaContent) comes to mind lol no idea why

[Roald]

Originally Posted by QuaShe

Every time I see that show MaDalton (AmaContent) comes to mind lol no idea why

Hmm

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

LOL I mean we the human race.

Sorry I just don't buy that tin foil craft going to the moon and back. I am entitled to my opinion right or wrong

So, we did not fake one moon landing, but six of them?

Really making that extra effort to convince the non-believers.

[ADL Colin]

The apollo program lasted 10 years. There were 10 years of missions and learning needed in order to get to the moon. There was even a manned mission AROUND the moon before sending one to land on the moon.

There wasn't a moon landing. There were moon landings. Six of them were manned. So anyone who says "why didn't we go back"? Well, we did. Astronauts landed on the moon 6 times already.

[Useless Warrior]

Originally Posted by baddog

So, we did not fake one moon landing, but six of them?

You ignore the cheese factor at our own peril!

[aico]

big whoop, who cares if we landed there or not, why does it even matter?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by QuaShe

Every time I see that show MaDalton (AmaContent) comes to mind lol no idea why

I never knew he worked for AMAcontent.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

You ignore the cheese factor at our own peril!

If it was cheddar and/or monterey jack your argument would hold some water, but it is green cheese. Green government cheese at that, and that can certainly withstand the heat of some measly rocket.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Brad Gosse

My money says it's fake. Why can't we go back today? Because we never had the tech to go to the moon but we had the tech to fake it and fool the Russians.

My money says you're retarded. If it was fake the Soviets would have known and would have been more than happy to tell the world that the US faked the moon landing. They didn't now did they?