Video: Debunking Mythbusters' debunking of moon hoax

[Scepcop]

Very interesting!

Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman screwed up their special on the Apollo Moon Hoax.

The conspiracy theory is that the Apollo footage was filmed using wires and then played back in slow motion.

The Mythbusters botched their experiment by shooting the wires and slow motion seperately, not together, and then tried to pin this on conspiracy theorists.

Let's see what their wire footage looks like slowed down...

HAPPY 51ST ANNIVERSARY!


Jarrah White would like to invite you to see the Apollo 11 footage that Svector, Phantom Wolf and Shane Killian have tried to suppress from public view.

APOLLO XI: THE LITTLE GEM
http://moonhoax.us/littlegem.htm

See also the evidence of faked and suppressed Apollo 10 footage that Mark Gray doesn't want you to see.

FLAGGING THE GEMS
http://moonhoax.us/flagginggems.htm

[NinjaPuppy]

As a kid I thought the footage was hokey.

[ProfWag]

Of course, what this film fails to discuss (as did Mythbusters, but that wasn't the subject of this scene) is that the moon dust kicked up by the astronaut acted as it should in less gravity than on earth.

[NinjaPuppy]

If the moon has less gravity than earth, what keeps the dust on the moon???

[ProfWag]

If the moon has less gravity than earth, what keeps the dust on the moon???

Gravity. (There's just less of it...)

[NinjaPuppy]

I know the moon has some gravity but how did tools float around for so long and not the dust which weighs less?

[ProfWag]

I know the moon has some gravity but how did tools float around for so long and not the dust which weighs less?

Tools don't float on the moon, that was in the capsule while in orbit.

[NinjaPuppy]

Mia culpa.

[Scepcop]

As a kid I thought the footage was hokey.

I agree. Remember that footage of the lunar module landing and then the footage blanks out for a few seconds before touch down? During the descent, the moon looks fake, like a model globe that you are zooming onto, not a real surface. Watch it again on youtube.

[ProfWag]

As a kid I thought the footage was hokey.

I agree. Remember that footage of the lunar module landing and then the footage blanks out for a few seconds before touch down? During the descent, the moon looks fake, like a model globe that you are zooming onto, not a real surface. Watch it again on youtube.

I don't remember specifics of the first moon landing on TV, but lets say for a second that was true. What about the other Apollo missions? Did they black out and look fake as well? Remember, more than one was televised.

[tiger]

So funny. All of this is irrelevant. If the USSR worked out that the moon landings were faked then they would have said so. Huge propaganda win for the USSR.

Probably more like fail. Notice that Adam landed at a different time than the astronaut. So a lot more work needs to be done before it can even be plausible. So sorry.

Another piece of evidence that the moon landings were not faked.

[ProfWag]

So funny. All of this is irrelevant. If the USSR worked out that the moon landings were faked then they would have said so. Huge propaganda win for the USSR.

Probably more like fail. Notice that Adam landed at a different time than the astronaut. So a lot more work needs to be done before it can even be plausible. So sorry.

Another piece of evidence that the moon landings were not faked.

And THAT's the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking. The USSR wanted nothing more than to beat us to the moon. If there was ANY question in their eyes, they would have said so. If the U.S. actually thought they could get away with it, they would have only taken that chance once. They would NEVER have tried multiple times after that. Way too risky if they got caught.
There are just way, way too many people that worked so hard to get us there that if we didn't actually go, someone who worked at NASA would have cried foul. Yet, not one person out of the thousands who were involved have never even given a suspision that it may not have happened.

[tiger]

So funny. All of this is irrelevant. If the USSR worked out that the moon landings were faked then they would have said so. Huge propaganda win for the USSR.

Probably more like fail. Notice that Adam landed at a different time than the astronaut. So a lot more work needs to be done before it can even be plausible. So sorry.

Another piece of evidence that the moon landings were not faked.

And THAT's the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking. The USSR wanted nothing more than to beat us to the moon. If there was ANY question in their eyes, they would have said so. If the U.S. actually thought they could get away with it, they would have only taken that chance once. They would NEVER have tried multiple times after that. Way too risky if they got caught.
There are just way, way too many people that worked so hard to get us there that if we didn't actually go, someone who worked at NASA would have cried foul. Yet, not one person out of the thousands who were involved have never even given a suspision that it may not have happened.

Thanks for expanding on my post. Yet some people still believe that the moon landings were a hoax. When I first heard of it I laughed at how stupid some of the arguments were. One example is that no stars are visible. I took a photo the other day. It was a 1600ISO for 20 seconds. It was of the stars and yet it was not overexposed. Taking a picture at night, with a fraction of a second exposure, would not show any stars. That is what was happening on the moon.


If people are willing to believe such rubbish then they will believe anything. It wipes out their credibility when they talk about anything.

[Changeling]

For the moment, I won't enter into discussion about moon landing hoax theories.
I do however feel the need to demonstrate flaws in Tiger's and ProfWag's arguments.

Tiger wrote

So funny. All of this is irrelevant. If the USSR worked out that the moon landings were faked then they would have said so. Huge propaganda win for the USSR.

On the surface, this seems a reasonable argument, however it is based on a popular misconception - the notion that the USSR truly had an interest in exposing fraudulence on the part of the US, and vice versa.
Before providing evidence which shows the intimate cooperation between the US (and other Western nations) and the USSR, I will highlight a problem with ProfWag's ideas about critical thinking.

And THAT's the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking. The USSR wanted nothing more than to beat us to the moon.

No. Critical thinking requires more than assuming that the popular narratives on US-USSR relations are correct. A critical thinker may ask a question along the lines of "How is it that a country which was relatively backwards industrially, and which was devastated during WW2 and which was governed by an inefficient communist bureaucracy, within a few years not only became a major rival to the US, but beat the US into space?"
A critical thinker may also ask why nobody's bothered with a manned mission to the moon since the early 1970s.

To get a better understanding of the real relationship between the US and the USSR, I recommend the following online books:

WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
and
THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY
both by Antony Sutton

The following videos are of an interview with Sutton from 1980, and are a good introduction to this topic:





I will finish off by exposing a serious flaw in Tiger's line

If people are willing to believe such rubbish then they will believe anything. It wipes out their credibility when they talk about anything.

This is a form of the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.
It's a bit like saying "If people are willing to believe in God, then they will believe the Earth is flat!"
Clearly, this is an absurd notion and an absurd form of argument.

[tiger]

Just watched part 1. Nothing there to suggest that the cold war did not happen. Nor can I see anything of relevance. Will not bother to watch part 2. As for beating the US into space the USSR was using technology taken from the Germans + using the skills of a very rare type of person in order to build rockets.

As for why no one has gone to the moon since the 1970s I think the reason is that there is no good reason to go there. It is very expensive and was only done for political reasons in the first place.