How does presence of man made objects on the moon prove that humans have been there? Sure, I think the moon landing conspiracy theorists are nutcases, but the presence of the reflectors is hardly compelling proof. A lunar probe could easily scatter them on the moon (easy compared to landing humans on the moon and then bringing them back alive).

Anyway, the info in the clip is a little skimpy. What did they do with a laser? How powerful does it need to be, and how do you detect the reflection?

theimmc

What exactly is the explanation for there being 40 years since the landing and nothing else after it? Is it easier to build the space station instead of a moon base? It seems like a moon base would be much better since you could blast off of it to go off to other places much easier. We could be mining the moon for some crystals and trying to make fuel out of them.

A station just floating in space doesn't seem that useful (other than experimenting in 0g).

future-proof

The Russians were back then way more powerful then usa ever will admit
but the "staged" (the truth is out there) moonlanding was performed so they were the first on the moon otherwise they were losing big on the space race

TBM-Fan

Am not saying we haven't been there, but why if Nasa took less than 4 years in the 60s to prepare to go there, why is it taking them 20 years now to get ready???? i mean like eniemans said above, they did this 40 years ago. My opinion is, something is not right

snitch29

so true

killermicrobe

"Unless...of course...MythBusters is in on the whole thing..."

Everyone has a price!!!

JEmlay

its obvious nasa paid them to make this episode.

killermicrobe

@yashichi8bit: Take that non-believer. Xenu will be around shortly to consume your flesh.

jackfrost132

@Barth: Pretty sure that if they proved the moon landing was faked, those years would not be wasted.

The Magnificen7

@InfoMofo: As I understand it, they never wanted to tackle the moon landing myth because the idea of it being a hoax was so stupid, but people kept pestering them and pestering them to do it. I'd assume that Discovery Channel ended up making them do it for ratings.

kylenalepa

@enchantedduck: If you watch Dirty Jobs often enough you can see Mike Rowe puke.

I dunno about those Mythbusters, though. Any guy who wears a beret has got to be suspicious in this Freedom age.

infmom

@eniemans: Because the engineers and astronauts who made it happen retired. Because we can't take risks today like we could back then. Because we opted for the space truck instead of continuing on to the moon. Because new rockets take time and money to change over too. Because we aren't locked in a space race with an ideological rival who we HAVE to beat.

Con Seannery

The very fact that people devote their lives to attempting to prove the moon landings were fake is so depressing to me. I mean, unless you're one of the people selling books and actually making some money off of it, what's the point?

It's not like it's some universal truth they're trying to uncover.. so what if they're right? The government lied, wow. You wasted years of your life. Gratz.

Barth

I like Myth Busters, but why was their method so backwards on this episode?

Don't they normally take a commonly believed fact, and either prove or disprove it? Why did they start by trying to disprove the minority opinion?

InfoMofo

I see almost all their shows and they way they talk and make their conclusions are different. Their intonation and way of speaking are different.
Indeed they must have been sponsored by Nasa. They way the talk about their experiences are not natural enthousiastic.

A voice analysis and behaviour analysis tells me they are lying in this video or at least telling a story they don't believe themselves.

Just one wimple observation. Ask yourself a simple question. Why if they have been to the moon 40 years ago, why can't they make it there now? Why having all this trouble? We have 40 years of technological advancement over the thin cans they were using back then. Computers back then were room sized and materials were much much heavier. It should be a peace of cake to get to the moon now compared to then.

So, no they were never on the moon in the first place.

eniemans

He is jazzed about this episode... so jazzed in fact that it seems he may have had a few cold ones before the show. Is it me, or does Adam seem a little slurry?

jhcovert

I believe are whole existence is just a computer simulation started 10 minutes ago by 12 year old kid in the year 2969. So that means everything including the moon landings is a myth.

Julien321

Wait!!!! They got most of their information from NASA... Mythbusters are part of the conspiracy man.

(I've ridden on Zero-G, save the $5000, it is worth it. Actually experiencing zero gravity is amazing.)

TC2COOL

homerjay could learn something from Jon B. And you know... school.

The Magnificen7

WOW thanks now I don't have to watch the episode !!...[end sarcasm].

.

xenoastro

@Kaiser-Machead on the Edge: Holy crap that was the coolest thing ever!

Crash Override 777

"The moon landing was staged"

"George Bush staged the 9-11 attacks"

"The holocaust never happened"

People who think that 'obviously' have some issues they need to work out with themselves.

Mythbusters, you rock :)

Jon B.

@yashichi8bit: That fucking rules.

Kaiser-Machead on the Edge

Please... this is SO 40 years ago. They should be proving that 9-11 wasn't carried out by the Bush administration.

homerjay

what's with the slightly slo-mo vid? did it air like that?

jam3972

Lets get Buzz Aldrin in here to punch some of the non-believers' faces

yashichi8bit

I met them just a little while ago, and then Jamie again in Vegas shortly after. They were talking about this, cool stuff! BTW, they are both really cool guys, and Kari is incredibly smart, even while slightly inebriated.

The Magnificen7

Why is this still an issue? Any geologist could tell you that our moon rocks aren't like anything normally on this earth. The fact that people think it's some kind of conspiracy is one of the few things I don't like about America...

Jeice

i wish i could have seen Jamie and adam throw up on the vomit commit :(

enchantedduck

Yoo hoo! Conspiracy theorists! This is the post you've been looking for!

mildretard

Thank you, thank you, Adam and Jamie. Good call on checking the reflectors.

darthuv

You expect me to believe Mythbusters over the grizzled coots and wild-eyed Luddites? Surrrrre.

Kaiser-Machead on the Edge

LIES!!!

Shockage

Let me guess "Today's episode of MythBusters is sponsored by NASA! oh and the moon landing is real, gotta go drive my 745i see ya next week!"

Crash Override 777

@knyghtryda: I agree. Nuff said. :D

aceofcakes

Mythbusters kick ass. That is all.

knyghtryda

@homerjay: And Sex-Box and you know, general fear mongering.

The Magnificen7

You can make people believe anything, as long as it is not the truth.

eniemans

@eniemans: Ya ever think that maybe they put their pro-landing spin on it because like 80% of the population they too believe that conspiracy theorists like you are just a bunch of tin foil hatted losers.

That being said, when FOX ran their exposé on the moon landing conspiracy they raised SEVERAL other points that Mythbusters left out that would be a little tougher to prove like registration markings on photo's. Then again, thats coming from the people who brought you Alien Autopsy.

homerjay

The actual myth is that the FIRST moon landing was staged because the US wanted Russia to give up hopes of landing on the moon.

Second, there's just no possibility to prove that the moon landing was staged. Any incongruences with what people think should be the norm may just well have been thought up by NASA when research how things act with less gravity.

It's not like a staged set isn't prone to texture that makes shadows appear off; it's not like people didn't know the moon is reflective or that moon dust is jagged. All of these COULD have been thought up by NASA when trying to emulate the moon. I believe the mythbusters should atleast revisit the myth with more weirder points of the conspiracy theorists like how the background for different angle shots or remote shots were completely the same (reusing backgrounds in their sets) or how the pictures taken by their chest mounted cameras were too focused, or how there's an inconsistency with their astronaut count (like how supposedly one astronaut with a distinct suit was supposed to have taken a picture, but a completely different suit was in the reflection of the visor of the subject where that suit was an anomaly because it wasn't the suit of any other astronaut)

xeijix

First, if it was faked, I'm sure the Soviets would have known and they would have exposed it.

Second, I've been to the moon for a week's vacation, and it's not all it's cracked up to be. The drinks were watered down and the staff was rude. Not to mention playing beach volleyball didn't really work out so well.

MyPetFly

To all conspiracy theorists:

[www.forumammo.com]

And I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone. Until I can believe it.

The Magnificen7

@eniemans: Damn NASA for devoting all their time and resources to the ISS and an expedition to Mars, not to mention all the probes and telescopes and such that are CONTINUOUSLY TEACHING US MORE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.

The Magnificen7

@future-proof: Exactly what you say. A moon base is what scientists want. A moon base is the best platform for further space exploration and not a space station. Better for men because there is (some) gravity too. The space station is only for testing in wheigthless situations.

eniemans

@eniemans: Uh, the only difference I saw in their emotions was how excited Adam was to be wearing his space suit on TV and jumping about at low gravity. And I'm not sure that performing a series of self-designed experiments is "just telling and quoting". Did you even watch the show, or are you just parroting whatever Bart Sibrel has to say on the subject?

Sockatume

Of course, the USSR was clearly in on it too. After all, none of their well-documented spies inside and around NASA said anything, so the entire USSR must've been on the USA's payroll. At the height of the Cold War. IT MAKES SUCH PERFECT SENSE.

Sockatume

Their manerisms are totally not like in other episodes and they show no prove what so ever, they only qoute NASA.
Look at their behavier and you can see they are telling a story and without real emotions, just telling and quoting.

Stay critical and look around you, look at people and they tell you more without using words.

eniemans

I think they're taking the "myth" part too seriously. What next? Ki blasts? Shape-shifting furries? The Kennedy assassination?

Sockatume

@yashichi8bit: That feels ... SO good to see that d00d get slapped in the teeth. Fucking whiny-ass conspiracy theorists need to have their shit straightened once in awhile.

MastaFalse

@Con Seannery: "Because the engineers and astronauts who made it happen retired."? That doesn't even make sense. That'd be like saying that we can't make cars anymore because the original designers of cars are now dead.

Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of science.

I'm not saying I'm a tinfoil conspiracy theorist, but I just had to point out that your comment made no sense.

InfoMofo

Next up on Mythbusters : debunking the theory that the Earth is flat.

theimmc

What self-respecting geek takes pride in owning a non-functional spacesuit? If a mere high school studio can restore Oscar to working order, a full-fledged MythBuster should have no problem whipping up a completely functional version from scratch.

ghmlco

@eniemans:

The problem with that argument is, that if you assume the moon landing was faked then why did NASA stop?

If it were all done on a stage or otherwise a product of trickery then we should have moon bases, Mars colonies, the works...

And yet it all stopped in the early 70s. Why? NASA's budget is way in excess of what is needed to continue perpetuating the fake, so why stop?

Jordan Lund

whatever happened to "spoiler alert" alerts

BiZarRroBALlmeR

kari is so hot

drewdoog

'why no other moon landing in 40 yrs?'
Al Qaeda isn't in a space race. Besides, the goal would now be Mars.

'why did mythbusters do this episode?'
Have you read the comments in here? There clearly are people who believe that the landing was faked. Their criticism against the evidence showing the moon landings happened does not stand up and is based on misinterpretation of the evidence whether through bias, ignorance, or a combination of both. The challenges to this evidence aroused my suspicions as well, but the fact that the official explanations are consistent with modern scientific understanding places them on the wrong side of the "debate." I use that loosely because scientists aren't debating whether or not this happened, only those who are decidedly unscientific and whose cynicism of government exceeds their capacity to reason objectively.

s8ist

Please... Stanley Kubrick`s widow already told the whole thing. Thats why the moonlanding looks so convincing, it had a real kickass director!!!

why else would NASA give Kubrick some of their best higtech cameras so he could film under pure candle ligth?

Erzengel

They myth that the USA is superior to anybody else can never be broken. If it does break, the moral of the people break. The moral that makes them keep spending, consuming and fighting in foreign countries for the great nation.

This is off-course nonsense, why must you be better then others and have more and greener grass? Just for more profit and more power? What is good for? Just tell the truth and work together to better the world? Humans are doomed anyways if they stay on this planet for another 20 million years or even sooner.

eniemans

Did you even watch the episode last night? They did not prove that it happened (which it did btw) they just busted several bad conspiracy theories. They showed that the divergent shadows could have been generated from a single light source. They showed that the moons albedo would light an astronaut in shadow. They showed that distinctive footprints could exist in the absence of moisture (in a vacuum). And they showed that movement in a low-g environment would look like it did in the nasa films. They did not prove or even state that the moon landings happened. They left it with statements to the effect, that the claims they examined were BS and that the only way to PROVE that these events happened on the moon would be to try them there.

Then they hit the reflector left by the astronauts. Seems like proof to me.

smegz

Landing deniers have presented so called evidence which they say incontrovertibly proves the landings were staged. The Mythbusters set about to prove that there are alternate explanations, in particular those that support the moon landings. They did not attempt to prove that the landings happen, but busted the evidence that deniers use to say they didn't. Perhaps future shows will address other denier claims.

When NASA was given the mandate by Pres. Kennedy in 1961 to go to the moon by the end of the decade, it already had a resource of engineers and scientists who had been working on this issue for decades. Chief among them was Dr. Werner von Braun, who had been planing and developing the technology since the 1930s. What made the difference in the 60s was the funding. At the height of Apollo, NASA was receiving 4% of the total US budget. Today it receives .6%. Remember too, that NASA functions by mandate of congress (remember: the opposite of pro is con, so the opposite of progress is ...). The reason we have not returned to the moon is not technology, but the lack of will supported by a sufficient budget. NASA is currently planning a return, adapting existing technology to save development expense, but the budget dictates the first flights won't take place for at least a decade. Give NASA the funding it had in the 60s and we would get there much quicker.

The Lunar Reconnoissance Orbiter will launch this fall to look for safe landing sites. It's cameras will be able to image the LM descent stages and rovers left on the moon. We want these images, not to prove it was done, but to examine them for changes over time from the landing images made by the Apollo astronauts.

Sorry to try to inject some reason into this enjoyable debate. And yeah, my user name is NASAMan. Get over it.

NASAMan

@chumitz: That's fine but why go to Mars from Earth when we could be going to Mars from the Moon?

The experience gained building a Moon base would be useful for going to Mars no?

The whole thing is retarded to discuss since there are so many aspects of it that we simply do not understand. Can we go back to discussing leather back vs white plastic?

future-proof

untill you've been to the moon..... Don't comment!

blkwidow

Getting to the Moon cost somewhere around one THIRD of the entire Gross National Product of the United States for nearly a decade. Why have we not been back in 40 years - well, lets see.... IT WAS TOO FREAKING EXPENSIVE! You think NASA's budget is big now? In normative terms, NASA's budget is tiny now compared to what it was in the 60's. Plus, at the time we could go to the moon and stay there for a few days - there wasnt much more science to do in that short period, and we had no experience with or capability for longer missions. If you'll recall, it was actually an Apollo rocket that was repurporsed to put skylab up (because it was cheaper than another moon mission), which was America's first experience with "long term" space habitation. Then we invested in the shuttle, which is not a vehicle capable of getting out of orbit, because the science that we wanted to perform was in orbit.

chumitz

@eniemans: I think you mean morale, and I think you've been pwned.

Pwnieboy was BOCultist was Epaminondas

FUCK! Now I want freeze dried ice cream. Thanks a lot Gizmodo.

Ghede

I believe the first pre 286 computer was about $30.000 back then. Computers now are hunderds of times faster and more capabilities, less material and less weight at a praction of the cost.

If they kept up the hoax they would have been caught. They "won the race" and had billions to spend on wars. They complete nuclear arsenal alone could have put a city on the moon. There a lot of scientists who would kill for a base on the moon. They already said that a moon base is they only way for future space travel.

And maybe, just maybe, and maybe I'm stretshing now, all those usd back then went to something completely different.

eniemans

Simple, just ask the moon inhabitants if we were ever there or not.

BiZarRroBALlmeR

@eniemans: Didnt you also post something about how nostrodamus predicted the hadron collider was going to destroy the earth? At least admit youre a bit out there. Ill give you points for being civil and not screaming at people for not believing you though.

snakepliskin

It's impossible to try and dispute anything with a conspiracy. I just point to Watergate, the final proof that the government can't keep a firm on anything.

Thorax

@Thorax: The American government can't keep a secret, true. The American military on the other hand can keep secrets exceedingly well, and governments of other nations don't do too bad either.

Cultivar

just watched the episode, and all i can say that it was giddy and childish;
and most importantly lack all scientific reason,
let alone the way they were jumping to conclusions is absurd...
more like "my father is stronger than your father" kind of argument

sure they had few good points, but establishing them in a more thorough way
would be far more respectable... since the show go explosions obsessed it went down hill

here's a pickle, nasa has strong enough telescopes to monitor the mars surface if you may,
why not go to one of the research centers and take a glimpse at one of the numerous
moon rovers the astronauts left throughout their missions

bishara

@Barth: I'll take your statement and raise other conspiracy theories!

Usually, conspiracy theorists will only believe in what they want to. And in fact, they only started questioning common sense because it's like a mental condition to them.

Most conspiracy theorists, after watching (if they even do), will impose several illogical questions on the show to continue believing the moon landing was staged.

It's like a disease. Most of the times, they won't even watch stuff that will prove they are wrong. Even if they watch, they will never consider the fact that they are wrong.

It's somewhat like religion... if all fails, they will still try to believe in something that doesn't exist to justify their paranoia.

It's sad. Because lots of people waste part or their entire lives on stuff like that...

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

@Thorax: "..the final proof that the government can't keep a firm on anything."
We'll not necessarily final proof, as some can learn from their mistakes.

paul

@bishara:

The NASA telescopes that monitor Mars are strong enough because they are in orbit around Mars. They can image the Spirt and Opportunity rovers (about as large as a golf cart). No Earthbound (or Earth orbiting) telescope has the ability to see detail at a quarter million miles fine enough to pick out the rovers (about the size of a small car) or the Lunar Module (about 5 meters diameter). As I said in my earlier post, wait until the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched if you want to see Apollo hardware on the Moon.

NASAMan

Every "The moon landing is fake" conspiracy theorist needs to be gathered up and shot to the moon.

One way.

Alchemistmerlin

@Con Seannery: There are other reasons too for the 40 year gap. During the moon landings era, we were hell bent to get to the moon. The technology of the day was (in truth) not really up to the task of sending men to the moon, but our space race with Russia meant we took risks that would be simply unacceptable since then.

But the biggest reason is simply funding. During the Apollo program days NASA's annual budget was HUGE compared to anytime since then. After we successfully did some moon landings, America lost a lot of interest in going to the moon because it was so damn expensive. At its highest point in 1969 (the year of the first landing) NASA's budget was 4.4 percent of the ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET. Compare that to today, where it is only .6 percent. That means NASA had (in terms of percentage) nearly 8 TIMES as much money to work with.

Also, to the poster who said it only took 4 years, it actually took 8 years. The goal of putting a man on the moon was announced by Kennedy in 1961 and not accomplished until 1969. So, 8 years of huge effort went into the moon landings. At its height the Apollo program had over 400,000 people working on it.

So...there you go.

If you want sources for this stuff....it's not hard to find. The GPO office of the federal government has historical spending by agency in dollars or percentages available online. And Wikipedia got me the number of people working on the program and how long it took.

We went there...get over it.

Dynastius

@snitch29: I think because after the 3rd moon landing ppl quit caring, and didnt really watch the rest. So not more of thing we cant do just no one really would care, I mean how many of you would actually give it a look for more then 5 min if they decided to go next week?

Alex2643

@Jon B.: So you've not done a single bit of your own research on the 9/11 myth, eh? It shows.

Arlips

@snakepliskin: I said that the moon landing did not happen, but I meant that if you look at the things around the event do not add up.

The USA want to reform the world to their model and their model is not perfect and flawed as some crucial points. They can do so, because the world sees them as leading in many fields. The moon landing is one of those things that add to the idea they are leading.

I just hope people do not swallow all that is presented to them, so bigger mistakes can be prevented.

And about the Nostradamus: He doesn't say the caldron is going to destroy the world. The says some experiments in this periode will go wrong and effect nature. Experiments with weather wars and other experiments with physics.

What Nostradamus (verses) are actually saying is that the US experiments with mind controling drugs in war situations will turn against them and people will get second sight and discover other mental and 4D potentials around this year.
And now the US militairy is experimenting with mind enhancing drugs to communicate menatally and read the minds of suspects. So they may help humanity to a new level of conciousness, but not because they wanted it to happen like that.

Just keeping an open mind here.

eniemans

@eniemans: Following Nostradamus is not keeping an open mind. It's going down to the used car lot and paying $100,000 for that junky old Cadillac that 'Elvis totally drove once'

xenth

@infmom: Unless he's french.

krom

@Jon B.: Don't generalize. It's also extremely stupid to just take everything your government says for granted. Did you believe there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq as well, huh?

I think though that some of the tests weren't conclusive. They were awfully fast to call everything busted (especially if you have seen every MB episode). Sure, they went through great lengths and even if everything is busted it still doesn't prove that it actually happened. Also, to say that Jamie was impartial would be the same as saying that petrol is actually a frosting you use for spicing up cocktails.

The fact of the matter is that it could have all been staged (with an unlimited budget and 10 years, it seems pretty much anything would be possible).

But ... it also could have happened just as well. Although .. I don't know if this was actually part of the actual moon landing movie ... but ... the part where the moon lander took off showed the camera (stationary on the ground) panning upwards as soon as it had lift-off? lol ... I mean ... that's just ridiculous :s

SpoBo

ugh, the annual cost of Apollo was about 0.8 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. and our economy was much smaller then.

you pulled your one third figure out of your ass.

Justifan

@eniemans: "Why if they have been to the moon 40 years ago, why can't they make it there now?"

You know, This is actually a really good question. To put this more in perspective that an individual can understand: I went to Europe a couple years ago and had a great time. Why havent I gone back recently? Well the obvious answer to that is two simple things, money and motivation.

In 1960s the US was extremely motivated. Russia was beating the crap out of the US in the space race; first satelite, first man in orbit, etcetera… On the money/budget issue, as so many peopl ehave kindly pointed out already, the US was spending a ridiculous amount of money to get there.

Granted that doesn't prove anything. The US could have decided that the moon landings were too hard/expensive (though I don't see how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be less expensive lol) but they obviously could have decided to fake it. I accept that as a possibility and have looked at the evidence that the conspiracy theorists have put forth (with an open mind … more on that later). Some of it seems pretty convincing at face value, but when you look at it in more depth the pieces start to fall apart. Obviously that doesn't prove that the US did make it to the moon though either, it just simply shows that you cant prove otherwise with these theories.

Back to the open mind thing. I am prone to believe that the US did make it to the moon but if someone can prove otherwise I am willing to listen to what they have to say. Moon conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to refuse to listen and when presented with evidence that their theories don't work they simply make up even more off the wall stuff. In essence they are the close minded ones. No matter what they are already CONvinced that the moon landing didn't happen and no matter what proof or evidence they will continue to refuse to consider any alternatives (such as the truth)

rDub

Fly me to the moon let me swing among the stars Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars

BigViper

I believe that the moon landings actually happened, but there is one thing I don't get about the ability to prove it ...

If we can clearly see cars and even make out people in high-quality satellite images with a simple tool like Google Maps, why can't they point the friggin satellite cameras at the moon and take pictures of the objects that NASA left there? Some of them are as big as a car and there are no clouds/pollution or anything to obstruct the view!

bougatsa

@Cultivar:
..military is good at keeping secrets:
Yeah, they kept that Abu Ghraib secret. The military may keep many secrets (like the explicit purpose of Area 51), but not for a very long duration of time. Also, the more civilians involved in the operation, the more difficult it is for them to maintain secrecy.
@SpoBo:
WMD? It was almost common knowledge at the time of its introduction that the WMD claim was bogus or questionable. Contradictory sources called that claim into question. Sometimes the government doesn't need to try so hard to pull the wool over our eyes. Sometimes we willingly comply.

While a healthy amount of skepticism regarding government is a good thing, there is a point where some use it only to prop up a belief they are unwilling to question with the same standard of skepticism... especially when you begin to believe that the Bush Administration is competent enough to pull off 9/11.

Open-mindedness does not always equate to holding two concepts in equal regard. The Holocaust, Heliocentricity, Slavery, the existence of AIDS as a legitimate disease... Are we willing to keep an 'open-mind' about these? Sure. But coming to the conclusion that the other side is nonsense once their claims have been evaluated does not demonstrate closed-mindedness. It demonstrates an ability to reason.

s8ist

If they didn't make it to the moon, who cares? We can make it to MARS now! (Yes, that's farther away!)

two cans tied together and thrown down the street to wake up the surrounding neighbors with a loud annoying noise

@eniemans:

Give us enough money and we'll go back. The budget is so freaking strapped right now it is retarded, and we are at risk of losing yet another test flight.

groovyone

@bougatsa: Those satellites are about 800km above the earth's surface, the moon is over 300,000 km away.

We don't go to the moon anymore because there's frankly not that much interesting about it. Once we waved our space dick around a few times, there was no point. There's nothing keeping us from going back besides not having any space-ready Apollo equipment laying around, since most of it was single use.

stormsweeper

You of little faith! :P

proxops-pete

I am often unimpressed by Myth Busters' shows, particularly their "proofs". They will often do some very situational experiments and conclude by saying that because in this situation something happened, it's now a proof.

Take the shark attack episode, for example. The myth was "Can a human hit a shark in the eye(s) while being attacked in order to escape?" And their idea of proving this is to build a mechanical shark with rubber teeth, have someone sit in the shark's jaws as it flails them around, and see if they could hit the shark's eyes which were red buttons. How does this prove anything at all? It just proves whether or not someone in a mechanical shark's mouth (with rubber teeth) can hit the fake shark's eyes. They might as well have just put someone on a mechanical bull and seen if they could hit the bull's eyes. (See what I did there? :P )

Most of the time their shows are just excuses to do random, barely related experiments. They then stretch their results and conclude with a "proof". More often than not, they should result in "inconclusive", which I barely see them admit to.

To all the people who say "Myth Busters proved/disproved that", give me a break.

generall

@yashichi8bit: ROFL Owned by someone thrice his age XD

TheLostVikings

@generall: I'm kind of unimpressed with your post, chum. Sounds like your idea of adequate proof is something like this. Lighten up, Francis. It's supposed to be entertainment.

halloweenjack

@generall: I agree with you completely. I guess it is just cheap entertainment in the end and not really proof. People looking for actual explanations need to look elsewhere. I have never liked Mythbusters.

nitromic

Supposedly the US has an arsenal of weapons that could wipe out all life on earth many times over. Isn't that more hard to believe two dudes landed on the moon?

gunbu

As with all conspiracy theories the shear number of people involved in producing the fake would make it impossible to keep a secret.

I was a part of the Navy's Apollo Recovery staff, CTF 13, for the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. I planned the navy's recovery operations leading up to 16 and tracked and conversed with the astronauts during that mission. For Apollo 17 I was on board the USS Ticonderoga for the recovery in the South Pacific. If that was all a fake it was the greatest production in history, involving thousands of personnel precisely timed around the world and choreographed by a handful of people who could keep a secret.

Did we fake if 6 times? Really?? You might also ask yourself why do Apollo 13? If you are faking moon landings, why fake an aborted one?

johnbdh

@eniemans:

Great, my roommate's research group just booked time in the Apache point telescope after the summer to do a Lunar Ranging experiment to test aspects of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Should I tell him to cancel his ticket?

mathfeel

Shouldn't they be a little more objective? The whole show they were convinced about what the outcome of their tests was going to be.

Besides, regardless of their results, would you really think that they would tell that it was fake?

mojorisin1986

Ok some of you said what I have been saying about it being fake here is another one. with all these mars rover missions and high powered satellites why have they not sent something to the moon to show proof that they been there or at least get some new pictures. because they never been and you cant take pictures of something thats not on the moon.

WilsonSlug

I am sure we had a moon landing ... Americans are known to be achievers ...

The only questions i have is Why hasn't anyone else (including Russia who has spacestation) tried it ... not russia, france, canada, china, india, japan ...

And why did they had to go to NASA for sponsorship ...

howcanthisbe

The reason we don't go to the moon anymore is because the Democrats/non-believers/retards cut all the funding to NASA.

admoseremic