MythBusters - Moon Myths
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 авг 2008
- New episodes return Wednesday, Oct. 7th @ 9pm E/P on Discovery! Check out exclusive footage straight from the MythBusters' own video cameras: dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythb...
You've got questions. They've got explosives.
Plus test dummies, flamethrowers and anything else it takes to bust all new myths and urban legends.
Be there as the Mythbusters test whether you really can tenderize steak with TNT and take on all new Ninja myths like grabbing an arrow in mid-air. Plus, in a special "Viral Hour" they'll investigate some of the most popular myths seen on RUclips.
Come for the answers. Stay for the destruction. Plus, visit the official fansite to bust myths, see video and a lot more.
discovery.com/mythbusters/
Connect with us on Facebook: / mythbusters 
Развлечения
"they were both seen in front of the camera and the camera was zooming in and out..so who was working the camera"
Houston was - it's a remote controlled camera. The camera is there so that Ground Control can see what's going on, double-checking that the astronauts are doing what they need to be doing and in general being extra pairs of eyes.
The cameras were mounted on a tripod or, on the later missions, on the rover. They are still on the Moon exactly where the 'nauts left them.
Moon not only help as a shield,it also provides the tides on Earth and the suitable gravitational pulls for some things to work.
The footprints are still there, yes.
Damn Good old Days
4 It's even more possible it was on the moon.
5 Find a mountain take a picture, walk a mile in any direction then take another picture of it, they will match perfectly (depending on how close you are) Same concept applies to the videos.
6-10 Little thing called coincedence. Example, rewind 100 years my ancestor had a friend. Now I am friends with the decendant of that friend.
Awesome.
Truly.
mythbusters is an awesome show
I agree with you completly, with some people you have to wonder if they were dropped on their head when they were little
How happy we all are for you, how WONDERFUL!
(1) Herbert Friedman, in his book "Sun and Earth," describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected.
vibrations coming from the nauts. notice how when they move away it stops moving.
The point of a geiger counter is to detect everything, therefore its not shielded or protected in any way, that would ruin the whole purpose of the counter.
Human spacecraft, however, ARE shielded and protected. A geiger counter can go off due to radiation that is totally harmless to anyone with even minimal shielding.
Alpha Radiation for example, cannot penetrate ANY physical matter, not matter how thin.
Beta radiation can be stopped by plastic, and so on.
(cont)
It keeps the earth's axis of rotation steady as well.
The "flapping" of the flag is actually just the flag dangling. There is no air to move the flag, wich means there is also no air to brake or stop the flag, hence it sways just like any hanging object would.
Damn straight!
I would love that moon set thay made. I hope thay made a cool little space movie with it, it looked sooo real.
4- Its possible that what was shown to the world could have been shot in Area 51. Area 51 is described as dust and craters ... so is the moon.
5- There is video footage of the astronauts walking around on the "moon" and there is another video of them walking around the "next day" "over 1 mile away" yet when played next to each other, the surroundings are the EXACT same place.
6- 10 astronauts died within 9 years of the launch due to freak accidents. Could they have known too much ?
Did this already come out? If so are you airing any reruns of it or putting it on a season box set?
They are the gift that keeps on giving.
Turn their fantasies into comedy and they give you another one to shred with evidence and research. It creates a special kind of humour. Everyone but the crackpots can see that it's funny.
@ytmoog No. In a telescope the focal length determines how wide an angle the telescope can view with a given eyepiece or size of a CCD detector. The f-ratio (or focal ratio, or f-number) of a telescope is the ratio between the focal length and the aperture (i.e., diameter) of the objective. Thus, for a given aperture (light-gathering power), low f-ratios indicate wide fields of view. Thanks for your question, I hope this clears it up.
good for you... you can build a fort and then take photos of it, and air-brush them, and then pass them off as genuine
And continuing from before, they didn't play catch with a baseball, however I do believe that they played either golf or soccer on the moon, and there was recorded footage somewhere
third class where did you get that using gimbals help balance the vessel? what is your source? gimbals used for lift off engines but for landing I never seen one rocket engine also used to steer using gimbals? tell me your source
It wasnt "flying"
It was supported by a strut along its rim.
Which, in a frictionless environment, likes to move.
I meant "the actual conquest" not "die actual conquest"... it's a german article, my bad
1 Cameras of that time had a hard time registering such small specks of white against black.
2 Your seriously saying that? They didn't crash the lunar lander! They landed it as softly as the could of.
3 They made it, no need to fake it.
1 area mythbusters didnt dwell on is the perfect photos argument put forth by conspirators .That is how they were able 2 take such clear photos with a camera mounted on the front of the space suits.
well check the rocket engine which part is the main one is it descent engine? 4 rockets for ascent obviously you dont use em to balance the lem while landing right? so how many rocket used for descent?
@ytmoog i already mentioned only one...can you use 4 extra rockets on ascent stage while landing? if you wannacreate a separation of the vessel yeah
"Name a practical use for staging a moon landing."
Are you kidding?
Actually, the moonwas found to have slightly more than 1/6th gravity. The moon rotates much more slowly than the Earth (hence its lack of magnetic-field) so there is less centrifugal force wich counteracts the PUSH of gravitation.
Neil Armstrong said: "Breakthroughs are available to those who know how to remove truth's protective layers".
I'd be willing to bet my life on the fact that he didn't step foot on the moon
I hope you didn't lose your life on that bet. Neil was talking about answering questions and making discoveries. Removing truths protective layers means arriving at answers to questions about the Universe.
EGMAG,I reviewed the visor photo.The image is open to interpretation due to multiple factors. First,there are reflections across two surfaces.... the outer gold glare visor and the inner clear visor.If the cast acrylic visors have dust or surface imperfections, quite a wide variety of abberations could result.I have encountered this problem while shooting product photography. If you add in the variables of the camera , it's not practical to draw any definitive conclusions concerning the glare.
Why is it "narrow" to point out that someone sees paranoid fear-mongering everywhere he looks, but NOT "narrow" to actually be the one who admitted that he does see paranoia everywhere he looks?
cool they published a handbook for LM Apollo operations?makes it more amazing they used ascent rocket thrusters to maneuver the ship landing but they didn't put them on descent module?interesting
Allenmusky; technically everything reflects light. That is how the rods and cones in our eyes are able to take in the light and transmit them through the optical nerve and into the brain, allowing us to precise images around us. So, yes I can agree that the telescopes on earth could not form an effective image... however I didn't say that they could. Satellites on the other hand, unaffected by the distortion of the atmosphere and high resolution cameras should really have no problem at all.
They shot a laser at a reflector that they left on the moon. They got the laser back so this is strong proof that they really did go to the moon.
(2) High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a
*Laughs under his breath.... quietly...* ;)
Adam , singing when he brings in the spaceship ...
(cont)
Therefore, its disingenuous to say that the fate of an unprotected unshielded gieger counter is absolutely the identical fate of a human spacecraft deliberate designed to stop radiation.
EGMAG, I will explain to you why some solar reflections are "blobs" and others have spokes. It has to do with aperture settings on the cameras used. If the aperture is fully open then you will not see spokes. If the aperture is not fully open, you will see spokes.
@ytmoog maneouvre thruster usually located at the bottom remmber they dont put them on top plus it adds stability
I was expecting an actual landing of a ship using one engine not a test of a computer controlled one
That would be where I said you're not allowed to pile up all the reasons based off of personal paranoia and bias and then pick the stupidest one.
Just curious - how did they make it through the Van Allen Radition Belt without severe damage or cancer?
@YTmoog where did you get your source?
For a start, I respect everyone's opinion -- I respect their right to have it and to speak it. I don't refer to lower-income earners or the less educated as McJobs or Burger-Flippers, as that's a sign of disrespect and insecurity. Most of the time the reason one person puts down another, is to make themselves feel better/superior. I don't have the need to feel superior to any of my fellow human beings. If someone told me the internet was fake, i'd agree with them - because parts of it are.
"we really went to the moon" lol
also notice: there are always shown like 20 persons out of 100.000 on the news. and its always those with worst behavior, because thats what people look at most..
@2nasafakedit In this segment of our disscusion were no questions asked. The part you mean is some comments up ^
You're right, how could we have gone to the moon if it doesn't exists!
The gravity thing, well the moon has enough gravity to keep you on the surface (imo, how else would the moon be the cause of tidal change) but if you jump hard enough, you wont come back down.
no im referring to difficulty they encountered landing the LEM never mentioned
That was supposed to be in response to "is there any more stupid person than a moon hoaxer ?" or words to that effect.
and when they were landing on lunar surface they used up some fuel in ascent module maneuvering? instead of seperating all fuel landing and fuel for launching off moon surface?
Using a film set to recreate the moon landing to "prove" you can't recreate the moon landing on a set :D
Are you actually slow?
Was Adam playing the Final Fantasy victory theme when he showed off the Lunar Lander?
"If the moonwalks are not fake....then please...somebody just shoot me, with my permission."
bang, bang, bang! xD
The idea of us not landing on the moon only has one problem... There is equipment on the moon we put up there during the landings, and we're still using it.
What happened to the internet myths episode??? It never aired! Was it supposed to??? I WANT TO SEE IT!
what is your source? I only see one descent engine rocket, 4 quads in ascent
"Why did Neil Armstrong say "Breakthroughs are available to those who know how to remove truth's protective layers"?"
Whatever reason he said it, I doubt you'll find out why by piling up all the reasons you can think of based on paranoia and illiteracy and then picking the stupidest one.
Your own personal flying guesses dont count as 'evidence.'
actually you wouldn't be able to escape the moon if you jumped hard enough, the escape velocity is about 2.38km/s (8m/s).
@ytmoog keep in mind apollo landing was not done by computer no tech is yet available and apollo astros never mentioned the problem landing maneouvering
stability is always a concern reason ships have more than one rocket engine to land
@SparrowKap well done, lol
interesting to note that that's 7 times the speed of sound
This is good speculation on your part, but it's actually due to aperture setting. :)
@pts99 Also it can be used as a stepping stone to Mars - we could construct a spaceship capable of flying to Mars in lunar orbit much easier - and to space itself. Sure those things seem stupid at first... But don't forget: It also seemed stopid when we shot a satelite into orbit and a lot of people didn't see its (potential) uses besides for science... and still today we can't live without them.
Of course the Paranoid Delusional Brigade swallowed the show...hook, line and sinker. The Mantra of people like Straydog: "I've never heard a CT that is too stupid for me to believe it". LOL!
Neil Armstrong punched a man in the face, after he was told he did not walk on the moon. HAHA ROCK ON!!!
i just want to know if there were only two men to walk on the moon who was manning the cameras? they were both seen in front of the camera and the camera was zooming in and out..so who was working the camera, and there are a few cameras so did they set them up when they were -walking- on the moon or what? i wasnt born yet so idk just a question.
he flys when you push "8"
he said it to tip us off - to provide a pointer to the truth.
Best answer ever :D
x-ray:
Do you know what "resolution" is ?
If you do , find out what Kaguya's is, and then find out how big the Rover is.
'Splain why the Space Shuttle could never be allowed to go more 350 miles from the Earth's surface. Did you see the CNN report on the Shuttle astronauts complaining of radiation passing thru their closed eyelids and they had to lower their orbit?
"Excepting things just because your "authority figures" ( Government and media) tell you to in absence of fact , without ever thinking (outside) the box would'nt be the way i would want to be classified..."
And I wouldn't want to be classified as near-illiterate based on my spelling and grammar, so it looks like people have different priorities.
And there is no "absence of fact" with regards to the Apollo missions.
Funny how people think it is so crazy that we were there, its not that far away for an aircraft to get to it. it is stupid to think they would fake it all, and for what???
3C:
If we didn't already land on Mars, then where did the opening footage from "Mars Attacks" come from ? I used to believe that such things came from a studio. Then I bought this forty dollar DVD that "reveals the truth"! Many experts were interviewed to back up this startling claim , one of which actually lived near Hollywood. Other secrets were uncovered in the presentation as well, not the least of which was that "Star Trek" was filmed on location and Vulcan is actually owned by Burger King.
where did you get the source it's easier I dont see it on the transcript
If you are seeing repeated regions, and no one ELSE is, then that sounds like a personal problem. ;)
In this one they focus on the rocks shadow being cast on the ground. They should have been focusing on the shadow being cast on the rock itself. Some misdirection there. But what can you expect from a group of people that got invited into nasa.
how is it that people are so convinced that that radiation belt is so deadly?
Well if you didnt wear anything and wouldnt be sitting inside a space craft and would spend a few hours in it - then you'd die
But in the apollo crafts, you'd be able to pass through it quite unharmed.
I would not immediately dismiss their ideas, nor call them McJobs or burger flippers... that is my point.
Bill Clinton said:
The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said... "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
Some guy on here said it first.
"The people who think Championship Wrestling is real, think Apollo was fake".
Do the math.
I rest my case.
Tards.
If they didn't, who knows what the hell would happen.
@ytmoog computer overload? I don't see that on the video disc For All Mankind..no transcript tells you that
For you to have a flashing beacon to be seen from Earth would have to be pretty big. And same for something to be seen from Earth, it would have to be pretty big too. And any sort of internal moisture inside the suits would damage them completely. And to eat on the moon would require them to remove their helmets to eat things, which would be deadly, as you are unable to breathe on the moon
"TOTAL FAKE!"
Thank goodness we have 19 year-old newbies and amateurs to tell us these things. I almost believed a 55 year-old professional engineer and physicist who works for a living.
@Condom007of007Solace
NASA never said the Radiation would penetrate the suits. They were talking long term space bases, where Gamma radiation hurts. SHORT term, the solar wind is 88% alpha and beta radiation, both of which are blocked by plastic, let alone a space suit. Thats rudimentary first year radiation safety.
The flag was engineered in a certain way that made it move even if there was no wind
@2nasafakedit ...it takes a couple of hours to get to the ISS, it took them weeks to get to the moon...how hard is it to comprehend that?
@ytmoog and managed to do it with single attempt?with no difficulty highly unlikely my point is different ship used on earth for test and different ship on moonlanding?
Uhh this video shows a neat jerky Lunar lander without all the aluminum foil hanging and peelinglike the real one had.
One word for Mo.
Meds.
i want discovery channel back!!!
What if you're wrong? Haven't you ever considered you MIGHT be wrong?
I explained the "blob vs. spoke" thing in another comment, btw.
The moon landings were obviously real.
yep,thanks.