MythBusters Tackle Moon Conspiracies

[hack89]

Ever since man went to the moon—and still today as America plans to go back (via DIY, NASA or the next president) —there have been those who said we never actually made it there in the first place. Instead, they say, the whole moon landing was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by NASA using elaborate sets and special effects. And they support their claims with what they believe to be irregularities in photography and film taken on the moon.

Sounds like a case for MythBusters and special-effects gurus Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, who take on the most popular lunar conspiracy theories tonight at 9 pm on the Discovery Channel with the help of a vintage NASA camera, a purpose-built rig and an airplane.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4279691.html


I wonder if they will ever take on 911?

[spooked911]

1. I've wondered the same

but seeing their Apollo show, I've a feeling that it would be rigged towards the official story...

I did see a Mythbusters where they tried to fly a plane-- in a flight simulator-- without much experience, and they crashed.

I like the show in general, but they were a bit too uncritical for my tastes in the moon show.

[SDuderstadt]

2. "I've a feeling that it would be rigged towards the official story"

Do you believe the moon landings were a hoax, Spooked? Do you?

I ask again, is there any conspiracy theory so absurd that even YOU won't embrace it?

[Realityhack]

7. What did you want to see and not see...

also do you think the moon landing was faked?

[jberryhill]

21. Wrong again

In that show they were testing the "movie myth" of an untrained pilot being talked into a landing by someone on the ground.

First, they both tried to land the simulator on their own, and crashed.

However, BOTH of them were able to land the plane by following verbal instructions.

On 9/11 - nobody was trying to make a safe landing.

It's amazing that you feel a need to mischaracterize that Mythbusters show.

It is Mythbusters episode 94 for anyone who cares about the truth.

[MinM]

3. Totally Busted

YouTube - Mythbusters - Moon Hoax

[MinM]

20. Some things you won't see on MythBusters

Credit card companies bullied Discovery Channel out of letting the Mythbusters investigate RFID vulnerabilities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-St_ltH90Oc

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin see UFOs on the moon..

The following astonishing conversation was picked up by ham radio operators that had their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets. At this time, the live television broadcast was interrupted for two minutes due to a supposed "overheated camera", but the transmission below was received loud and clear by hundreds of ham radio operators:

According to Otto Binder, who was a member of the NASA space team, when the two moon-walkers, Aldrin and Armstrong were making their rounds some distance from the LEM, Armstrong clutched Aldrin's arm excitedly and exclaimed:

Armstrong: What was it? What the hell was it? That's all I want to know!"

Mission Control: What's there?... malfunction (garble) ... Mission Control calling Apollo 11 ...

Apollo 11: These babies were huge, sir!... Enormous!... Oh, God! You wouldn't believe it! ... I'm telling you there are other space-craft out there ... lined up on the far side of the crater edge! ... They're on the Moon watching us!

Wilson writes (p. 48): "Binder ends his report with this observation: 'There has, understandably, been no confirmation of this incredible report by NASA or any authorities. WE cannot vouch for its authenticity, but if true, one can surmise that mission control went into a dither and then into a huddle, after which they sternly the moonwalkers to 'forget' what they saw and carry on casually and calmly as if nothing had happened. After all, an estimated 600 million people around the world were hanging on every word spoken by the first two men to leave footprints on the Moon."

The book "Celestial Raise" by Richard Watson and ASSK records the following (continuation?) of the above remarkable dialogue of Apollo 11, which was picked up by hundreds of ham radio operators in the USA:

"During the transmission of the Moon landing of Armstrong and Aldrin, who journeyed to the Moon in an American spaceship, two minutes of silence occurred in which the image and sound were interrupted. NASA insisted that this problem was the result of one of the television cameras which had overheated, thus interfering with the reception.

This unexpected problem surprised even the most qualified of viewers who were unable to explain how in such a costly project, one of the most essential elements could break down... Some time after the historic Moon landing, Christopher Craft, director of the base in Houston, made some surprising comments when he left NASA.

The contents of these comments, which is included in the conversations , has been corroborated by hundreds of amateur radio operators who had connected their stations to the same frequency through which the astronauts transmitted. During the two minute interruption - which was not as it seemed, NASA, Armstrong and Aldrin with Cape Kennedy, censored both image and sound. 'I say that there were other spaceships.'

Here is reproduced completely the dialogue between the American astronauts and Control Center:

Armstrong & Aldrin: Those are giant things. No, no, no - this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!

Houston (Christopher Craft): What ... what ... what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They're here under the surface.

Houston: What's there? (muffled noise) Emission interrupted; interference control calling 'Apollo 11'.

Armstrong & Aldrin: We saw some visitors. They were here for a while, observing the instruments.

Houston: Repeat your last information!

Armstrong & Aldrin: I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up in the other side of the crater!

Houston: Repeat, repeat!

Armstrong & Aldrin: Let us sound this orbita ... in 625 to 5 ... Automatic relay connected ... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything - what then?

Houston: Have you picked up anything?

Armstrong & Aldrin: I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film

Houston: Control, control here. Are you on your way? What is the uproar with the UFOs over?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They've landed here. There they are and they're watching us.

Houston: The mirrors, the mirrors - have you set them up?

Armstrong & Aldrin: Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those spaceships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html scroll about halfway down the page to: Apollo 11:

"I say that there were other spaceships!"

The Moon Landing was real, but I'd like to see MythBusters take this on...

[William Seger]

5. LOL, the "Pepper Transcripts"

It doesn't take much to fool the "I want to believe" crowd.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. By all means, please feel free to expand upon your post..

It doesn't take much for the "I want to debunk" crowd. Once again a 'debunker'(snicker) shows his true colors in a post with no substance, no facts, no nothing, just bloviating...

Thanks,

Ghost...

[William Seger]

14. You didn't google "Pepper transcript"?

I thought that was enough of a hint. As hoaxes go, this one wasn't very well done. I don't recall all the problems that were found -- Google it yourself, as you should have done before posting, or actually before swallowing it -- but a couple of pretty bad errors are: Mission Control always referred to itself as "Houston" in transmissions, not as "Mission Control"; and "say again" is the way they would ask someone to "repeat" what he just said on a radio. (Anyone moderately familiar with military radio communications would know that, and the original reason was that "repeat" is the way a forward observer would direct an artillery or mortar battery to repeat the last shot.) I believe that this was first published in a supermarket rag, and then the author was never heard from again.

> "Once again a 'debunker'(snicker) shows his true colors in a post with no substance, no facts, no nothing, just bloviating...."

(Snicker)

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. why no, no I didn't... that thought *never* occurred to me at all!

:sarcasm:

I asked YOU (that means *you*, William Seger) to expand on YOUR post. I wanted to see what YOU knew, or had to say, about the subject.

:hi:

[Realityhack]

17. Yay reversing the burdon of proof.

YOU posted the 'transcript' ghost. WS is correct in scolding you for buying into it without a simple google search.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Who said I didn't do a Google search?

Maybe I just don't buy into everything *I* read, either... especially when the only source on it is from debunkers.com ...

You think asking someone to post *their* thoughts on a subject is "reversing the burdon(sic) of proof"? Maybe your logic and comprehension skills aren't as strong as you think they are? :shrug:

[Realityhack]

22. For sheer humor value...

Do you believe this 'transcript' has any merit whatsoever beyond an example of a badly written hoax?

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. How about you answer my question first..

and not try to derail by answering a question with a question...

[Realityhack]

24. fair enough...

I did. I may be wrong. I take it back.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. Ok, that's acceptable... now to answer your question...

I don't know if the story has any merit or not, but it has no bearing on what I believe. As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been proven a hoax just because someone at debunker.com says it is. If you trust the government to tell you the truth about *anything* there's something wrong with you. Period. I do, however, understand *why* the government would want to keep it under wraps. I honestly believe that a majority of the population would go apeshit as it would totally wipe out most of the religious beliefs held by people and cause great harm to society in general. Religion is a way to keep the masses in check. Don't you find it odd that these people who believe in some omnipotent, magical, mythical sky fairy, who watches over the world and knows everyone's every move and thought, absolutely freak out at the thought of alien existence? Why do you think that is? Religion is a sham, and your government lies to you... that's just a simple fact of life that you need to deal with....

I don't need this story because "I want to believe", as someone else stated it... I believe because of 2 experiences that I have had and you, or no one else, can change or shake that belief. I don't buy the psycho-babble others try to put out saying that peoples' minds play tricks on them, or 'you didn't *really* see what you think you saw, or experience what you think you experienced....blah blah blah.."

[Realityhack]

31. I think you need to re-examine a few things.

First off:

As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been proven a hoax just because someone at debunker.com says it is.

I don't know if it is intentional (given the context I have little choice but to assume it is), but you completely ignored the points made. Nobody is asking you to believe what debunker.com is saying just because it is posted their. But you SHOULD take a look at each individual reason given and then make an informed judgment for yourself.
They provided some good reasons. I invite you to submit this 'transcript' to a bit more thorough questioning... just like any government statement.

Secondly:

I believe because of 2 experiences that I have had and you, or no one else, can change or shake that belief.

Nobody in this thread has asked you to stop thinking aliens exist. They have asked you to critically analyze a specific piece of evidence. Does your personal experience rely on this particular transcript? Probably not. Just because something supports what you believe doesn't make that thing true. You can have all kinds of false evidence for something that is true.

Third:

Don't you find it odd that these people who believe in some omnipotent, magical, mythical sky fairy, who watches over the world and knows everyone's every move and thought, absolutely freak out at the thought of alien existence?

First off, knowing a few things about psychology no I don't find it odd in the least.
More importantly you seem to be using the fact that stupid people think something as evidence against it. This is a logical fallacy.

[Realityhack]

6. Um Ghost...

How would you propose even a legitimate scientific inquiry (Never mind mythbusters) falsify those claims?

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. Think the other way, dude...

Wouldn't it be just as easy to verify those claims? Prove whether it's a myth or not?

I've read other stories where Neil Armstrong said that they were "warned off of the moon by aliens" and that's why the subsequent trips were quick trips there and back....

You can also look up some of what Buzz Aldrin had to say about aliens. Google is your friend, my friend....

:hi:

[Realityhack]

10. Ok. so how would you propose they be verified? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Well, for someone with the money and media exposure that they have,

.. couldn't they do a show and ask people to come forward if they were a ham operator at the time and heard this transmission? Find out if maybe someone actually *did* record it? Doesn't it appear that the transcript I provided was copied from a recording, seeing as how it has all the stutters and broken sentences in it?

[Realityhack]

12. So...

the hypothetical situation is that such a recording exists, the person who has it has not shared it, but they would if 'Mythbusters' asked them to?

And I would expect the same if it was made up BTW.

I think your scenario is unlikely at best. Then they would of course have to demonstrate that whatever they got was not faked.

Realistically speaking, I see absolutely no reason to believe these 'transcripts' in the first place. And as far as I can tell the mythos around them is constructed to make them non-falsifiable (ie NASA covered it up, so nothing from NASA can be trusted etc.).

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Sounds like you're saying "it's too hard, so let's not do it"..

"the hypothetical situation is that such a recording exists, the person who has it has not shared it, but they would if 'Mythbusters' asked them to?"

Do we know if anyone has ever asked people to come forward with the story before?

"I think your scenario is unlikely at best. Then they would of course have to demonstrate that whatever they got was not faked."

Umm... isn't *that* the whole object of 'Myth Busters'??

[Realityhack]

16. You seem to hear what you want to.

"Do we know if anyone has ever asked people to come forward with the story before?"

Are you fucking serious?!? Your seriously going to support the idea that there is a reasonable chance this a recording like this exists... but the person who has it hasn't come forward because nobody asked?

Umm... isn't *that* the whole object of 'Myth Busters'??
No. The point of mythbusters is to get viewer share to sell advertising. They do this with semi-scientific inquiry into various 'myths'. This is hardly an academic forum for demonstrating that an audio recording is authentic.

Honestly... given that you think their is enough of a chance a recording of this exists... and nobody has come forward... but that they would if mythbusters asked them too...
I see no point in continuing this conversation. There is no response for 'logic' like that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Yeah, with logic like this:

"No. The point of mythbusters is to get viewer share to sell advertising. They do this with semi-scientific inquiry into various 'myths'."

maybe it is best for you to leave the conversation...

Just sayin'...

[Realityhack]

25. ROTFLMFAO

oh oh that was good Ghost. I shared that with a whole list of people.

News flash.
TV programing is about selling advertising. The ONLY reason Mythbusters is on is that it sells advertising.
Topics that threaten the advertisers are not aired.
Topics that will not generate enough viewer interest are not aired.

The program is shot is something like 7 day rotations.
It focuses on experimentation within the limits of budget, time, and the skills of a couple of special effect guys.
All such demonstrations must be entertaining. No hundreds of boring test runs to gather a meaningful sample, no long careful archival searches (they have gotten snagged at least once or twice on things a good google search would have found).

Mythbusters is not going to establish the authenticity of an audio recording to any reasonable scientific standard because (asside from not being experts in that area etc.) they don't do science. They do semi-scientific experiments at best, sometimes it is downright psudo-science.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Realityhack]

27. And yet you appear to disagree with exactly that statement earlier in the thread. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. No, you tried to make it sound like the only reason people make shows is to sell advertising..n/t

[Realityhack]

30. Ok. that was a miscommunication...

I think it is more like the only reason media corps will fund shows is to sell advertising.

And that of course affects the contents of the show. An in-depth scientific analysis doesn't attract viewers the way a cool explosion does.

My fundemental point was that Mythbusters is not about doing solid research. It is about doing semi-scientific to sudo-scientific 'experiments' in a fun way that attracts viewers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. Fair enough... miscommunications happen here, unfortunately...

I highly doubt that the people who write/create tv shows and/or movies do so with the thoughts of "what kind of advertising could I get with this". Advertisers pay according to viewer demographics. Do you think they show Geritol commercials during Hanna Montana shows? The only affect viewer share has on advertising is price, placement & time slot.

[Realityhack]

33. Price being the key. n/t