digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at badastronomy.com

Mythbusters to tackle the moon landing hoaxes

badastronomy.com — Set to air April 25th. The build team — Kari, Grant, and Tory — went to Marshall Space Flight Center to use a vacuum chamber there. Looks like they’ll be recreating Dave Scott’s famous feather and hammer drop from Apollo 15, as well as the hoax claim that dry lunar regolith can’t hold a footprint, and how the flag can wave in a vacuum.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/12/2008, -12/+125Excellent news. Since people still don't want to believe BA, I guess the Discovery/Science Channel has to put a program out. I bet it'll be in a timeslot right before "Ghost Hunters"... sad.
    • joel8x, on 03/12/2008, -12/+119Those ghost hunting shows are so ridiculous. Does anyone watch that crap and think that any of it is legitimate?
      • accn112, on 03/12/2008, -21/+14They're quality American entertainment sir/madam!
        • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -3/+9Considering a number of them are from outside the US...
          • themastersb, on 03/12/2008, -1/+14On a side note how come over 50% of paranormal activity happens in Spanish speaking countries?
          • Tippis, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Because being dead, out of a job, and unable to operate the remote, the poor ghosts cannot escape the horror that is daytime Spanish TV. It's an attempt at payback, pure and simple.
          • Spuy767, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4Because spanish speaking countries are generally heavily religious.
      • Nitesmoke, on 03/12/2008, -16/+48There probably are. A friend of mine believes John Edwards is genuine. She won't even let me explain how his shows are filmed for about 4 hours and edited down to one, etc. Many people will buy into this sort of crap, and when you press them it always comes down to the same thing: they are afraid of death. Most people can't imagine a universe without their conscience existing. Every time I have a serious discussion about the supernatural people always admit that they "just have to believe in something," or, "there has to be more to this life." This line of thought is a weakness. I want to believe those things also, that when I die, I will float to paradise surrounded by everyone I ever loved including my childhood dog, Rex. I want to believe this, but my logic won't let me. It takes a stronger mind to realize what you want to be true and what is actually true don't always mesh.
        • timewarp424, on 03/12/2008, -12/+3Why does one need to be stronger?
          • knowmad23, on 03/12/2008, -5/+4survival of the fittest.
            - Darwin
          • GawtMilk, on 03/12/2008, -6/+2Survival of the best.
            - Darwin
          • grinchdec23, on 03/12/2008, -7/+1LOL@ Darwin
          • timewarp424, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Having the correct answer has nothing to do with being the strongest. He's mixing two forms of truth: empirical truth (such as survival of the fittest) with philosophical truth. As did most of you who responded did as well.
          • ashleegirl, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1It is not that you have to be strong, it is that some of us just can't lie to ourselves.
          • timewarp424, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I would agree with exactly what you said. That's why I made my original question.
        • gmprunner, on 03/12/2008, -22/+13Logic has nothing to do with it. If logic played any factor in it, it would defeat the whole point of the belief. It's a matter of faith. It's ignorant to call speculating on something as uncertain as what happens after our death a weakness, because there is nothing warranting it so.

          The pure and simple fact is, we don't know what happens after death. The speculation that we go to a fluffy cloud is just as credible (or incredible) as the speculation that nothing happens to our "souls". Why bag on other people for having a belief, when yours is no better? Personally, I prefer the belief that we live on after death just because it's more interesting and exciting than just believing in nothing at all. To each his own.
          • charlie55, on 03/12/2008, -16/+19nothing happens at all isnt a speculation. it is reality. anything else is made up.

            dont pretend all beliefs are equal. you cant just make up all manner of crazy crap and claim it is exactly as likely as not.
          • thall, on 03/12/2008, -8/+18@charlie55, to claim with such certainty that "nothing happens at all" is just reality then you must have overwhelming proof, right?
          • bigbadgoat, on 03/12/2008, -10/+9well until there is proof that something happens to you other than death, then its only logical to assume that nothing at all happens.

            There is volumes of proof that when someone dies, nothing happens to their soul/spirit. All you have to do is watch someone die. Can you observe anything that happens to their soul/spirit after they die? Is there even any evidence of a soul or spirit? No?

            So, for someone that uses logic and reason as the basis of determining what they believe and what they don't, there is no reason to believe anything happens after you die. There's no reason to believe you, or anyone else has a spirit. There's no reason to believe in an afterlife.

            I'll stick to try and living this life to the fullest, and when I die, if god and spirits, and all that ***** actually exists, and I'm standing at the pearly gates, I'll just blame god for not giving me any proof, apologize, and he'll forgive me, because he's so loving, and forgiving... right?

            I think Galileo said it best:

            "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
          • b1kerguy, on 03/12/2008, -3/+5bigbadgoat:

            there is no way to test for a spirit/soul, how could you see anything happen to it. if you know anything about alfred kinsey, arguably the largest sex researcher who sparked this new age of thought, and got us out of the "sex is bad" rut he questioned thousands of people, never asking about love only about the physical, when asked about this, he stated "love cannot be measured scientifically" according to your 'logic', that means it does not exist. if this is the case, how do you explain the feelings you get, they cannot be measured either, im only saying if you use your logic and reason, emotion is something no one ever feels, why should these words upset you? if God does not exist because you havent felt Him like you have felt pain, you are not being open-minded to others experiences, i have felt God's presence many times before, and will again, is that imposible because there is no device to measure it? before we could measure gravity did it still exist?
          • bigbadgoat, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2That's some of the dumbest ***** I have ever heard. Where did I say you had to have to quantify something for it to exist? I clearly said you had to observe it, there has to be some evidence of something for it to exist. Nowhere did I say there had to be a measurable quantity of something.

            Of course love can't be measured scientifically, neither can anger, or happiest. Sure there are biological indicators that might tell a scientist that based on a set of indicators someone is happy, or sad, but its not universal. The human brain is something that scientists haven't completely figured out yet. However, just because not everything is known about human emotion in a scientific sense, doesn't mean I don't believe in something that very clearly exists, that I have felt, that I have observed.

            Feelings, emotion are universal, no matter what you god you or don't believe in, unless you have something physically wrong with you, every human is capable of emotion. You can't believe in happiness, you can't believe in sadness. They're emotions. Being in love describes a series of emotions, a series of feelings, a series of actions someone conveys towards another. I have been in love, I hope some day I'll find myself in love again. I grew up in a very loving environment, I see love every day. What does that have to do with spirits? what does that have to do with a god?

            However, the issue here is that you are confusing emotion with faith, and they are completely different.

            I can show you someone who is happy, someone who is in love. I cannot show you a spirit, because it cannot be observed, I cannot show you a god, because it cannot be observed. Like I said, there are some aspects of human emotion and feelings that are measurable. How does one measure another's spirit? Whether or not something can be measured or is quantifiable is irrelevant. Regardless of whether we determined that free-falling objects accelerate downwards at a rate of approximately 9.81 m/s^2, people observed gravity every day. When Newton developed the theory of gravity, he had no real way of measuring it exactly. See the difference?

            And how dare you say that I think a god does not exist because I am not being open-minded. If I wasn't open minded, I would be the jesus loving catholic boy and go to church every Sunday, like my parents do. I was open-minded enough to challenge the bible, the church, and the belief system forced upon me. I was open-minded enough to see religion for the ***** it really is. Do I force my belief system on others? Do I look down on others who believe in a god? of course not. It is their right to believe what they want. But I also don't make assumptions and accusations about them either, like you have of me.

            I know it's impossible for you to have "felt god's presence" because that not only can it not be measured, it can't be observed. Do you seriously think that anyone using any bit of logic or reason is going to believe you if you say all of a sudden "I feel god". Yeah, I'm sure you do. Are you positive it's a god that you feel? Is it impossible for that feeling you have to be anything else?

            The only sensible answer is "yes" since there's no evidence it's is actually a god, and if that's the case, how can you possibly assume it has to be god and not something else. There's far more sensible, intellectual, reasonable explanations for every time you have ever "felt god" I assure you.

            Congratulations on completely missing the point and putting words in my mouth to make your illogical nonsense appear reasonable.
          • ashleegirl, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1@b1kerguy: We can measure the response of our body to love. I have seen people "feel god" right after I got baptized for the second time. It made me sick. I didn't "feel god," just the rush of emotion that these people really thought that they felt something other than the acceptance of everyone around them, and that they were paying worthless pastors to build giant churches just so they could have that acceptance that should be free.
            sources about the science of love:
            http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovengf.htm
            http://www.saddleback.edu/faculty/jfritsen/article ...
        • tjmb9, on 03/12/2008, -2/+13I agree with you, except that being absolutely certain of there being nothing "paranormal" or whatever is basically just the same thing. The truth is none of us know *****.
        • Tehrooni, on 03/12/2008, -7/+2Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. That's the only universal law we need to know. Death does not even exist what talk about after death then???
          • theaceoffire, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. However, almost everything converts.
            One day almost everything will be converted to energy.
      • Falldog, on 03/12/2008, -9/+6I want to believe that it's true. When they spend time debunking and come up with nothing, that is adding credibility. Unfortunately I you can't really believe ***** you see on TV, regardless if people clam it's not fake. And people question whey I don't believe anything in The Bible.
        • theaceoffire, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Don't you believe the copywrite info on the front page?
      • stavrogin2, on 03/12/2008, -1/+30I wonder if the ghost hunters ever go somewhere and say "Nope, no ghosts here. Maybe it's your plumbing.".
        • smithchr, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12At least that would be USEFUL information. Tough to deal with poltergeists. Much easier to handle a pipe wrench.
        • triscuitbiscuit, on 03/12/2008, -0/+27Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but they have, plenty of times...
          Some of their stuff does bother me though- especially the Eastern State apparition... They claim that there is no way its a person yet you can clearly see leg movement when the sheet- i mean apparation- isn't covering the whole way.
        • masamunecyrus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+19Yes, TAPS (the Ghost Hunters people who do the Sci-Fi Channel show) actually has done that.
          • stavrogin2, on 03/12/2008, -11/+4T.A.P.S. I looked it up. The Atlantic Paranormal Society. I'm ok with people believing in ghosts, but it's insulting to nickname some stupid fantasy society after the bugle song used to honor military funerals. It's actually a good pun, but, still, it's inappropriate.
          • ashleegirl, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1and they would know, since they work for Roto-Router during the day
      • moolaismyfriend, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8I recommend Skeptical Inquirer

        Puts these mystics in their place.

        http://csicop.org/si/
        • gandhii, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Publications like that are equally foolish. Any time you start out an investigation by presuming one way or the other you're likely to only notice things that support your view and not notice things that may not. Both sides of this argument are idiots in my book.
      • PikkonX, on 03/12/2008, -8/+14Not all of them, but "Ghost Hunters" does seem to be the most legitimate just based on the fact that nearly every piece of evidence they come up with, they end up debunking on their own as Falldog mentioned. As far as ghosts themselves... a while back I probably would have said no, until me and a friend saw one about two feet from us. His mom who was very religious didn't like this at all and blamed it on our imagination. A few months later, her and her other son saw the same thing in their home and she went crazy. She spread holy water around the home and made my friend uninstall Diablo 2 and quite a few other games that she blamed for bringing demons into her house lol.
        • dinostabOMG, on 03/12/2008, -1/+18I dugg you up, but only because I laughed that he had to uninstall Diablo hahahaha. Make sure to overwrite the sectors on the drive that host the evil demons.

          ...... your friend's mom isn't a GOD WARRIOR, is she?
        • PikkonX, on 03/12/2008, -3/+8Yeah we still laugh about that to this day. She's actually become a bit less devout than she used to be. Still religious and in the church, but nothing like in the past when she certainly was a God Warrior. Prior to the uninstallation, she claimed that she walked past the computer one night and Diablo's face popped up on the screen out of nowhere, but he was still allowed to play it. After seeing the ghost though, she made him uninstall it and threw away the game along with his "Goosebumps" books and all that stuff.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4lol, priceless, she made him throw away the goosebumps?? lol
      • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Eh. I don't believe it when they say something's officially haunted, but, hey, I'll still watch it when it's on. It's the same reason I'd watch a scary movie or play FEAR—it's sometimes fun to do something wholly unsettling because during the act that feeling often takes precedence over your own rationality. When it's over, I just think, "...Ah, well, there's probably a good explanation," which is likely true—I mean, they always search for high electric fields on Ghost Hunters, and it is a scientific fact that strong fields can mess with your head a bit. But as far as going that ghosts are causing the fields—that's where I can back away and just say, "Hey, the show's entertaining, but that's a bit much," you know?
      • Amerikaner1, on 03/12/2008, -5/+6Yeah, I do. Ghost Hunters is one of the best shows on TV. Even without the ghost aspect, you get to see them explore a ton of historical places from a normal person's eyes. They dont embellish anything, crazy ***** happens, and most of the investigators are cool as hell (besides that one goofy and socially awkward "Jason-replacement" dude from GH: International).
      • source1984, on 03/12/2008, -6/+4Ghosts are real. Or I don't know if ghosts is the right word. I should say, there does seem to be some evidence (mainly witness testimonies, sometimes multiple people seeing same thing at same time so as to dismiss individual brain anomalies) that there are BEINGS present with(?) us in certain places. These beings seem to prefer isolated places.
        • Lyph5, on 03/12/2008, -7/+4It's cute how you're willing to believe anything that makes it seem like this life isn't the only one you get.
          No ghosts. No zombies. No vampires. No angels. No demons. This world is it, and it's about time you grew up and learned to accept that.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4No zombies? But I just completed my zombieapocalypse fortress and have another shipment of 40,000 shotgun shells arriving today!
          • dragon76, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4With so little that we know about the universe and SCIENTISTS every day saying that dark matter is what makes up the majority of the universe and with us, so far as we know, being alone in the universe, we just might be the ghosts for the beings made of dark matter…
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Funny, there are credentialed biologists that will tell you that zombies are a real biological possibility. They would be artificially created, mind you, much like "I Am Legend", but still zombies nonetheless.
          • Amerikaner1, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0You'd be the same dumbass screaming "its cute you think the world is round ". We've see enough crazy ***** to know that anything is possible.
        • iceblademan, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Its cute how you have your nose in the sand. There's documented, physical evidence that proves the existence of energy that remains after death. There's no debate about whether its a legit phenomenon, but as a species we are trying to collect evidence to prove it to closed minded people like you.
      • Vic333, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2No. No one believes it. But it is funny to watch them scare themselves into oblivion because they felt a draft.
      • Tetraca, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1If time is, in fact, the fourth dimension, then ghosts could be "leaks" in time, where we can see the shadow of what once existed. Then again, that idea is a bit half-baked as well, because if that were the case, then it wouldn't be just humans and dead pets that would be leaking through; there would be ghost objects passing through as well which we should be able to see and study. The only reasonable explanations are psychological disease, lucid dreaming, or...that one term that's slipping my mind which roughly means "misinterpretation of things by the brain".
    • wukillabee, on 03/12/2008, -4/+26mythbusters not needed, history channel to the rescue

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlo_spATEM
      • sethisastud, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14I believe that's National Geographic...the little rectangle in the corner gave that away. I still liked it.
      • joshblufs, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3That was good. I was never a skeptic of the moon landing but that was cool. I knew about the reflector but had never seen it in action.
    • Falldog, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Nah, they booth air at 9PM Wednesdays. (Unless it's a two hour special)
    • Cheezeburgar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13This sounds great, but I stopped trusting mythbuster results after they busted the catching arrow myth. While watching that episode I recalled an episode of Ripley's Believe or Not episode where they had a guy catching arrows flying at 100+ mph.

      Source:
      The Ripleys video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLj8eK814o0

      Mythbusters busting the myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ScDgwGoTw
      • fmoliveira, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1I stopped trusting them after they made that ridiculous listerine ad.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5I agree. Their conclusions are shoddy most times. But it's fun watching their methods.
      • paOol, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1the ripleys was done much much farther away than the mythbusters one.

        doesn't disprove the mythbusters' conclusion.
    • SeanRoss, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Scientists can be wrong on occasion.. they just didn't test all the variables. Doesn't mean they can't get some things right...
      • Cheezeburgar, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Scientists research to see if their is any previous data ;)
    • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Just visit the Lunar Casino / Hotel / Restaurant and take the tour in the museum / fun park.
    • dcollins, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4I am kinda disappointed that its not Jamie and Adam busting this myth. The myths covered by their lab workers, or whatever you want to call them, just seem like a sideshow to the main myth being busted.
  • wonderchemist, on 03/12/2008, -25/+248So they went to the same set at Marshall Space Flight Center they staged the moon landings to test if the moon landings were a hoax?
    • BadAstronomer, on 03/12/2008, -4/+54Yup. That's what the build team did at least. Adam and Jamie did some other tests at their studio in California. I know some of the thigns they tested, but not the results. I ain't talking 'til they give me the go-ahead. :-)
      • mrlost117, on 03/12/2008, -37/+6MythBusters has a bad taste now that they INCORRECTLY "busted" the plane on treadmill. Now they think they can do anything.
        • mcrumley, on 03/12/2008, -3/+32A plane can take off from a treadmill. It's not difficult to understand and they clearly explained it on the show.
        • joshblufs, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10Has to be a troll, nobody is that thick in real life. The grammar is pretty bad though and i don't know what to say about his youtube videos.... yikes!
        • HerbSolo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5I think in this "mind experiment" somebody forgot that wheels do turn. And that the airplane isn't moved forward by the wheels turning. - The only difference between a takeoff on a treadmill and a takeoff on a regular runway is the speed of the wheels.
          • theaceoffire, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2True, if the AIR was going backwards at the same speed as the propeller tried to move it backwards, then it would stay in the same spot horizontally and be able to move vertically.
        • UnstableMind, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Also, to add to HerbSolo, the wheels do not cause the plane to fly, no matter how fast they spin. Lift is created when air moves across the top of the leading edge of the wing causing a lower pressure above the wing and a higher below. This is called the Bernoulli's Principle. Basically, a plane that is stationary will NOT fly.
        • mrASSMAN, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The point is that a treadmill won't prevent a plane from moving forward.. thrust is not derived from the wheels.
      • tavisjohn, on 03/12/2008, -1/+17Just because you do not understand the concept, does not mean that they were wrong.

        I mean, did you actually miss the part where they had a treadmill, and a plain? Did you not see it take off?
        Oh well that happens when you doze off.
        • thumperings, on 03/12/2008, -2/+11they just don't get it. They think it was cheating when the plane was actually moving forward (compared to fixed objects on the ground).. they don't really understand what the experiment entailed and why.
          • smithchr, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Not this again. I think I can agree with you that their experimental setup left MUCH to be desired, but there are only so many ways to set it up and the plane is going to take off each time. The canvas + pickup truck was pretty cheesy, though. A much better solution, though much more expensive, would have been to build an actual treadmill with variable speed motors large enough to get the plane's wheels on. The cheesy setup gets in the way of understanding the debunking of the myth.
          • HerbSolo, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Well - that would be a crap experiment really, wouldn't it? - Just put every one of the wheels on one of those things they use to test brakes or whatever at the repair shop. - Now spin them. - Plane won't take off - Duh. I don't get how this is called a thought experiment. - Of course the plane won't take off just because the wheels are spinning.
          • Lyph5, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5HerbSolo, the wheels would not have spun while sitting on that machine, since the plane's wheels are not powered. The plane simply would move forward, off of the machine, and it would take off.
        • Timmmm, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Is this trying to show that it isn't powered by its wheels (and hence can still go forwards) or that it needs a high velocity relative to the air (and not the conveyor) to take off?
          Maybe there are two myths and you're just arguing about which one they were trying to disprove. Not that they're really myths.
      • theradical, on 03/12/2008, -4/+9and who the hell are you?
      • jjmckay, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Can you sense that there is something within you that knows something that others don't? This is a subtle ego boosting practice. Its okay.. Just pointing this out. No harm done to try to boost it of course.
    • Hobbes24, on 03/12/2008, -8/+76they filmed the moon landings in mars, n00b.
      • digjam, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10ON mars?
      • krisscofield, on 03/12/2008, -1/+26Don't tell me there's a HOLLOW Mars, too?!
        • tapeworm77, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13No it's filled with caramel and peanuts.
      • Egarim, on 03/12/2008, -1/+21No, inside. It's hollow. That's why there aren't any stars in the pictures.
        • fkr3, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8I thought the inside was full of gooey noughat stuff that tastes nice...
          • chromerium, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1No, I ate it.

            Right after I ate the moon, as it was made of bbq spare ribs.
          • darlingt, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4That doesn't work in the US; we don't have Mars Bars here anymore. :(
        • rpatel11, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1mars is full of harmoniums
          See who gets the reference
      • joshf52, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2"GIVE DIS PEOPLE AIR!"
    • Agger, on 03/12/2008, -8/+7They probably got to the conclusion that it was real, otherwise they'd be dead!
      • supermanred, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Don't call Buzz Aldrin a liar...and especially not a coward!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo&mode=re ...

        Knock your ass out.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -2/+6Conspiracy nuts have the benefit of NEVER accepting that they're wrong. No proof is enough to reverse their beliefs. Fly them to the moon, let them play around one of the lunar landing sites and they'll claim they were drugged during the flight and taken to a sound stage in New Mexico.
      • Agger, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1supermanred did i call him a liar? No. Did i call him a coward? No... Did I say the moon landing is fake? NO
    • jo3design, on 03/12/2008, -4/+2not only that, but my biggest concern is that if NASA recorded the video (youtube) in the article, and allowed its release, I'm wondering what kind of edited/biased content they would let the Mythbusters' build team release on the show. It will be kind of discerning to watch this episode, knowing that somewhere along the line, there has to be a bit of bias according to NASA. I really hope Mythbusters doesn't let me down.
      • Nillerus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1*disconcerting
        • Mysrt, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3god forbid you don't hear what you want to hear. Who knows maybe you could find out some facts!
      • Logicexe, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4Classic conspiracy delusion. Any evidence that doesn't confirm your preconceived notions has been manipulated by the conspirators and confirms the conspiracy. Ever stop to think that maybe NASA isn't manipulating the data, that the conspiracy fantasy is just wrong?
        • grinchdec23, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3No.
        • axiomata, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't be a very good conspiracy theorist in that case now would he.
    • drakethegreat, on 03/12/2008, -12/+10Well for starters I don't even think they have to even prove anything with the feather and the hammer. Thats actually evidence supporting the moon landing... Its called obvious physics. As far as the flag moving if they show an actual vaccum chamber I think I will be convinced since its not the same thing as if they were pretending to be on the moon... Cause obviously they aren't. Of course the same people who think the moon landing is a hoax are usually the same people that think the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, evolution can't be real cause it creates matter, and a mythical man walked on water because a book told them so. How do you use logic to actually convince those people? They are just simply retarded.
      • 955701, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5I think people need to understand that people who are skeptical of even the most obvious facts aren't "retarded". Some of these people are otherwise brilliant in some manner or another. The problem is one of competency. If you are not competent in a field, but somewhere during your life you learned that confidence in your own understanding of the world is expected, then these are the types of conclusions you come up with. That doesn't make you stupid, it makes you human. You are susceptible to mistakes, even blatant ones.
      • mattmy, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4whatever retard
    • EvilFerret, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4I'm not a conspiracy person and I believe we did land on the moon. Even if it was a conspiracy, there's no way to get 100% proof that it was staged. If there was a way to prove it never happened, and Mythbusters discovered it.... They would immediately be given a gag order and the that particular episode would be canceled.
      • OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1I haven't done enough reading to have a strong opinion on the moon landing, but what does "I'm not a conspiracy person" mean? that you are pretty content to accept the official explanation of everything? It's historical fact that the government has purposely perpetuated lies to cover up what would be considered conspiracies at the times they occur.
  • MiraiLindemann, on 03/12/2008, -3/+29Hahaha, wow, I'm impatient to know the results, it's gonna be a great show but, for being sincere, I'm sure what are they gonna say.
    Anyway, I still believe on moon landings.
    ------------------
    BA: Are you going to be on the show or you just helped??
    • BadAstronomer, on 03/12/2008, -1/+39I just helped, sadly. :-) Actually it was a lot of fun. When the time gets closer to the air date I'll post some more about some other stuff I've talked to them about.
      • isntreal, on 03/12/2008, -0/+21I'm jealous.
        • thumperings, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11well we know the results now anyway. If the BA enjoyed himself it obviously didn't go against his beliefs . The mirrors left on the moon that we bounce lasers off of daily.. ended any questions the conspiracy films might have brought up.
          • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8But those were put there by robots!
          • VinceNoir, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6The mirror were built by the ancient race of moon men and Copernicus first noticed them but was silenced by the church. They kept it a secret until the Irish got a president in office in the 1960s. Clever people those Irish....
          • Rheic, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10Actually scientists generally appreciate it when they're proved wrong, it means they learned something.
          • Pixelante, on 03/12/2008, -4/+1@Rheic: actually not. It strikes a blow to their career and means less funds.
            The days of science for science's sake are gone forever, if they have ever existed.
          • Logicexe, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Pixelante, that's just ***** *****. Scientists loose funding when they do meaningless irrelevant work. It happens very often that you can get just as much information about something when you're wrong than when you're right.
          • UnstableMind, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Just to play devil's advocate, those mirrors could have been placed there by probes. No one ever questioned the fact that we have sent probes to the moon.
          • zrcochran, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I'm just curious as to how big these things must be. I imagine it would be fairly difficult to hit a small array of mirrors from that distance on a moving target. Can anyone suggest a link where you can read more about how they do this?
        • triscuitbiscuit, on 03/12/2008, -0/+9Anybody that stood within a few feet of Kari should :)
          • flatlinebb, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Kari is hawt! I want to have her make me some more geeky babies.
        • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4@thumperings
          Ah, ah, the mirrors left on the moon that THEY SAY we bounce lasers off of daily...!

          (Haha, yeah, we were on the freakin' moon.)
      • kixxster, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1***** it. i'm moving to Cali...i've got friends that live near M5
      • IncogMosqui, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I think the real question here is, did you at least get to make out with Kari as payment?
        • IrisMR, on 03/12/2008, -0/+0I'm not sure his wife would approve. :)
  • JerkHimey56, on 03/12/2008, -13/+173I've always wanted them to take on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Maybe that's next.
    • tillerman00, on 03/12/2008, -60/+22I hope they do take that on. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how those three buildings turned to dust in less than ten seconds and how the plane got through that little hole in the Pentagon and where the other plane disappeared to. Maybe the Ghost Hunters can help out here.
      • Nitesmoke, on 03/12/2008, -19/+63Well, the experts keep answering those questions for you, but those freshman college dudes with a website and the theology professor seem to know better than engineers and real scientists.
        • 4d669, on 03/12/2008, -30/+9Experts say it, that settles it = The Bible says it, that settles it.
          • InspectorGadget, on 03/12/2008, -11/+30No. Evidence and rational arguments presented by experts > half-assed physics and conspiracy theories peddled by douchebags.
          • otakushark, on 03/12/2008, -7/+9Unqualified conspiracy nuts say it, that settles it = Alice in Wonderland is a book, so it must be true.
        • inobla, on 03/12/2008, -5/+18"Experts say it, that settles it = The Bible says it, that settles it."

          Dude, you just won the ***** analogy of the week award. Contratz!
      • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 03/12/2008, -5/+29Uh oh, someone is wrong on the internet.

        I was about to go to sleep too. I guess Duty Calls.
      • Syphon8, on 03/12/2008, -11/+5Less than ten seconds? Are you ***** me?

        Also, the wings of the third plane clearly just shattered off on impact... They're just held on with glue.
      • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -4/+12The neat thing about commercial airliners is that they're made to withstand a high speed impact with one of the most heavily bomb proofed buildings in the world.

        You ever stood on a plane's wing? You see all those little notices that say "Don't walk over here ***** face!"? It's not because they are afraid you'll scratch the paint.
      • doctorfungi, on 03/12/2008, -12/+16You're not waiting for someone to explain it. It's been explained. You're just too retarded to understand it.
    • 4d669, on 03/12/2008, -48/+16No one will do that, you know why? Because it's impossible to create a model of the Towers and make it fall at free fall speed into it's footprint because of a fire that covered two floors for a couple of hours. All the 'smart experts' on TV can talk all they want, but none of them dare to go near a model recreation. The funny thing is, the only way the model could fall like the Towers during 9/11, would be if they planted explosions in it. Go ahead, do it for your next science fair, but be prepared to lose habeas corpus afterwards.
      • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -13/+32Award winner, highest BS density in one paragraph.
        • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -7/+20If we could burn BS, 4d669 would leave entire coal seams in every comment.
      • Syphon8, on 03/12/2008, -10/+20People have done model reconstruction, unfortunately. Ignoring them doesn't validate your theories, dumbass.
        • thumperings, on 03/12/2008, -15/+10No they haven't. If you are referring to the PBS one. They totally omitted the center core columns, as If they just magically didn't exist, I guess to make the pancake theory look a bit less asinine.
        • scubajim, on 03/12/2008, -6/+17I believe it was Carnigie Mellon that did one of the latest model reconstructions. Oh wait, they might have used engineers to do the mdeling; then that doesn't count.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8Don't you know? Every Engineer in the world (millions of them) were "In On It™" except for the 20 who've "Seen the Troof™"
        • Logicexe, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3@thumperings

          Depending on what they wanted to learn from the model it could be completely ok to remove the center column. What they were probably trying to test was how the load of the upper floors would have been distributed if the center column buckled.

          The thing to remember about buckling columns is that as soon as one buckles it looses almost all its strength. Try this out with a straw, put your hand on top, press down lightly, notice that it can support a fair amount of weight for a tiny plastic tube. Once it buckles though, your hand will fall fast because it looses almost all of its support.

          What they may have been testing in their computer models was what would happen to the other columns if the center column buckled.
      • doctorfungi, on 03/12/2008, -3/+9You're an idiot. Do you have any idea the amount of CPU power it would take to completely, accurately, and scientifically model the collapse of a 110 story building?

        The fire in those buildings didn't cover "2 floors" either. The impact hole itself was far greater than 2 floors high.
        • dopplerdog, on 03/12/2008, -1/+6"completely, accurately and scientifically"??? What does that even mean? You mean work out the wave function of every elementary particle in the building and compute its time evolution? As well as interactions with the environment?

          Every scientific modelling calculation requires approximation. By definition, it cannot be completely accurate.
        • Adrian540, on 03/12/2008, -3/+15I think the most obvious reason for knowing the gov't wasn't behind it is the fact the attacks actually WORKED.
    • Falldog, on 03/12/2008, -1/+11They wont. I forget their reasonings specifically but they talked about it on the O&A show before before the airing of they MacGyver special.

      (aka if you're interested find out when that aired then go download the show)
      • itsameericle, on 03/12/2008, -2/+13aka = also known as

        feel free to use it properly
    • ghostrc, on 03/12/2008, -22/+11Hopefully one day theres proof that the plane hit the Pentago, just to shut up all the idiots who wrote a 500-Page book on how it was a misle
      • bingobongony, on 03/12/2008, -9/+23One day? The several dozen people who SAW it hit are not proof to you?
        • Syphon8, on 03/12/2008, -10/+19To us, yes. To truthers, there is no proof.
        • cnot3, on 03/12/2008, -3/+7More people have seen bigfoot. But *****, he's real too.
        • Pixelante, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Those idiots were French. You can hit them with logic all the time and they will still smugly ignore it.
          The only way is to threaten them with violence: they will cave in immediately.
      • HigherLogic, on 03/12/2008, -2/+17All they need to do is release the footage, and not that jumbled slow FPS video either. I mean, they have the videos, just release them. That will prove it one way or the other.
        • thumperings, on 03/12/2008, -5/+11And yet no one on Digg wonders why they will never release them .
        • doctorfungi, on 03/12/2008, -3/+13All the video cameras that captured the impact were recording at recommended FPS settings. That's 1-2FPS per second.
          A plane traveling at 500mp/h isn't going to come up DVD quality from security footage recording at those FPS.
          • MacParrot, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4FINALLY, some one who understands the limitations of 2001 era security DVRs. These things are recording up to 16 cameras with a frame rate limitation of 30 fps. Do the math
          • UnstableMind, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1Dumbass, You're probably referring to the 2001 era security DVR you get from Sam's or Wal-Mart. I'm pretty damn sure that the security cameras at the Pentagon were capturing in realtime. Do me a favor, drive to your nearest Wal-Mart and count how many camera's you "see", which in 2001 recorded in real-time, and tell me the Pentagon uses less security than Wal-Mart. I dunno what to believe, but *****, use your head.
          • MacParrot, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3@unstablemind
            I'm in this field and have been for a long time. Almost every security DVR sold has (and most still do) a 30 fps limitation. Each camera can be "adjusted" to increase its frames per second, but at the cost of other cameras having less per second. There's a difference between realtime CCTV security recording and what you get from digitally recording a single camera source.
            What you're looking at at Walmart, are live images showing on a security monitor. This isn't the same as what's being recorded as in, not every frame shown on the monitor is being recorded.
            The US Govt uses mostly off the shelf CCTV equipment. Why? Because it's cheaper by comparison to custom solutions and repair/ replacements costs are reduced as well. Lastly, most govt institutions in the late 90s/ early 00s were still using VCR-type recording solutions adding in another factor of low-grade images.
            doctorfungi got it right and you got it wrong.
          • strib666, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Dumbass, *today's* security DVRs typically only record at 1-2 FPS. Full motion video just plain takes too much storage space.

            If 1-2 FPS will capture what you need - and it usually does unless your suspect is traveling at several hundred mph - you don't go full motion just because you can - even at the Pentagon.
    • uziko, on 03/12/2008, -5/+10Yes that would be great. I think there might be something to the inside job conspiracy, but it might also be a total crock of *****. I won't know until it's tested by the mythbusters.
      • Gimpishi, on 03/12/2008, -4/+15Mythbusters don't make anything true. They just come up with creative tests and use scientific reasoning to determine a myth's plausability. I would simply like to see the various security camera angles of the pentagon plane hit. I'm not sure why the ***** they won't release those.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -8/+9Call me crazy, but I expect most camera were near the top of the building looking down at the ground, not pointed up into the sky, or even above the horizon.

          They did release one from the parkade, from a typical slow-scan security camera. The plane was moving fast enough that it was in only two frames.
        • satanswetnipple, on 03/12/2008, -6/+11Mythbusters seldom use scientific reasoning. Can you tell me how in one episode, they can have three base tests, one they used a control and it was proven correct, the other two had absolutely no controls, though controls would have cost cents, and would have taken a few seconds to include... these non control tests came to the "BUSTED" conclusion.

          If you watch enough Mythbusters with a critical eye, and use your own brain instead of borrowing the TV brain the show producers offer you, then you will see a definite pattern to the way they plan tests, and the outcomes they get at the end.

          The only show less believable is "*****". Where they actually contradict what they say from show to show so they can take the most biased position possible on any one subject.
          • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5NASAWatch was recently contacted by the folks producing "*****". They made it clear that they were going to do a hatchet job on NASA and it's plans.

            The response from NASAWatch: "I declined the offer to participate since they have already made up their mind on the topic and anything I might say would likely be ignored or possibly edited and used out of context"
        • Tetraca, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I believe at least one video was a low-frame rate security camera owned by a hotel. They haven't released it because the hotel technically owns the video and can do whatever they want with it.
    • Nlewis4, on 03/12/2008, -6/+1too soon
    • dcollins, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1I'd like to hit you troofers with a commercial airliner.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 03/12/2008, -11/+6Building 7, one of many 9/11 smoking guns. BBC and CNN reported the building collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Oops, getting the press release too early. Oh and then the BBC suddenly pulled the tapes from its archive and pronounced them lost. All of their 9/11 footage was lost, sorry. The sheeple nod in agreement, "That could happen, the media and government aren't in bed with each other."
      • BeyondDGrave, on 03/12/2008, -5/+5you will be buried because people are ignorant.
        • inobla, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3You have been buried because *you* are ignorant.
      • inobla, on 03/13/2008, -3/+3Yeah.. Ooops. Firefighters got out because they knew the structure was in serious jeopardy of collapsing, and rightly believed it was going to come down soon. The news crews caught wind of this and mistakenly assumed it had already happened.

        No smoking gun here truthers. Move along... and stop getting your news from junk science propaganda sources like jonesreport, infowars, and prisonplanet.
        • insane11, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Don't you know it's much easier to believe that the BBC was handed a script to read from that day? It's so much more believable than simply misinterpreting some information given to them.
    • Yarnage, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4They don't need to bust it. Only idiots believe it. Seriously, what kind of person thinks that because steel melts at 2000 THAT THE BUILDING HAS TO BE AT THAT TEMPERATURE TO LOSE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. Stupid.
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/12/2008, -8/+183http://xkcd.com/202/
    • Railz, on 03/12/2008, -2/+26It was a sound stage on Mars is probably the smartest comment.
    • KingGorilla, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4That actually made me kind of angry. facepalm to the nth degree due to the accuracy
    • bluedostoevsky, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13hahahaahaha, it's so true. people on youtube are the worst. i am sometimes amazed at how tame digg always is. it's great.
    • argaen21, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Haha I never seen that cartoon before but I actually saw those comments on the video because I remembered the guy saying tell Louis Armstrong to his face.
    • Chillywilly, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1That mad me laugh! Funny stuff! Thx
    • mikesbaker, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1you tube really does have the worst comments
    • SilverStandard, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Do you know how conspiracies can get away with crimes? Simply outnumber legitimate conspiracy researchers by ten fold. Have them put out the stupidest stuff so everyone can point and laugh at them, thinking they are an accurate representation of legit conspiracy researchers. If you try to tell someone about a conspiracy theory, they will simply think you are a part of the 90% that think no planes hit the twin towers for instance.
  • siractsalot777, on 03/12/2008, -5/+35the moon is made of cheese and you know it mythbusters its a fact.
    • sqeakingkev, on 03/12/2008, -5/+7for pete's sake use some punctuation its not that hard to do its a fact.
      • LoneShadow, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1err, did you miss a punctuation ?
    • cschoeps, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12For millions of years, man thought the moon was made of cheese.
      In 1969, we finally made it to the moon and discovered it was solid rock.
      We have not returned since.

      Behold, the Power of Cheese.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I know you're trying to get a laugh, but:
        * Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969. First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.
        * Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969. First precise manned landing on the Moon, within walking distance of Surveyor 3.
        * Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971. Commanded by Alan Shepard, the only one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts to walk (and golf) on the Moon.
        * Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971. First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.
        * Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972. First landing in the lunar highlands.
        * Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972. Final Apollo lunar mission, first night launch, only mission with a professional geologist.
        • IncogMosqui, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1... its a quote from a superbowl commercial a few years back.

          //facepalm
    • akilleen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3What if it was made of spare ribs, would you eat it then?
      • D1lux, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I'd ask for seconds and then I'd polish it off with a nice cool Budweiser
  • HacKing, on 03/12/2008, -26/+61. Make an episode on moon conspiracies, don't include the moon is made of cheese suspicion (you all know it is, right)?
    2. ???
    3. PROFIT!
  • camino262, on 03/12/2008, -6/+80It will make for some great TV, but I doubt it will change any of the doubters minds. They have ignored way too much evidence that it is all real.
    • Falldog, on 03/12/2008, -2/+14Really, why would the people who cover their ears and shout "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at points and information which counter their view suddenly listen to a simple TV show?
    • Nitesmoke, on 03/12/2008, -7/+36Exactly, people that believe these conspiracies, moon landing, 9/11truthers, etc already have made up their minds, and no amount of evidence will convince them. Every time undeniable evidence to contradict their argument, they attack the source of the information. Look how many truthers claimed Bush paid off Popular Mechanic to lie about it.
      • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -16/+3I wouldn't say this is 100%, but a few of my questions don't have documented results or have not been adequately explained by an intelligent human. Sounds like you have some insight that you can share with me, please help me search for the truth.
      • thumperings, on 03/12/2008, -18/+4lol what's funny is you are so wrong and yet your view is so popular on this site. Anyone who believes the official story could only do so by hiding their head in the sand. I don't blindly follow snot nosed hip hop sound tracked consppiracy films. I do my own research.
        • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -3/+14We're all sheep! But you, thumperings, have figured it all out! We are all in awe of you.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Don't do it! He's an alien lizard out to enslave the Human Race!
            Thumperings: Prove me wrong. Prove to me you're not a lizard alien disguised as a human pretending to be human!
        • zeusthemoose, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2And does that research consist of reading conspiracy theory websites? Yeah, thought so.
      • zeusthemoose, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3.
      • IncogMosqui, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't it be wild though if the mythbusters declared it "confirmed"? Talk about a ratings boost (forget losing all credibility, but they're out of ideas anyway)
        // Not a troofer.
      • SilverStandard, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1No amount of evidence will convince us? Please tell me why the CIA was running drills of running hijacked jets into the world trade center and FEMA was running drills in the THREE buildings that came down out FIVE HUNDRED in New York City (1 in 500^3 = 125,000,000).

        undeniable evidence to contradict their argument? Popular Mechanics attacked truthers for saying stuff like that.

        Look how many truthers claimed Bush paid off Popular Mechanic to lie about it. IF there are indeed links between the Bush Administration and Hearst, should we just ignore them? I will say that truthers should focus on debunking Popular Mechanics claims as well instead of solely focusing on the source.
        • Tetraca, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Both truthers and non-truthers need to shut the hell up and hold their heads up to the future, to figure out and fix what has been wronged, and not bury their heads in the sands of the past to debate somthing as trivial and arbitrary as how an attack happened, and not how to fix our relavant and unfortunate decisions made with chaotic, rage blinded minds. Let future and current historians debate 9/11; that's what they're for. Let us start damage control, so we can actually have historians to debate this.
  • bwjacket, on 03/12/2008, -13/+357i'd like to land on kari's moons and claim them for all mankind. heyoooooooooo
  • carpespasm, on 03/12/2008, -18/+60I'd like to see them do a mythology busters.
    "We've tried every possible means and can find no way that you can turn water into wine without using a trick jug." [BUSTED]
    • krisscofield, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4they would call up their slew of magician friends and it wouldn't be much of a show, just a bunch of sleight-of-hand that they wouldn't be able to reveal :(
    • pentalive, on 03/12/2008, -3/+15It would be hard to bust. A key ingredient is unavailable "Being the only Son of GOD:...
      • belly917, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Dionysis (a.k.a. Bacchus to the romans) did it first, maybe he's available?
        • Tetraca, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1No, he got wasted with Phaeton recently and now he's stuck in a Greek jail for not only nearly burning the Earth again with the sun, but doing it while wasted.
        • groverblue, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1>and now he's stuck in a Greek jail
          and every day he has to listen to Socrates yap yap yap in his tricky word ways
    • cnot3, on 03/12/2008, -7/+4Jesus was the only one who ever knew the "transmute water to wine" spell. The secret died with him, BUT IT SHALL RISE AGAIN!
    • dylangaine, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4wouldn't it be funny if Jesus was the Chris Angel of his day?
    • Jaiotu, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, turning water into wine was a common trick in the middle ages; take some bread and soak it in wine. allow the bread to dry out. crumble the bread into a fine powder. fill hollow walking stick with poweder. stir jug of water with stick. just like making cool aid.
      Of course, this method creates some really nasty tasting 'wine' with no alcoholic properties. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' miracle make a point to mention that the wine He made was really good.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 03/12/2008, -30/+14I never really thought it was a hoax. I just want someone to explain to me why you see no stars in any of the video or photographs. The best answer I got was light pollution.
    • Apokalyps2547, on 03/12/2008, -5/+72The answer is this: the moon is a very very bright place.

      The surface of the moon, when in the sun (as the Apollo astronauts were), is bright white. The camera was set to a fast exposure speed, because normal speeds would have made the surface and the astronauts overexposed... an indistinguishable white blur.

      The faster shutter speed made the camera unable to pick up starlight.
      • larsalan, on 03/12/2008, -28/+6about that camera,
        it was custom made by hasselblad, where cross-like framing guides were put in. as I understand it these guides would have been reproduced on the film. however, there are no marks like that on the "moon landing" negs. the hoaxsters could have at least used the camera hasse made for them.
        • DCJoeDogaswell, on 03/12/2008, -3/+8Beyond epic sadness and.... ***** it I give up, you fail.
    • illt, on 03/12/2008, -6/+11duh.....the surface is so reflective it lights the earth significantly on full moons.
      • kday, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8You fail.

        The moons albedo is, on average, 0.07. That means the moon reflects about 7% of the sunlight that falls on it. That is comparable to charcoal. The reason the moon appears so bright is because of its relative size and the intensity of the sunlight.
        • Matt2k, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I actually learned something reading Digg comments today. Putting this one in the journal.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -4/+11The cameras were set to daylight mode. It's actually rather bright on the moon (on the sunny side, anyway), so just like you can't see the stars during the daytime on Earth, you couldn't see the stars during the "daytime" in the pictures.
      • SellotapeGuy, on 03/12/2008, -15/+6We can't see them because the sky is ***** blue.
        • whodat807, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12hahahahaha
        • FlyingSpaghetti, on 03/12/2008, -4/+16That's the sound of us laughing AT you, not WITH you.
    • jasonmantey, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3My explanation would be due to the contrast in the image. The moon's surface appears to be quite reflective, in which case the camera would be required to have a fast shutter speed during the images / video. In such a case, the stars may have been very faint to non visible in the images. This effect is similar to taking photos indoors when there is a sunny window in the picture -- exposure is difficult and often the rest of the image gets really dark, making details (stars) tougher to pick out.
    • RawOysters, on 03/12/2008, -3/+15The Moon has no atmosphere to filter the light of the Sun. Try putting a flashlight in your face at night and see how many stars you can see.
    • cerealjynx, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12To find the answer, you need not look further than the Mooninites.
      • mooninite, on 03/12/2008, -1/+16You rang?
        • InspectorGadget, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4Yes. We need more LED Mooninites as soon as possible. We're going to convince the 9/11 truthbags to join up with the alien abduction crowd so they can share their stories in private and not annoy the rest of us.
        • Hoogs, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Epic.
    • Picaroon, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Next time you're in a parking lot at night, look up. You won't see any stars, simply because of the lights illuminating the parking lot.
    • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -10/+1i want someone to explain how they had an instantaneous live video feed when they were shooting on film.
      • BossKey, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13If you read the history, they carried several cameras. There were still and motion film cameras, and some early relatively compact video cameras, at least one handheld and one mounted on the LEM. They also had a stereoscopic camera.
        http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apol ...

        The feed you saw of the landing was using one of the live video cameras, which only did like 320 lines of resolution. The 16mm film cameras were of higher resolution. I have an Apollo 11 DVD that contains footage synchronized from the multiple cameras so you can flip back and forth between the cameras at specific points in time.

        Of course we all remember the video feed, because that's what we got instantly. The film footage did not impact our memories as much because of the delayed viewing...it couldn't be developed until they got home, and by then the video footage had been repeated over and over and seared into our memories...
      • BossKey, on 03/12/2008, -0/+10I would also like to point out that your post is written from a mindset that assumes that if you were going on a trip to a very special place, a very very special place, on a trip that would be remembered in history forever, your post assumes you would only bring ONE camera...
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2That's the mindset of the typical conspiracy theory brained "super genius"
    • centran, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4Wow. I can't believe no one has answered you simply and correctly yet. People got it right about the shutter speed.

      Stars are in fact very dim. Your eyes are very good at seeing dim objects. If you where to take a photo of the sky at night with your camera the stars would not show up even in the middle of nowhere where the stars are quite clear to your eyes.
      How people capture stars in photos is with a tripod and leaving the shutter open for a long time. Most SLR cameras will let you keep the shutter open for up to 30 seconds. That might get you some stars depending on the ISO film speed. However, you really need to use the BULB setting which allows you to keep the shutter open for as long as you got battery power.
      • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -2/+1this is how you get star trails. The reason stars have trails is because your camera is capturing light and movement. While your explanation of cameras is correct, you lack an understanding of astrophotography.
        • centran, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2You get star trails by very long exposures. You would most likely start seeing trails around 5-10 minutes. However, people leave the shutter open for hours to get nice trails.
          If you don't believe me then make sure to bring a camera next time you are out someplace where you can see the stars clearly. You will not be able to capture them on a photo without a tripod.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Next time there's a starry night, go out side, and take a picture of YOURSELF with a backdrop of . Now count the stars in the sky in the picture. What you'll see in your picture is your conspiracy theorist mug and a black sky. OH wait, maybe NASA hacked your digital camera and activated it's "NO STARS" feature. The cameras were there to take pictures OF AND ON the moon. Not of stars. If that was the case the shutter speed would have been adjusted.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I mean to say "with a backdrop of stars" as in the night time sky behind you... Not a physical backdrop.
    • kunradish, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Just think about a city if you look up you see no stars at night right that is becasue of light pollution the same effect happens on the moon.
  • bjs3171, on 03/12/2008, -3/+8awesome.
  • itsgotyou, on 03/12/2008, -16/+14next thing you know these guys will try to prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
    • fearlessfx, on 03/12/2008, -12/+4You idiot. The Earth is round.
      • Syphon8, on 03/12/2008, -0/+14No, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Bulges slightly at the equator, like all celestial objects.
        • jc7012, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10and your mom...
          • Syphon8, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3I see what you did there.
          • knowmad23, on 03/12/2008, -4/+1No Celest's objects are spherical, And your mom jokes are just, um, well flat.
        • fearlessfx, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6I guess this is what happens when I forget a sarcasm tag
          • itsgotyou, on 03/12/2008, -0/+0yeah you and me both! some people here really need to watch some Simpson's re-runs
  • IllBeBack, on 03/12/2008, -4/+46This won't change the minds of the kooks from thinking it was a hoax. But it will be another good episode.
    • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -11/+2nice job with that logical fallacy. Let me try, Only (negative plural noun) think that the (opposite of my perspective) is real.
      • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10Where's the logical fallacy again? He didn't say what you said he said. He made two statements:
        1. The moon hoaxers won't be persuaded by this show.
        2. It will be a good show.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Are you surprised that a conspiracy theorist doesn't even understand what a logical fallacy is, let alone how to spot one?
        • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Appeal to Ridicule - Implying that if you believe it was a hoax then you must be a kook.
          Ad Hominem Abusive - Stating that Conspiracy theorists are Kooks
          Poisoning the Well - If you are a kook then you won't change your mind that it was a hoax.

          There are tons of ways to look at it. you apparently missed the part about being kooks as you didn't mention it.

          SpaceMonkey Zero - I would love to see your smug replies now.
      • IllBeBack, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4Your reading comprehension skills need a little work, dude.
      • peaceninja, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1not a logical fallacy, its more of a generalization. Here's what your statement should be:

        Only (negative plural noun) think that the (topic of controversy) is (opposite of my perspective)
        • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1How is this not a logical fallacy?
          • peaceninja, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1i didnt take philosophy or debate, so my knowledge of logical fallcies are limited to what I read on wikipedia ;)...but there is a set list of logical fallacies that all have patterns, you did define a pattern but the pattern you defined is that of a generalization and not of a logical fallacy.
  • jboswell2000, on 03/12/2008, -2/+140The astronauts left a small reflective mirror on the moon that is still used by scientists today to study the distance of the moon from the earth, gravity, etc. Scientists on earth shoot a laser at this device and measure the bounce back. Look it up.
    • MrTheKing, on 03/12/2008, -3/+35I saw Neil Armstrong speak a few years ago, he mentioned this project. He said "I had a very small role in that project, I was just the technician who was assigned to install the mirror"
    • jboswell2000, on 03/12/2008, -1/+43If you search for the program "Horizon: What on Earth is Wrong With Gravity," on Google Video, you will meet the scientists doing the study. It's pretty fascinating, actually, how they are utilizing that small mirror Armstrong left behind to learn so much about the moon.
    • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -19/+9Could something be placed on the moon with out a man explicitly placing it there?
      • argaen21, on 03/12/2008, -0/+17Yes. Russia has a mirror on the moon and they never went there. Their mirror is ***** though since it wasn't placed accurately like the one the USA installed with Astronauts.
      • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -4/+14If they can send a spacecraft to place it there, they can send a man. With a lot less effort than any hoax too.
      • thall, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Yes, but the mirror was placed in a planned location (remember they have to hit just the right spot with the laser) and it looks like it didn't end up on its side or flip up side down. That would be hard to do without actually getting close to the moon, unless many mirrors were chucked at the moon with the hope that at least one would land the right way. And if they could get that close to drop a mirror correctly, why not go the extra mile and land something there to minimize the risk of failure?
        • veloscaper, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2dude, you're way over thinking this....just attach mirror to a motorized joint that pivots...the kind the use to adjust dishes for communication....you know like the ones on satellites and probes they had already sent out into space.
      • bingobongony, on 03/12/2008, -3/+20Yeah...we didn't have the technology to send humans to the moon, but we had the technology to send ROBOTS there to do it for us. Riiiight.
        • veloscaper, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2we sent robots into space before sending men to the moon.
      • smrekar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1no one said we didn't have the technology to send humans to the moon. However if you are offering that up as a fact, i am sure there are a bunch of nut-jobs that will take you up on your offer. It is less risk to lose a robot to outer space than a brilliant human being.
    • chooditch, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr. ...
    • Merendino, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6I'm glad someone posted about the mirrors... I was going to do it, but it would have been near the end, so, good show mate!
  • Jpesci, on 03/12/2008, -5/+30No amount of evidence is going to change hoax conspirators' minds. I'm sure this episode might help clear some things up though for people on the fence about it. Regardless to all of the doubters out there... try checking out the lunar legacy series, which you can find on youtube.
    • DeviateSeptum, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5It may change people's minds who are on the fence. But not because of what the show says evidence-wise but because the show says it. I've lost faith in mankind that people like to think for themselves. Most people look to authority for answers. That the authority in this case is Mythbusters is perhaps sad commentary on the state of our society but whatever.
      • AbleZebra, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5At least I prefer Mythbusters to be the "authority" over the Fox documentary that brought a lot of attention to this conspiracy theory in the first place.
      • lacronicus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1In todays world, we have no choice but to trust authority figures. What are we going to do, build a rocket and go see for ourselves?
        As we as a society learn more about the world, it is necessary for us as a society to rely on others for information. There is simply too much out there to learn everything on our own. If someone went through their life without any aid from an authority figure (parents, teachers, scientists, friends, role models, anyone), they'd be pretty much nowhere by the time they died. Do you think that scientists know everything about the computers they use to run simulations? Not likely. Do you think Darwin knew all the science behind the boat he rode on? Not likely. Do you think Jimmy Page knew the science behind the guitar he played. Not likely. But, fact is, they trusted that it worked, and we are all better off for it.
        • DeviateSeptum, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I understand the point you are trying to make, that there are things we have to trust authorities on, but your comment is way too general and doesn't apply to the topic of the moon landing. It is well within the capability of normal people to gather the information needed to make a sane conclusion about it.
    • fluxion, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2i think it will, since the conspiracy theorists generally seem to be guys that watched that tv special and never bothered to look at the counter-arguments.
    • oxilite, on 03/12/2008, -0/+0Youre exactly right. I like how Penn Gillette said it best, that a TRUE skeptic demands to be shown proof that they are wrong, but with an open mind, while a crackpot says, Nothing can convince me otherwise!
  • GettinReal, on 03/12/2008, -67/+8The only thing these guys bust is each other's asses back in the showers. Idiot Science for Idiot Amerika.
    • Failchan, on 03/12/2008, -4/+42Go climb a wall of dicks.
      • GettinReal, on 03/12/2008, -24/+1I've been trying but everytime I reach up for a new, giant, hard ***** I just find the back of your head...
        • krisscofield, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16*crickets*
          • GettinReal, on 03/12/2008, -18/+0nice mustache
          • Soulicro, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10You're crappin on his picture? After you chose to visually identify yourself as the stereotypical terrorist? Oh. Well, in that case, go shove that primitive little RPG of yours up your ass and hop on back to your little cave, you hairy piece of uneducated sun-burnt primitive son of a bitch.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10S...so, he has a dick coming out of the back of his head...? Whaa...?

        Lame comeback, a-HOYYYYYYYY!
        • bjornski, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1It's sad that someone has to explain that joke for you. I'm not even going to bother trying.
    • InspectorGadget, on 03/12/2008, -2/+10"Amerika" = instant fail. Trustafarian douchebags in Che Guevera t-shirts (NEWSFLASH: HE'S DEAD) for the ***** lose times a million.
    • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8And if they were gay lovers, how would this change anything?
      • Hoogs, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I know I would never be able to watch the show in the same way ever again.
  • WriterSD, on 03/12/2008, -2/+8This will be a great episode!
  • ghostrc, on 03/12/2008, -11/+4The moon landing waswas not a hoax!
  • traphik, on 03/12/2008, -50/+4Dear Discover,
    STOP, Do NOT pass go, do NOT collect $200.00

    Once a Fan,
    Andrew M.
    • TheDHC, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10And nothing of value was lost.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Dear traphik,
      Go eat a dick.
      - Love, The Discovery Channel
      cc: Mythbusters
    • IrisMR, on 03/12/2008, -1/+0Man, that was almost a witty comment there.
  • JFallon126, on 03/12/2008, -9/+85I ***** love Mythbusters.
  • michaelrsa, on 03/12/2008, -4/+18Odd, I had this strange belief that most Digger's didn't believe in the moon landing. Well, that pleases me.
    • Wakuko, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2I, for one, don't believe in the moon landings, until proven. And I have a feeling mythbusters won't prove *****.
      We will know if we went there when we go next time, technology will show us how difficult it is to get there and how impossible it was to be there 50 years ago.
      • kauthon, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1i agree. just look at the successful missions leading up to the moon landing. Russia beat us on everything, then wallah we land on the moon.
      • Daz3, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1"I, for one, don't believe in the moon landings, until proven."
        The videos and photos which have not been refuted are not evidence?
  • HonestAbe, on 03/12/2008, -4/+3Retroreflector.
  • clickwir, on 03/12/2008, -11/+7Or they could just use a highpower telescope and see the junk we left on the moon. Just like people watching the landing from their back yards were doing when it happened.
    • tomz17, on 03/12/2008, -2/+11AFAIK, no telescope currently in operation could resolve the stuff we left behind.
    • a6n28f, on 03/12/2008, -0/+16That would indeed settle some things. Unfortunately, no Earth based optical telescope can resolve that level of detail. However, lasers can be bounced off of mirrors left behind on the moon.
    • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8Nope. There isn't a telescope on earth that can see what we left behind on the moon. Hubble can't do it either.

      There's at least one web site out there where they do the math - taking the telescopes' lens sizes and focal lengths and calculating the maximum resolution at the moon's distance.
      • tomz17, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The math is simple. The smallest feature that you can resolve is approximately (wavelength) * (distance) / (diameter of telescope primary). There's also a constant related to the shape of the primary, but it's about equal to 1 for most things you would care about. For a telescope on earth, The atmosphere messes you up. Without adaptive optics, the diameter is replaced by Fried's parameter (typically only a few inches, and MUCH smaller than the diameter of the actual telescope)

        In short, you can't use a telescope to see the stuff left behind on the moon.
    • MoneyPenney, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5They were going to point Hubble at the moon to prove it to everyone once and for all but they decided it was a waste of money just to make the idiots happy, and they probably would have just claimed that this was faked also so completely pointless. People believe it is hoax not because they have come to that conclusion based on studying the facts and the science, but because they want to belive it is a hoax plain and simple. A bit like how "facts" get twisted in the JFK thing.
      • behlib99, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1some nut would adjust those pic's contrast and brightness and say it was 'shopped.
  • 4d669, on 03/12/2008, -31/+5I'd love to see them have film and other magnetic devices used to document it all survive radiation like that in the Van Allen belts that they passed through with no protection on the ship or clothing.
    • nblsavage, on 03/12/2008, -5/+28ah 4d669, a 9/11 truther AND you think the moon landings were fake - you are truly a renaissance man..
      • 4d669, on 03/12/2008, -13/+2Who said I thought the moon landings were fake? You call me a conspiracy theorist and then make a conclusion about me with no evidence, which is exactly what you're against.
        • nblsavage, on 03/12/2008, -3/+15You implied such from the quip about the Van Allen belts - If I misinterpreted that, then you have my apology.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3All your other posts imply you think they were fake.
    • RogerStrong, on 03/12/2008, -2/+14Sorry to break this to you but radiation is not magic.

      First, they went through *quickly* - in a few hours. Second, they were in a ship with METAL walls. Third, since those metal walls were thin they were in the center of the ship, with all sorts of equipment lining the outer walls to make them effectively much thicker.
    • harveywalbanger, on 03/12/2008, -3/+114d669 is a tool.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8I don't believe that they SWAM to the moon, did they? Pretty sure they went there in some sort of ROCKET, yeah?
    • madm0nk, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8"During Project Apollo, astronauts traveled through the Van Allen belts on both the outbound and return trips to the moon. The crews spent only limited time in transit in the region, and consequently the radiation exposure was limited. The Apollo 14 crew recorded the highest Van Allen belt exposures during their February 1971 mission, but the crew's short-term exposure was still within acceptable levels. Future manned missions beyond earth orbit must also transit the Van Allen belts, but these missions will be shielded and hardened for much longer-duration exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_b ...

      "The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

      Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure ..."
      http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

    • strictnein, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6God I wish I could find the quote from Van Allen himself who said it would be no big deal.
    • IrisMR, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Educate yourself, 4d669. Don't spew half-researched ***** that is promoted by all the moon hoaxers.
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -0/+11gee, i wonder which way this is going to go.......
  • Schumach5, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Accepting bets now. $5 min.
  • JusticeFriend, on 03/12/2008, -3/+46The moon landing was a inside job
  • ghostrc, on 03/12/2008, -2/+11Is this the first time ***** and Mythbusters have done an episode on the same topic?