Mythbusters vs the Moon Hoax tonight!

[Drudgewire]

Apparently they had mentioned on their forums they're staying away from 9/11 because the myths have been busted and because it's too emotional an issue (which I take to mean "we saw the lunatics' reactions to the 9/11 CT show on our sister station. Those guys are ing crazy.")

That said, they did a show a year or so back on whether using a cell phone while taking off or landing could mess with an airplane, and one of the sidebar things proven was they do indeed work in the air.

 

[Civilized Worm]

They probably avoid tackling 9/11 theories because it wouldn't go with the fun, light hearted nature of the show.

Missed it, damn it.
But I still think the best method of dealing with the Moonbats is the Buzz Aldrin method....

 

[Minadin]

Also, none of them even acknowledge Kari's hawtness

I would hate for this to become such a thread.

Kari Byron is super hot. Now, I don't meant to say that she's a physical specimen like Marissa Miller or anything, but, you must take the whole picture into account here.

She's cute. She's attractive. She's a redhead. Awesome.

She's smart. She knows science and she's creative. Fun.

She has a good personality and a quirky sense of humor. Bonus.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I would hate for this to become such a thread.

Kari Byron is super hot. Now, I don't meant to say that she's a physical specimen like Marissa Miller or anything, but, you must take the whole picture into account here.

She's cute. She's attractive. She's a redhead. Awesome.

She's smart. She knows science and she's creative. Fun.

She has a good personality and a quirky sense of humor. Bonus.

She helps blow sh up for a living! Dammit, that's marriage material!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Not trying to derail... aw, hell, who am I kidding... rather, not intending to derail. But, just to have some fun with conspiratorial thinking:

Doesn't it look to you all that Grant's head against that white background - with that funny contrast "outline" thing going - seem photoshopped onto the picture??

Just sayin'... yes, I know it isn't!

 

[kookbreaker]

Nice to see that Jay Windley got props in the crredits as well.

 

[TheDaver]

AboveTopSecret is curiously silent about this...

I'm thinking they plan on ignoring it so that, in a few months, they can pretend it never happened.

Nah. ATS decided the Mythbusters were “disinfo agents” years ago.

So I'm browsing ATS now. There are exactly 0 well-thought-out rebuttals. All the arguments against Mythbusters are summarized as follows:

1) "The evidence that the Mythbusters debunked isn't the evidence that I, personally, believe in!!!" (no true Scotsman, anyone?)

2) "It was a Discovery Channel 'hit piece'!1!!!!1!1!1" (whatever that means)

3) Blind religious faith, ie "Well, uh...its all BS! I can't explain why I think it's BS but it must be! I mean, it MUST BE!!!"

Don’t forget:
4) Their debunking was wrong because it’s based on the laws of physics that school teaches, not the real ones!
[Insert incomprehensible CT wannabe science attributed to Tesla and Einstein here.]

Is this actually a Mythbuster "policy"? I knew they have said they wouldn't try to debunk the 9-11 myths but thought that was more out of respect for the victims and their families (not wanting to profit from the tragedy) than any reluctance to take on "controversy."

That’s right. Mythbusters aren’t afraid of a little controversy, but they seem to keep their distance from recent tragedies, which is understandable.

 

[Jontg]

It might also be because it's basically impossible to tackle 9/11 in their usual manner--building a scale model and then blowing it up--given the sheer size of the structure. Any attempt at scale modeling, unless you used some sort of space-age polymer specifically built to accurately simulate WTC structural steel, would probably look like something Richard Gage cooked up.

 

[Hutch]

Nice to see that Jay Windley got props in the credits as well.

Seconded, kb. For those who do not know of him, Jay Windley (known around the Apollo Hoax area a JayUtah) probably is the leading debunker of the Moon Hoax (taking nothing away from our own BA, but Phil has spread his interests over many hoaxes, while Jay is pretty well concentrated on this one.

If you ever get into a 'discussion' with a Moon hoaxer, try www.clavius.org and it's a good bet your rebuttal will be there in detail.

 

[Damien Evans]

Nice to see that Jay Windley got props in the crredits as well.

I was about to mention that myself.

 

[Whiplash]

Doesn't it look to you all that Grant's head against that white background - with that funny contrast "outline" thing going - seem photoshopped onto the picture??

Just sayin'... yes, I know it isn't!

I noticed this as well, and agree. His face looks 2 dimensional.. like a standup cutout or something. It's a very interesting looking side effect.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

On RKOwens4 loose change video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5jWvu4tR8) I am in an argument with someone who claims the moon landing is fake because there were no stars in the videos and pictures and "the ship didn't have big enough fuel tanks". These people?

 

[Corsair 115]

...I am in an argument with someone who claims the moon landing is fake because there were no stars in the videos and pictures...

*hand slaps forehead*

The above always happens when I read that argument for conspiracy because it is so mind-boggingly stupid. It shows an utter lack of understanding of the basics of photography amongst other things.

I would suggest a rebuttal that starts by asking them the following: Can you see stars in the daytime? If no, why not? Can you take photos of stars in the daytime? If no, why not? Then, depending on their answers, you can follow up with: What is daytime or nighttime on the Moon when the lunar landings took place? If they answer with the latter, then ask them: How would the astronauts have seen where they were landing and where they were walking if it was nighttime? You can proceed from there as opportunity presents.

 

[CptColumbo]

On RKOwens4 loose change video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5jWvu4tR8) I am in an argument with someone who claims the moon landing is fake because there were no stars in the videos and pictures and "the ship didn't have big enough fuel tanks". These people?

The signal to noise ratio of video technology at the time would make it very difficult to see any stars.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

The signal to noise ratio of video technology at the time would make it very difficult to see any stars.

Well it is really more simple than that. It is merely the fact that even today a camera would pick up brighter objects. Stars are only visible to cameras far outside interfearance of other light sources. This is why telescopes are on high areas outside the city, but I mean it is more of a thing photographers know.

I remember watching a Fox special and believing the hoax, until I started in photography; and got (rule 10) that I couldn't get a good picture of the night sky in the city...even though I could actually see the stars.

Every photographer and filmmaker will complain how the camera can't see things like we do.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well it is really more simple than that. It is merely the fact that even today a camera would pick up brighter objects. Stars are only visible to cameras far outside interfearance of other light sources. This is why telescopes are on high areas outside the city, but I mean it is more of a thing photographers know.

It's also why telescopes work at night. The sun is very bright and overwhelms the faint light from stars which is why stars aren't visible on a sunny afternoon.

When the lunar landings were taking place it was daytime on the Moon. So the same overpowering effect of sunlight still took place. Indeed, it was even worse than on Earth since the Moon has no atmosphere to diffuse and scatter the sunlight.

It seems some folks see the black sky in lunar photos and think nighttime since that's how it works on Earth. But the lunar sky is black regardless of whether it is daytime or nighttime.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's also why telescopes work at night. The sun is very bright and overwhelms the faint light from stars which is why stars aren't visible on a sunny afternoon.

When the lunar landings were taking place it was daytime on the Moon. So the same overpowering effect of sunlight still took place. Indeed, it was even worse than on Earth since the Moon has no atmosphere to diffuse and scatter the sunlight.

It seems some folks see the black sky in lunar photos and think nighttime since that's how it works on Earth. But the lunar sky is black regardless of whether it is daytime or nighttime.

I just want to correct a few things. Seeing the stars, and photographing them are two different things. If Earth didn't have an atmosphere, we'd be able to see the stars during the day, sun or no sun, the thing that stops us is that the sunlight, manily the longer blue wavelengths, is scattered causing the sky to become bright and blue, thus blocking out the stars, though if you have the right equipment, and know where to look, you can see stars during the day. Venus (and of course the Moon) are also visible during the day withthe naked eye, if you know where to look. On the moon, without the atmosphere scattering the light, you can easily see the stars, if you allow your eyes to adjust from the bright lunar surface, and in fact several Astronauts did state that if they got themselves into shadow and waited a few minutes they started to see the stars.

Now a photo is a totally different animal, it has set exposure settings, and those where predominately set for sunlit lunar surfaces. When set for shadowed areas the settings were enough that in theory Venus would be bright enough to affect the exposure and appear, Sirus is a maybe. To date I don't think anyone has been able to so that Sirus appears in any images, but....

If you look at this series of nine images.... Venus has been found, nearly 40 years after the landings, and due to a Hoax Believer (yeah they are useful for something) who worked out that it should have been in the Apollo 14 images. A bit of a hunt later and one of out ApolloHoax regulars found that indeed it was there.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Eh, show me a comedian who isn't weird and I'll show you one who isn't funny.

And Rogan is funny.

Evidence?

 

[Reality Believer]

I would hate for this to become such a thread.

Kari Byron is super hot. Now, I don't meant to say that she's a physical specimen like Marissa Miller or anything, but, you must take the whole picture into account here.

She's cute. She's attractive. She's a redhead. Awesome.

She's smart. She knows science and she's creative. Fun.

She has a good personality and a quirky sense of humor. Bonus.

AND, she can fire a minigun in a sun dress. *sigh*
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6e_1203989047

 

[fitzgibbon]

I noticed this as well, and agree. His face looks 2 dimensional.. like a standup cutout or something. It's a very interesting looking side effect.

Sight unseen, I'd lay odds that there was probably a logo of some kind there which the director wasn't paying attention to on-location and that he got witchslapped for when the show was in post. That still just seems to highlight the problem. Not exactly the most subtle fix I've ever seen (assuming it's a fix, that is).