Mythbusters takes on the Moon Hoax!
December 18, 2008 4:30 PM   Subscribe

Has man really set foot on the moon? There have certainly been a lot of claims that the whole Apollo missions were one giant hoax. Adam and Jamie at Mythbusters examine the claims of the Hoax Believers one by one. Did they use a wire rig or slow down the film to simulate the 1/6 moon gravity? What would it look like in real 1/6 G? Would a footprint in the lunar regolith have maintained it's shape even if there was no moisture to keep the material together? Why was the flag waving so much if there was no wind on the moon? Why are the shadows on the moon not parallel if they are coming from a single light source? Why can we see the astronauts when they are in shadows if there isn't a second light source? To finish it all off they shoot a laser at the moon to see if the reflector they supposedly left there is actually there.
posted by Sir Mildred Pierce (105 comments total) 20 users marked this as a favorite

 
The moon landings were faked. NASA has lied! Proof is here.
posted by Abiezer at 4:36 PM on December 18, 2008 [15 favorites]


As I recall this stuff started with the first spacewalks. Why did the Russian tether flail about, and the US one just kind of hang there? Or was it the other way around?
posted by StickyCarpet at 4:37 PM on December 18, 2008


Sure, 1 gigawatt to get to the moon and back by laser, but why not add the extra 21% and make it back to the future in a stylish DeLorean?
posted by Llama-Lime at 4:43 PM on December 18, 2008 [18 favorites]


We're earthlings...we should fake earth things!
posted by dhammond at 4:43 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Buzz Aldrin will punch you now.
posted by frobozz at 4:43 PM on December 18, 2008 [21 favorites]


Science. It works, bitches.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:50 PM on December 18, 2008 [23 favorites]


Buzz Aldrin punches guy in the face
posted by finite at 4:51 PM on December 18, 2008 [12 favorites]


Don't have time to watch.

What did they conclude?

/obviously
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 4:51 PM on December 18, 2008


Of course they're just part of the conspiracy.
posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on December 18, 2008


Obligatory Family Guy clip.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:51 PM on December 18, 2008


This proves Man made it to the moon.
posted by not_on_display at 4:53 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sure, you could violate copyright piecemeal....or you could go whole hog.
posted by DU at 4:57 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


But there was that song, and the guy seemed genuinely amazed by it.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:57 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh damn. I just watched Buzz Aldrin punch that dude right in the kisser. Ha! Awesome.
posted by flipyourwig at 4:59 PM on December 18, 2008


I'm really curious about that laser now. Is it fired from a console command or is there a button that says "Fire"?

>sudo fire laser_
posted by hellojed at 5:02 PM on December 18, 2008 [15 favorites]


Flagged as, I dunno, a moon's worth of double posts. A double moon's worth if you count MetaTalk.
posted by jack_mo at 5:08 PM on December 18, 2008


I'm not sure how this is a double post, I did a search didn't come up with anything and looking at your search results, I can't figure out which one is in reference to the moon hoax episode.
posted by Sir Mildred Pierce at 5:14 PM on December 18, 2008


That was a good punch.
posted by buzzman at 5:15 PM on December 18, 2008


Good thing that laser didn't blow the moon up.
posted by chillmost at 5:19 PM on December 18, 2008


I advocate nonviolence, but boy did that guy have it coming. Go Buzz!
posted by rikschell at 5:22 PM on December 18, 2008


Ali G: "So, what... do you say to people who say... that there ain't no moon?"

Neil Armstrong: "Wait, what?"

Best Ali G moment ever

(Although asking C. Everrett Koop about why skeletons are so evil is close)
posted by Kiablokirk at 5:25 PM on December 18, 2008 [15 favorites]


Of course they landed on the moon,. We watched it live. The best part was when the rocket lifted off of the treadmill...
posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys at 5:30 PM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


After about a year of arguing with with people who claim that someone else wrote Shakespeare, I noticed a marvelous capacity for conspiratorialists to move the target, making it virtually impossible to pin them down. This applies to the moon-hoaxers as well. I've always considered the retroflexors rather conclusive. They will ignore it by changing the premise: "Well, er , uh ... we never said a SHIP didn't make it to the moon. Only that a a manned vessel didn't. That retroflexor was obviously dropped onto the surface by a satellite!"

The truly determined will always find some refuge. It's like herding jello or nailing cats to a tree.

/GREAT show from the "Mythbusters" gang, nonetheless.
posted by RavinDave at 5:32 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Best Ali G moment ever

For me, nobody beats Andy Rooney vs Ali G.

It's like a bad grammar thread, but with pictures.
posted by rokusan at 5:32 PM on December 18, 2008 [5 favorites]


Hm, has Mythbusters done the Shakespeare controversy (pick a theory) yet?
posted by rokusan at 5:34 PM on December 18, 2008


Clearly, Mythbusters is also a fake.
posted by desjardins at 5:39 PM on December 18, 2008


When the moon hits your eye
like a big pizza pie, that's... a lie!

Moon river, wider than a lie...

Blue moon of Kentucky, keep on lyin'...

Lie me to the moon
and let me lie about the stars...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:42 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Darkside of the moon
posted by hortense at 5:46 PM on December 18, 2008


Tell you what, though, I'd believe that no one ever set foot on that little rock up in the sky, but for one man whom I trust implicitly, and who said it so clearly:

Whitey on the moon.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:47 PM on December 18, 2008 [9 favorites]


Heh, weird to watch Mythbusters with the American voice-over instead of the British one.

Anyway, it's nearly 2am, I have work tomorrow (uh... today), and I haven't finished packing for my xmas trip on Saturday, and you post 30-odd minutes of Mythbusters on YouTube? THANKS.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:53 PM on December 18, 2008


Clearly, Mythbusters is also a fake.

This is actually a good point. For at least two of the busts, they used NASA (or other astronomical cabal members) equipment. From the conspiracist's POV, this is like going to the CIA to bust a myth about WMDs in Iraq.
posted by DU at 5:56 PM on December 18, 2008


Going through IAD this week, I had an idea for a Mythbuster's episode, but I doubt they'd do anything but tow the party line.

Basically, I call it "TSA Myths."

Let's see them show if more than four ounces of liquid can, in the field, be operationalized create an explosion that can do damage to an airliner? (Two parts: how much liquid explosive would it take to seriously damage an airliner/hurt a decent number of passengers? Is it an amount that wouldn't be suspicious? Second, as they assemble it, could it be assembled in a fashion that wouldn't attract attention?)

For that matter, could a shoe bomb be operationalized into something that could do damage? Could enough explosive be packed into the sole of shoes?

Why can't x-ray machines see my laptop through a backpack?

Finally, the biggest myth of all: is TSA making us safer, or is it merely making people scared so it's patrons can stay in power? I suppose both premises can be busted.
posted by MrGuilt at 5:57 PM on December 18, 2008 [31 favorites]


That is freakin' brilliant idea, MrGuilt. But they would never, ever do it.

Paging user #23392.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:04 PM on December 18, 2008


Moon landing hoax?

That would be a giant leap for me.
posted by storybored at 6:05 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Really stupid question: in the photo ones, they keep saying the moon has only 1 light source. Is that true? Why doesn't the sun's light also reflect off the earth onto the moon?
posted by Hoopo at 6:16 PM on December 18, 2008


I am now a Buzz fan! We should all punch idiots in the mouth when the opportunity presents itself!
posted by HuronBob at 6:16 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


earth absorbs more light than the moon.
posted by desjardins at 6:18 PM on December 18, 2008


operationalized?
posted by taliaferro at 6:21 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


The truly determined will always find some refuge. It's like herding jello or nailing cats to a tree.

Definitely. After pointing out to my nutty fake-moon-landing conspiracy theorist roommate certain relevant points about photography lenses and light sources, and shadows on non-flat planes (technical drafting can be actually useful), he still refused to change his mind. Exasperated, I said, "do you seriously believe that the Soviets would let Americans get away with a fake moon landing?" He replied "They had to have been in on it too!"
posted by oneirodynia at 6:22 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Really stupid question: in the photo ones, they keep saying the moon has only 1 light source. Is that true? Why doesn't the sun's light also reflect off the earth onto the moon?

Imagine it does, but think of how much light reflects off the moon onto the earth during the day. Such a tiny amount, compared to the main light coming directly from the sun, that it has no noticeable effect on shadows, etc.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:24 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Here's the deal: Kubrick makes the fake moon landing films that are to be used in case they don't make it to the moon. They make it to the moon, and now they have to explain the leaks from all the people who worked on Kubrick's fakes. So then they make Dark Side of the Moon so that when people talk about the Kubrick films they can be dismissed as a joke. Add fiction to the truth you don't want the public to know about, and stir. The result tastes exactly like fiction.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:34 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Imagine it does, but think of how much light reflects off the moon onto the earth during the day. Such a tiny amount, compared to the main light coming directly from the sun, that it has no noticeable effect on shadows, etc.


Thanks, EOI. I had even started trying to draw diagrams before I realized that the "shading" unit in junior high art class probably wasn't a good jump-off for astronomy.
posted by Hoopo at 6:42 PM on December 18, 2008


MrGuilt: They went after the credit card companies and Taser International, so who knows...
posted by cthuljew at 6:50 PM on December 18, 2008



Really stupid question: in the photo ones, they keep saying the moon has only 1 light source. Is that true? Why doesn't the sun's light also reflect off the earth onto the moon?


It does, but compared to the light of the sun in the photo's it doesn't contribute much. Have you ever seen the dark part of the moon completing the circle in the sky? Like at quarter phase or so, still be able to discern the dark edge of the moon from the black sky? That's Earthshine. Light reflecting off of the Earth onto the moon and back to you. Sometimes sunlight takes the meandering path. =)
posted by Phantomx at 6:50 PM on December 18, 2008


Why would they fake it? A brave tragedy with the crew lost would earn them huge political points and not require undeveloped at the time special effects techniques.
posted by Megafly at 6:53 PM on December 18, 2008


I became aware of the "moon hoax" claims in about 2000 from reading an article in Fortean Times. The Internet of 2000 was not what it is now, and the skeptical rejoinders to this nonsense were more limited.

Eventually I found the explanations for the various woo claims of the "moon hoax" proponents, particularly the photographic claims. Somewhat embarrassed, I stopped following the claims of the "moon hoax" contingent.

So I didn't know about the claim that the footprint is "too detailed" to be real until just now. Funny, I was studying a different set of extraordinary claims some years ago, specifically Bigfoot's Dermal Ridges.

Of course Mythbusters won't tell us what NASA's moon dust simulant is, that would be too technical for TV; my best guess is that it's probably pumice.

I've made impressions in pumice that are so detailed that I can see my own dermal ridges.
I've made cementitious casts of these impressions, as have others.

As for gross morphology, take a look at the test impression I made using a fake "Bigfoot" foot in the middle of this page.

What Mythbusters says about particle "sharpness" is correct; glass microbeads will not hold a detailed impression like volcanic ash (pumice) will, as the pumice particles are much sharper and thus more cohesive on a macroscopic scale.

You don't have to resort to making these impressions in a vacuum, although it looks very "scientific" on TV. You don't need low gravity. You just have to get the correct substrate.
posted by Tube at 6:59 PM on December 18, 2008


sudo fire laser_

Dude, that outputs to STDOUT. Sorry about your skull.
posted by eriko at 7:08 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Man it has been way too long since I punched anybody.
posted by facetious at 7:16 PM on December 18, 2008


That was a good punch.
posted by buzzman at 8:15 PM on December 18 [+] [!]


Eponysterical!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:20 PM on December 18, 2008


Tube, simulated moon dust is derived from pumice but processed to match lunar soil. At least three major formulations have been produced: MLS-1, JSC-1, and JSC-1A. Interesting stuff.
posted by theclaw at 7:44 PM on December 18, 2008


Here's my question, who was filming the apollo lander taking off from the moon (as seen in this youtube clip), the camera pulls back then tilts up and follows the lander as it rises? Was a complicated mechanism that could do this autonomously available at the time, and then left on the moon, with a transmitter so we could see it?
posted by 445supermag at 7:46 PM on December 18, 2008


When people dig up a copy of some rarity you can't find anywhere else it's one thing. But posting a piecemeal copy of a contemporary television program (without even an attempt to pad it with any supporting material or further context) just really seems exceptionally lame to me. The show will replay on the Discovery channel on Jan 7 and Jan 8, incidentally.
posted by nanojath at 7:49 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Actually, the Earth is much brighter than the moon.
Anyone who has seen them together can tell that at a glance.

If you never have seen them together, just look here
posted by hexatron at 8:02 PM on December 18, 2008


There is no such thing as a conspiracy that thousands of people took part in. It would leak. Think of the value of proof it didn't happen. If it didn't happen somebody would have come forward by now and gotten a giant payout. Think Zapruder film times 100
posted by Ironmouth at 8:12 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


445supermag, the ascent shot is no trickier than any of the other footage taken by the Lunar rover TV camera, which was remote-controlled from earth via the rover's own radio link.
posted by Canard de Vasco at 8:34 PM on December 18, 2008


Here's my question, who was filming the apollo lander taking off from the moon (as seen in this youtube clip), the camera pulls back then tilts up and follows the lander as it rises?

Hey, your link didn't work, here's one that does. Filming the lunar ascent started with Apollo 15, I think, and used the camera on the Lunar Rover Vehicle(LRV):
The colour television camera mounted on the front of the LRV could be remotely operated by Mission Control in two axes; pan and tilt. This allowed far better television coverage of the EVA than the earlier missions. On each mission, at the conclusion of the astronauts' stay on the surface the Commander drove the LRV to a position away from the Lunar Module so that the camera could record the ascent stage launch.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:35 PM on December 18, 2008


Aw, Adam talking about his space suit is actually adorable.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 8:43 PM on December 18, 2008


These threads are always good threads to remind people to rent this movie.

For All Mankind

Beautiful film footage (not like todays crap video from space)
Brian Eno/Daniel Lanois soundtrack.
Criterion!
posted by JBennett at 8:45 PM on December 18, 2008


Its interesting that we can sit here and laugh at the moon hoax people, but mention 9/11 on Mefi and there's no shortage of guys ready concern-troll about how we've all been mislead. Funny how we dont learn from yesterday's mistakes.

Perhaps in 2249 we'll be hearing how the Galactic Senate formulated the blackhole crisis in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy and how our holocorders have been tampered by subspace hackers on the payroll of Senator Zhidelhuc of the NGC 7252 galaxy! Oh man, the fur will fly then!
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:47 PM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Bah, Galactic Senate. They can't even make a decent Christmas card.
posted by rokusan at 9:16 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Perhaps in 2249 we'll be hearing how the Galactic Senate formulated the blackhole crisis in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy and how our holocorders have been tampered by subspace hackers on the payroll of Senator Zhidelhuc of the NGC 7252 galaxy! Oh man, the fur will fly then!

No duh, I mean, is the space pope reptilian?
posted by The Whelk at 9:39 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


our holocorders have been tampered by subspace hackers on the payroll of Senator Zhidelhuc of the NGC 7252 galaxy

This is actually a half truth. While it is true that Senator Zhidelhuc had a number of people in his employ - most of them maintaining his methane plantation on planet RH6103 of that same galaxy - he did briefly maintain an entourage when he had to take a leave of absense and have his skeleton titaniumized. During this time, three members of that entourage did take it upon themselves to reset the subsonic ossicilations of a shipment of holocorders being transported across NGC 7252 galaxy. However, as Zhidelhuc was in cryosuspension during this time, it would have been impossible for him to be in contact with the hackers. Furthermore, the hackers' themselves readily admitted after their arrest that the senator had nothing to do with their operation. Some say they were paid to keep quiet, and some say that despite the galactic recall, there are still some defective holocorders in circulation. There is no evidence to support either conclusion, and I think Zhidelhuc deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially considering his deft handling of the Aurtrarian Incident.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:51 PM on December 18, 2008 [6 favorites]


...subspace hackers on the payroll of Senator Zhidelhuc

THERE IS NO CABAL.

REGARDS,
--THE CABAL Publisher's Clearing House .... BOB
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:03 PM on December 18, 2008


Allahu akbar! And good luck, Mr Gorsky!
posted by pracowity at 11:03 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oddly enough it's indisputably true that the United States landed on the moon July 20th, 1969. You would think that this being true the moon landing video would be true but I can assure you it's not. The U.S of A was by no means sure that the landing wouldn't end in catastrophic failure so they had a television crew ready in an abandoned Hollywood movie studio just in case.

Neil Armstrong emerged from the Apollo 11 in a suitably historic and heroic manner. Buzz Aldrin however was known for his practical jokes and he couldn't resist making one after a 240 thousand mile journey. Aldrin emerged from the lander, descended the ladder and then turned around to the camera to reveal the largest and most well traveled Groucho Marx disguise ever.
posted by substrate at 12:20 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mythbusters kinda jumped the shark a little while ago, sad to say.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:50 AM on December 19, 2008


MrGuilt, I've thought about several of your ideas, in fact they've been on my mental list for a while, though you're right about how likely it is we'll get to tackle any of them. I've also thought about things like line mechanics. To whit: do lines move slower when people are yelling at them (always either "please keep your boarding pass out!" or "Please put your boarding pass away!"). My wife posits that people move slower when commands are being shouted at them. Perhaps another show.

I visited a telescope in New Mexico recently, an array actually, that once finished, ought to be able to resolve some man made objects on the moon. At some point, we may head down there and put the final nail in this ridiculous coffin.

dirtynumbangelboy, I dispute your premise, but then, I'm somewhat biased. We absolutely refused to jump a shark for this year's shark week (they ACTUALLY asked).
posted by asavage at 1:12 AM on December 19, 2008 [28 favorites]


Its interesting that we can sit here and laugh at the moon hoax people, but mention 9/11 on Mefi and there's no shortage of guys ready concern-troll about how we've all been mislead. Funny how we dont learn from yesterday's mistakes.

The disproving - or obvious absurdity - of one conspiracy theory says nothing about the plausibility of another. If it did, you could say "Moon landing hoax theories are plainly ridiculous. Therefore, a North Vietnamese patrol did attack a US warship in the Bay of Tonkin, medicine was never withheld from syphilitic black patients for the purposes of a medical study, British and US servicemen were not deliberately exposed to fallout, there are no CIA secret prisons, motor companies did not buy up and dismantle public transport for their own business, the CIA never planned to provoke a war with Cuba by killing American citizens ...

Theories should be judged by the evidence backing them, not by the label you choose to place upon them.
posted by outlier at 2:35 AM on December 19, 2008 [10 favorites]


There was a Duke Nukem level where you fought aliens on the LA soundstage where they filmed the "moon landings". There was no mention that that was what was going on, and it wasn't part of the plot. It was just there to amuse. Such a great game.
posted by bonecrusher at 2:56 AM on December 19, 2008


One spot where they could have done a slightly better job was in the picture with the astronaut in shadow. They showed that the astronaut could be lit, but they didn't prove how; the claim is reflection from the Moon's surface (which is almost certainly the explanation), but they could have proved it absolutely by staging the shot twice.

If they'd shot it first on black velvet, and showed an invisible astronaut, and then done it again on simulated regolith, it would have been been absolutely conclusive.

But they left a little wiggle room, and if there's even the tiniest bit available, the conspiracy theorists will instantly head there. By not showing how to make the shot come out as the theorists expect, they leave room for magical thinking -- perhaps the close spotlight doesn't respond like the Sun would or something. (Photons from the close light source aren't yet perfectly parallel, doncha know, or the wavelengths are wrong, or SOMETHING. They always come up with something.)

If they'd simply showed a blacked-out astronaut on black velvet, and then a lit astronaut on regolith, they'd have silenced that myth forever.
posted by Malor at 3:06 AM on December 19, 2008


Oh, one comment on this:

Its interesting that we can sit here and laugh at the moon hoax people, but mention 9/11 on Mefi and there's no shortage of guys ready concern-troll about how we've all been mislead

One big clue that 9/11 was not a conspiracy is pretty simple: conspiracies don't lead to advances in materials science.
posted by Malor at 3:08 AM on December 19, 2008


Subspace hacking is for n00bs. Once you route the plasma flow through the EPS conduits, and feed that through a properly sized deflector dish, then you've got proper tetrionic emissions. From there, it's cake.

(DIY - A phased multiscalar array of Pringles cans can be substituted for the deflector dish, but be sure to score the cans' interiors with a triple helix to make sure to reduce nucleonic radiation.)

The right way to do it is a SSH tunnel through fluidic space.
posted by Samizdata at 3:36 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


В России, Луне земель на вас
posted by not_on_display at 4:57 AM on December 19, 2008


Ok, here's the proof that it was staged. Prepare to have your mind BLOWN.

Start watching the footage of the moon landing. Cue up "Dark Side of the Moon" in your CD or MP3 player. Start it just as Armstrong takes his third step off the lunar lander.

It all syncs up. No kidding. I don't know how they did it, but they did it. It's amazing.
posted by Spatch at 5:28 AM on December 19, 2008


could it be assembled in a fashion that wouldn't attract attention?

For that matter, could a shoe bomb be operationalized into something that could do damage? Could enough explosive be packed into the sole of shoes?


Yes. GREAT idea. Please air now. *rubs hands together in sinister fashion.*

Moon hoax threads always remind me of this. For some reason, imagines of Elliott Gould being chased by black helicopters in the desert really imprinted itself onto my brain as a kid. O.J. as an astronaut for bonus points.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:41 AM on December 19, 2008


Hm, has Mythbusters done the Shakespeare controversy (pick a theory) yet?

OOH! They could put the combined works of Shakespeare and the combined works of Francis Bacon into refrigerators and see which one blows up better! Literature and explosions...

*these are a few of my fav-or-ite things*
posted by JoanArkham at 5:50 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites]


My fave thing about the movie Durn Bronzefist cites is that most of the cast has been married to Barbra Streisand at one point. Brenda Vaccaro only in Massachusetts, of course.

The phrase conspiracy theory is one of those phrases that short-circuits thought, and contains implicit dismissal of the ideas involved. The idea that nineteen guys with box-cutters and a few flying lessons among them changed the world: this is of course a literal conspiracy theory, but no one can call it that without sounding like he's got an alternate explanation that involves cruise missiles, holograms, and Mothman.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:56 AM on December 19, 2008


Don't have time to watch.

What did they conclude?


Buzz has a mean right-hook for an old guy.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:02 AM on December 19, 2008


Clearly, Mythbusters is also a fake.

This should have been clear after the airplane on a treadmill episode.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:07 AM on December 19, 2008


Do not fuck with Buzz Aldrin; he went to the moon!
posted by Mister_A at 6:40 AM on December 19, 2008


ObSF: Isaac Asimov, "Ideas Die Hard."
posted by Chrysostom at 7:08 AM on December 19, 2008


Subspace hacking is for n00bs. Once you route the plasma flow through the EPS conduits, and feed that through a properly sized deflector dish, then you've got proper tetrionic emissions. From there, it's cake.

Buddy, if you're going to route plasma flow through the EPS conduits, you had better make sure your starboard power coupling is in excellent shape.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh sure, they go to NASA and use NASA's vacuum makin' machine with moon dust supposedly brought back by "astronauts" to prove that we went to the moon. That's almost like a creationist argument.
posted by zzazazz at 7:55 AM on December 19, 2008


Metafilter is a hoax. None of you are real. You're all Matt Haughey. Including me right now.
posted by dgaicun at 9:15 AM on December 19, 2008


Nothing has ever happened, and never will.
posted by tommasz at 9:20 AM on December 19, 2008


The real conspiracy isn't that the moon landing was faked. Everyone knows that's a honeypot designed to catch the conspiracy theorists with the worst critical thinking skills. The real secret, the one that the Templars, Masons, Inquisition, Illuminati, Ford executives, and NASA have all been trying to cover up for the last few centuries is that there is no moon.

It was destroyed at least eight hundred years ago using pan-demonic plasma energy in the War for Atlantis, they then used the "Dark Ages" to cover up the conspiracy and swept all the evidence into a storage vault under the Sphinx.

All of this is perfectly obvious to anyone who has bothered paying attention or listening to the homeless guy who hangs out on the corner of 6th and MLK.
posted by quin at 9:20 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


Don't you mean Fnord executives
posted by Pollomacho at 9:28 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ghosts Of American Astronauts
by The Mekons

Up in the hills above Bradford
Outside the Napalm factory
(They're floating above us)
Ghosts of American Astronauts
Glow in the headlights beam

It's just a small step for him
It's a nice break from Vietnam
(Filmed in a factory)
Out on the back lot in Houston
Who says the world isn't flat?

John Glenn drinks cocktails with God
In a cafe in downtown Saigon
(High above them)
Ghosts of American Astronauts
Are drifting too close to the sun

A flag flying in the vacuum
Nixon sucks a dry Martini
Ghosts of American astronauts
Stay with us
in our dreams...

posted by koeselitz at 9:33 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites]


В России, Луне земель на вас В СССР, луна приземляется на вас. FTFY.
Don't mess with the Russian!
posted by wretched_rhapsody at 9:38 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites]


В СССР, луна приземляется на вас
In USSR, moon lands on you?
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 10:22 AM on December 19, 2008


dirtynumbangelboy, I dispute your premise, but then, I'm somewhat biased. We absolutely refused to jump a shark for this year's shark week (they ACTUALLY asked).

Sorry Adam, that did come off from my end as snarkier than intended. I still watch the show semi-frequently, but it just seems to me that the 'myths' are getting more tenuous (e.g., Bull In A China Shop), and you guys are sort of just looking for excuses to blow shit up.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love it when you guys blow shit up. The clip of the obliterated cement truck is my standard "Dude, you have GOT to see this" go-to with friends. Also makes me giggle. Every time. I want to see more of that, where you guys are actually testing an actual thing that people have claimed, and less of (again) Bull In A China Shop type stuff.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:34 AM on December 19, 2008


We absolutely refused to jump a shark for this year's shark week (they ACTUALLY asked).

Doesn't matter if you do. You MUST stay on the air if for no other reason than my nephew will cry himself to sleep every night for a fortnight if you go off. That is unacceptable. And unfair. To that little guy who loves you so...
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:01 PM on December 19, 2008


We absolutely refused to jump a shark for this year's shark week (they ACTUALLY asked).

If they ask you again, do it, but do it backwards: Put a shark in some sort of sharkmobile and jump it over several cars. Or over several men dressed as Fonzie. Or over a giant recumbent Fonzie.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:09 PM on December 19, 2008


I like to up the ante with the crazy folks: Not only was there no moon landing, the moon itself is fake. A projected mind-control hologram from inside the hollow Earth.

“Could enough explosive be packed into the sole of shoes?”

Oooh, hells yeah. Half a kilo of Cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (RDX - the explosive in C-4, et.al) can mess up a truck pretty well. But it’s not the explosive, it’s the placement.

“If they'd simply showed a blacked-out astronaut on black velvet, and then a lit astronaut on regolith, they'd have silenced that myth forever.”

I’d’ve thought Elvis on black velvet. Though that’s another myth.

“Now, don't get me wrong. I love it when you guys blow shit up.”

There’s some other show on Discovery that is apparently all about that. I don’t much care for it. It’s like eating all cake icing with no cake.

I like the fact that Mythbusters has, y’know, science and is earnest in it’s attempts to educate folks and explain stuff rather than just blowed stuff up. Although I have seen a lot of stuff blowed up so maybe it’s passe’ for me.

(Although it does irritate me that the other guy with the walrus mustache wears Bolles. What is it with certain groups of people and their signature shades? You can tell cold-warriors from snakeaters from guys in different branches, or careers, aviators, divers (who wear Bolles) etc. etc. I’m not saying I’m immune to it. Used to wear Gargoyles for shooting until I caught a ricochet and scratched them up. A month later I pick up a new set of ballistic shades - didn’t talk to anyone, ask, consult, didn’t see them on anyone else, nada. Buddy of mine comes out to go riding with me - yep, wearing f’ing Wileys too. It’s like we’re all walking cliches or something. (although Bolles are pretty nice shades for climbing too, handy string on ‘em so you don’t lose them))
posted by Smedleyman at 3:36 PM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've always harboured just a smidge of doubt about how the lunar lander managed to take off, but I'm sure somebody in this thread can explain it to me in a science-o-rific way.
posted by tehloki at 10:18 PM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


What's to doubt about the Lunar Module takeoff. It had a rocket pointed down, so when the rocket was fired, the LEM went up. It could have gone in a different direction, sure, but it's somewhat of a tradition from what I understand about physics.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:31 AM on December 20, 2008


A comment I read somewhere or other that really made me giggle.

"Not only did the Yanks never go to the moon - they never went to the moon five times"
posted by dollyknot at 7:04 AM on December 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


I've always harboured just a smidge of doubt about how the lunar lander managed to take off, but I'm sure somebody in this thread can explain it to me in a science-o-rific way.

The lunar module has tanks of two kinds of liquid kept under pressure by a gas. When you put them together, they explode. So to take off, all they had to do was open the valves that were keeping the liquids contained in their two pressure vessels. The liquids flow through pipes into the combustion chamber, where they mix and explode. Gases go down, lunar module goes up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:09 AM on December 20, 2008


Apollo Lunar Modules wikipedia page here. Fuel here. Picture of a Aerozine 50 motor here.
posted by damn dirty ape at 11:44 AM on December 20, 2008


Also, some discussion and photos of different rocket fuels burning in the context of moon hoaxes.
posted by damn dirty ape at 11:46 AM on December 20, 2008


I'm sorry I missed one 'non' evert, the Yanks 'never' went to to the moon 6 times not 5 times, please forgive my inaccuracies in terms of 'non' events.
posted by dollyknot at 3:08 PM on December 20, 2008


ROU_Xenophobe: I'm aware of the basic principles of rocketry, I just never really knew what fuel source the lander used. I assume from your description that it was a hydrogen-oxygen rocket. I just wondered about the logistics of bringing along a vehicle that was capable of landing on the moon and taking off again with such a large payload, on a journey that had such a limited weight capacity already. I guess I'll look up the physics of it myself.
posted by tehloki at 2:49 AM on December 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh wait, the wikipedia article on the lunar lander has some pretty detailed weight specifications and fuel details, and with that, it's pretty easy to check the available energy from the N2O4/Aerozine 50 reaction against the moon's gravity and the lander's mass. I guess they just really did build them better in the 60's.
posted by tehloki at 2:54 AM on December 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ahh good ole Mythbusters. The finger plugging a shotgun myth you busted unfortunately wasn't busted to my satisfaction, because you didn't try plugging a Damascus barreled shotgun. Being made of strips that were twisted and welded, they tended to unravel rather more easily than traditional shotguns. Many people have blown them up by putting in smokeless 12 gauge shells instead of the blackpowder which they were designed for (as the shells are interchangeable).
posted by Sukiari at 7:35 PM on December 23, 2008


Today I was digging through old photos, and found this one, which demonstrates that textures as fine as human dermal ridges can be captured in pumice. Thanks to theclaw's post, my guess was indeed correct; NASA's regolith simulant is based on pumice.
posted by Tube at 4:25 PM on December 25, 2008


« Older Drawing on drugs by Jeremy Eaton....  |  Robert E. Howard-themed fantas... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments