Mythbusters did the moon landing

You simulate going yourself.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Just find the Apollo mod.

Its hard but I finally landed on about my 7th attempt without crashing or running out of fuel.

Quote from: ROUND000 on August 28, 2008, 10:24:30 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 28, 2008, 10:22:16 AM

Quote from: ROUND000 on August 28, 2008, 10:19:59 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 28, 2008, 10:17:38 AM

Quote from: ROUND000 on August 28, 2008, 10:07:07 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 28, 2008, 07:45:34 AM

Quote from: ROUND000 on August 28, 2008, 07:32:41 AM

They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.

So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?

They DID film it. 

hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist. 

Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?

The mythbusters or the original moon landing?  It looks like the mythbusters are on youtube. 

The original moon landing. It could be out there somewhere.

Looks like it is also on youtube. 

Yes, you're right.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote

All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.

Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

Quote

All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.

Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?

Holy crap I'd sig that first part if I could.

Anyways, the burden is actually all on the FErs, because RErs know it's round.

As for the last question, wouldn't it be...the moon?

Quote from: Alatus_leo on August 28, 2008, 10:34:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

Quote

All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.

Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?

Holy crap I'd sig that first part if I could.

Anyways, the burden is actually all on the FErs, because RErs know it's round.

As for the last question, wouldn't it be...the moon?

The problem is, how did they film Armstong getting out?

I've been wondering that too. They might have dropped the camera on the moon before they landed. I don't know. It might say on Wikipedia or something.

There was a camera mounted on a swing arm on the outside of the LM.  They show this in From the Earth to the Moon.

There was a camera mounted on a swing arm on the outside of the LM.  They show this in From the Earth to the Moon.

I see. Thanks!

Actually, we have supplied you with plenty of evidence (videos, photos, laser reflectors, etc.) that man has been to the moon.  The fact that you reject the evidence out of hand does not mean that we haven't met our burden of proof.

Yeah right. "The space man said so" is proof. 

What specific fact about the lunar land are you denying?

All of it.  Space travel is not possible in FET.  Hence we can't go to the moon.

Quote

Actually, we have supplied you with plenty of evidence (videos, photos, laser reflectors, etc.) that man has been to the moon.  The fact that you reject the evidence out of hand does not mean that we haven't met our burden of proof.

Yeah right. "The space man said so" is proof. 

Yes, yes it is. Thanks for confirming Earth's roundness.

..."it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. ...

Sounds like every denial of RE theory FE'rs use.

"I can see the horizon."  No you can't it an illusion.
"The ship is below the horizon."  No it isn't, it's an illusion.

Pot black and all that don't you think?

I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.

You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?

All of it.  Space travel is not possible in FET.  Hence we can't go to the moon.

So, there are no satellites orbiting earth? 

All the space rocket launches are unreal, since space travel is impossible, then were do the rockets go?  How come they dont fall back down after they have been launched?

Please explain the space shuttle to me.  What happens to it after it takes off?  It just flies around right?  Defying all laws of physics?

Does Criss Angel support these proofs?

I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.

You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?

  you FErs are getting more and more pathetic. RErs know that we went to space, see 2 posts before this for more info.

I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.

You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?

Im not buying into anything, I was skeptical to say the least of the lunar landing.  But all the proof I needed was the shooting of the laser from earth and hitting the "manmade" prisms left on the moon, and that light reflecting back to earth and being recorded.

 

That laser experiment is a joke.

Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.


If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.

That laser experiment is a joke.

Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.


If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.

And your proof is where?

Which part?

That laser experiment is a joke.

Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.


If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.

They shot the laser at a part of the moon that "humans" have not been to, and light was reflected, in fact the material that is on the moon has a reflection rate of 8% which wound not allow enough light from a laser to bounce back to be detected.

That laser experiment is a joke.

Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.


If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.

Please list proof and sources for this claim.

The bottom line, which I think a lot of people seem to be missing even though it's clearly what this thread is all about, is that the Mythbusters did not prove that the moon landing was not a hoax.

0-2 photons are, apparently, enough to detect according to RET. That is all that is recorded by the "reflecting devices".

Interesting as that is about what you'd get back shooting a laser at an object 3000 miles away when the object reflect 8% of it's light back and accounting for light refraction in the atmosphere.

To me, that experiment proves FET, not RET.

Please list proof and sources for this claim.

University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm



That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Read my above posts that show the laser experiment to be "lame"

0-2 photons are, apparently, enough to detect according to RET. That is all that is recorded by the "reflecting devices".

Interesting as that is about what you'd get back shooting a laser at an object 3000 miles away when the object reflect 8% of it's light back and accounting for light refraction in the atmosphere.

To me, that experiment proves FET, not RET.

OK, the riddle me this.  Why were prisms left on the moon instead of a mirror?

If the Earth was flat, couldn't we simply have shot a laser perpendicular to the spot that the mirrors were left?

The reason a prism was left on the moon was because with the earth being round, we can shoot at an angle and still get a return.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.