Mythbusters did the moon landing

Watch " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this video closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.

Yes you did.  You said because you don't know something it doesn't exist. 

I have seen cameras functioning on Earth. I have not seen them functioning on the moon. What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?

Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 30, 2008, 08:46:28 AM

Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?

Do you try to draw the argument away from you? 

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2008, 08:47:23 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 30, 2008, 08:46:28 AM

Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?

Do you try to draw the argument away from you? 

No, I am actually going somewhere with this. You may not be familiar with an argument that goes somewhere, so this will make a valuable learning experience for you. Please answer the question.

No, I do not believe there are little green men on mars. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2008, 08:49:09 AM

No, I do not believe there are little green men on mars. 

And why don't you believe in such men?

No one has ever seen them or seen evidence for them. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2008, 08:51:21 AM

No one has ever seen them or seen evidence for them. 

So basically, you don't believe in them because you have never seen evidence that makes their existence seem, to you, more likely than their non-existence?

Yes because I and no one else has seen evidence either.
But on the topic of moon landing, you have never seen evidence but that doesn't mean everyone has never seen evidence.  Nice try though.   

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2008, 08:56:15 AM

Yes because I and no one else has seen evidence either.
But on the topic of moon landing, you have never seen evidence but that doesn't mean everyone has never seen evidence.  Nice try though.   

And what if somebody claimed to have looked through their telescope and seen little green men on Mars? Would you believe in them then?

And what if somebody claimed to have looked through their telescope and seen little green men on Mars? Would you believe in them then?

No, because no who is sober has ever done that.

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2008, 09:01:21 AM

No, because no who is sober has ever done that.

I rest my case. At least Rig Navigator answered my question rationally.

I rest my case. At least Rig Navigator answered my question rationally.

So based on that...

Because NASA says that space flight is possible, which I consider a reputable source along with a significant portion of the world's people, and that other reputable sources (Russian Space Agency, European Space Agency, Chinese Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, the Australian military, Fox News, CNN, Reuters, etc) say that it is possible and men have walked on the Moon; I accept that as valid evidence that it is true.

I guess our definitions of reputable sources differ, then.

You would think that he would have reported them as non-functioning frauds if that was the case.  He was pretty specific in his accusations.

Maybe they should actually try to explain some of the serious discrepancies such as why NASA submitted a ridiculously short 110 page proposal for a 6 billion dollar government project (other government proposals of that scale are more than 8,000 pages long according to various interviews with government contractors).

Watch " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this video closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.

Quote

You would think that he would have reported them as non-functioning frauds if that was the case.  He was pretty specific in his accusations.

Non-functioning and barely-functioning equipment are both safety violations.

But Tom...as I asked in an earlier post, why call it a safety violation on what you claim to be a conspritorial program?  If he wanted to expose fraud, why didn't he claim such?

If he was trying to draw attention to the conspiracy, why not go all the way, instead of half assing it?

Are now or were in the mid 60's?  Can you list some other proposals that might require more than 8000 pages from the same era?  Out of curiosity, what was the original Manhattan Project Proposal?  I can't find it, but it was a $2 billion project in the 1940's and involved over 100,000 employees...certainly comparable.

At 1:40 I see 2 actor-nauts kicking up some dust and dirt but nobody on their toes.

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2008, 09:31:53 PM

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on August 27, 2008, 09:21:44 PM

Quote from: apollo11 on August 27, 2008, 09:09:36 PM

They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.

I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.

How did they "prove" this?

Shot a laser at the moon. 

Pfffffffffffffft! Sorry, but that's the lamest "evidence" I've ever heard...

The moon landing hoax theory still stands.

The weight distribution at the 1:40 mark is clearly wonky. The astronaut in the foreground seems to jump without his feet touching the lunar surface.