So the Mythbusters are taking on the Moon Hoax, as I previously reported. However, there was some confusion over the air date. Well, I can confidently tell you that it will air on Wednesday, August 27.
Yay!
That’s two days before Dragon*Con, so maybe I’ll talk about it there. As I mentioned in my last post, I was an informal advisor to this episode, giving advice on properties of the lunar regolith (the powdery substance that covers the surface of the Moon, composed of lunar rock ground up by relentless micrometeorite impacts, the solar wind, and the serious temperature gradient between lunar day and night) and also on some properties of the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts.
You know, the astronauts, the ones who really did go to the Moon? Yeah, them.
Still, I can’t reveal any knowledge of how the tests went… mainly because I don’t know. I twisted Adam’s arm at TAM 6, but he wouldn’t give me any info except elliptically. I can guess how most of them went, because I have a pretty good grasp of what they were trying to do… but testing something still can yield surprises. I honestly can’t say what they found, so I’ll have to wait until August 27 just like everyone else.
Dagnappit.
 |
| Adam, right after I twisted his arm (actually, he was dropping by my interview with the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe kids, and we wound up chatting up the Moon Hoax). Image courtesy Skepchick’s Flickr stream. |
However, Adam and Jamie are doing a Mythbusters panel at Comic Con next week, and I will be there, boy howdy will I. I’m hoping to corner Adam again, and see what I can squeeze out of him. But it’s hard to pressure someone who works with explosions and bullets and giant electrical currents and smelly feet and sharks and home-built cannons and poisonous substances.
I’ll think of something.
Until then, here’s the Moon Hoax part of the official press release from The Discovery Channel:
Wednesday, August 27 at 9PM – The MYTHBUSTERS take on one of their biggest, most controversial myths ever: Could the July 1969 moon landing have been an elaborate hoax? First, Adam and Jamie focus on photos, testing the theory that two of NASA’s most famous images were shot in a studio. Then, they investigate the myth that to get the classic "low lunar gravity look" the government shot the footage in a studio and then simply slowed it down. And Grant, Tory and Kari take on the claims that the footage of footprints and flags flapping in zero gravity had to be faked.
Coooool.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One of these days I’ll make it to Dragon*Con. Or Comic Con, perhaps.
I’ll definitely be tuning into this MythBusters episode – they rock!
July 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
yes, way coool. I loves me some Mythbusters- each one is their own little can of trip!
The Moon Hoax will be a favorite no doubt- but we’re not in a position to make time go faster, so….
(durn it!)
July 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Ugh…”And Grant, Tory and Kari take on the claims that the footage of footprints and flags flapping in zero gravity had to be faked.”
Zero gravity? Science detail in press release fail!
July 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Well maybe the moon landings weren’t faked but the Mars landings are definately fake. They do those in Arizona and digitally change the skyline. Don’t you people know anything? LOL
July 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Sputnik was a lie! Like we could actually send a big beeping ball of aluminum foil into space!
July 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
[...] BA Blog: Mythbustin
July 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I was surprised they didn’t show this Mythbusters while Discovery Channel was showing the NASA series. Would have been good tie in.
Thanks for letting us know when it is. I’ll definitely watch it.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Wait a minute: Slowing down footage to get that “low gravity” look? Is that really out there? There’s still the matter of distance. Slow it down all you want, but the X axis of that parabola is still going to be shorter at 1g that it will at g/6. And waving flags, in zero g or vacuum, are still subject to inertia. And, of course, the one at the Apollo 11 site had wire reinforcement, if I recall correctly, to make it stand out straight. I mean, you don’t have to have a degree in physics to grasp that. But that’s part of the “hoaxer” claims?
Shudder.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
KC
You forget. According to Hoax Believers, NASA had so much money they could fake *anything*! Plus, it had to be faked – if the US govt claimed the Moon landings happened, by definition that means they didn’t… *sigh*
July 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
hello from the city of mexico
excellent blog has really, long time that I read this and this site is great, i coming here because the reaches of the planet or hoax nibiru xy topics as the rumour of the year 2012 and truth that I have been reassured, now regarding this I suppose that topic in the U.S. transmited on the date they are saying but if someone knows the transmition of this program in Latin America and when?
and finally to retire to bed, by not talking about something I saw in the universe today? on the next solar maximum is something I leave thinking and good excuse if this post talks about things that are not related to the topic but did not find any other means to communicate until then and sorry, fate in what they do from Mexico, Mexico
July 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Last sentence should read “flags flapping in 1/6 gravity had to be faked”.
Zero G and I feel fine.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
To be honest I don’t often find Mythbusters to be terribly scientifically rigorous. I expect a lot of humming and hawwing as they try silly experiments that wouldn’t convince a hoax proponent in a snowstorm.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
@ Phil,
Off topic, but I think you should look at the headline BBC chose to use to describe a certain aspect of the LHC. I didn’t think space had a temperature.
I think it’s misleading as science reporting goes, but maybe I’m making mountains out of molehills.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Can’t believe I missed the 0g thing. I’ll let them know…
July 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sir Eccles:
http://xkcd.com/397/
Also, on a non-related note…
http://www.oneplusyou.com/q/v/blog_cuss
“Around 3.3% of the pages on your website contain cussing.This is 67% LESS than other websites who took this test.”
Apparently, being smarter than ignorant people doesn’t equal being more rude (as Pharyngula, at times, would suggest). Hehe
July 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I suspect the intended audience isn’t the die-hard hoax believers, but the people who don’t really know enough to distinguish the hoax arguments from the arguments of physicists and photography experts (and so, even if they don’t necessarily believe that it was a hoax, they’re not thoroughly convinced it wasn’t either). There are far more of those, and many who would watch Mythbusters and who will hopefully come away with a better grasp of the relative merits of each set of arguments.
=
July 19th, 2008 at 1:03 am
To be, just very slightly and in no way seriously, devil’s advocate:
Until recently, I believed that EVERYONE in previous ages thought the Earth was flat. Simply because I had been told this by people who I was led to believe were always right, in this case history teachers.
I rightly got my intellectual arse kicked for this, as the ancient Greeks had long since figured out what the Earth looked like. Of course, there may have been people who thought the Earth was flat (just as there are people today who think the Earth is hollow (!)).
Skepticism, to me, means to doubt EVERYTHING. To at least have a decent look at something. To not immediately take something at face-value (Although I do think nobody will live long enough to keep this up for a lifetime).
Then comes the point where I desperately want to seperate myself from the conspiracy theorists. I have never doubted the moon landing, but I have seen the arguments made by the conspiracy theorists and, in my best judgement, found that they didn’t have a leg to stand on.
But, in a weird way, I can appreciate the dissent, as misplaced as it may be. And I believe, in a way, this is what Mythbusters does. Not immediately pass judgement on a myth (even though their research would allow them to do so, e.g. airplane-treadmill) but rather just put it to the test.
I guess, in the end, my biggest problem with the moon landing conspiracy theory is that the people that take it seriously, do not take the evidence seriously.
(I had written an entire paragraph here, then realised ‘dogmatic beliefs’ about covered it).
July 19th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Bas, not only did the ancient Greeks know the earth was round they also calculated the diameter of the earth to a fair degree of accuracy. All done by measuring the angles shadows made at noon at different locations and from that using geometry to calculate it. The one responsible being the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes in 250BC.
Not only that, but around 200 BC another Greek named Aristarchus actually suggested that the Earth orbited the Sun, though of course nobody believed him at that time. Thus Ptolemy’s geocentric view became the norm from 150BC onward until overwhelming evidence forced even the RC church to accept a heliocentric solar system some 1400 years later.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:56 am
John, thank you for the info. The more I learn about these Greeks, the more I’m amazed by their knowledge. I should have been spending more reading-time on them than I have. So much to read, so little time
At risk of moving this comment thread further from its Mythbusters beginnings, my curiosity makes me ask, what does FCD mean? (I’m Dutch, so there are quite a lot of abbreviations I’m not familiar with).
July 19th, 2008 at 3:15 am
I am still waiting for the skeptics guide to the universes podcasts with the BA and Adam.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Bas, in addition to the Greeks, check out the Arabs during the European Middle Ages. I believe that the more credit they get for their scientific achievements, the better contemporary Arab-Western relations will become.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Hey The Chemist!
Space does, indeed, have a temperature, alveit a very, very, very low one (averaging only a couple of Kelvins, I think) The LHC will, therefore, be colder than the mean average temperature of space, although not as cold as the “coldest” regions, whose temperatures seem to dip <<1K. The COBE satellite was essentially meauring the “temperature” of space using microwaves to create the CMB map.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Chemist, what is wrong with that? Deep space is filled with radiation (the cosmic microwave background), which has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. The NASA article that you link to is very far from speculative. Penzias and Wilson found the radiation in 1964, and received the 1978 Nobel prize in Physics for it. The sattelite COBE found small fluctuations in the temperature accross the sky (Nobel prize 2006), and recently improved measurements of the fluctuations we published by the WMAP team. This data has been used to gain valuable information about the origin of the universe, and may lead to even more Nobel prizes.
Of course, temperature of the background radiation is different from the temperature of space itself. Nevertheless, when you let your thermometer come to thermal equilibrium in deep space, 2.7 K is what you will read on the scale, and it is therefore operationally perfectly legitimate to call 2.7 K the temperature of deep space.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Look forward to seeing the episode, and I agree that the episode is directed towards people who’ve heard the hoaxers and want to hear another side.
I’ve never come across a hard-core hoaxer, but I do make it a practice to address any ‘normal’ person who’s heard a hoaxer.
On the skepticism front, being a skeptic kind of falls apart when you have a direct financial gain to be made through your skepticism on a certain topic. If you question a topic and are going about a systematic method to verify whether they happened, you can be considered a skeptic. If you’re selling videos and books about your particular theory using half-truths to amplify your case on a hoax topic, you’re a hack.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:49 am
“we published” = “were published”. I do not want to take credit for something I did not do.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Bas,
An FCD is a member of The Friends of Charles Darwin.
http://darwin.gruts.com/
July 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Uh, August 27th. Can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait. Are we there yet? Are we?
Also, looking very much forward to whatever you’re going to share with us about your Dragon*Con experience. I’m really quite jealous.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Part of being a skeptic is knowing when the evidence is sufficient, and when it is simply irrational to continue to doubt.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Mythbusters is rigorous enough for its intended audience. Besides, we must keep the Zombie Feynman satisfied.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The Chemist said:
> Sputnik was a lie! Like we could actually send a big beeping ball of aluminum foil into space!
Yeah, everybody knows that balls of aluminum don’t bleep.
KC said:
> Wait a minute: Slowing down footage to get that “low gravity” look? Is that really out there? There’s still the matter of distance. Slow it down all you want, but the X axis of that parabola is still going to be shorter at 1g that it will at g/6.
A lot of the film is of astronauts moving around. They typically “walked” with short little hops that did not test the height they could achieve. There is some vague similarity to sped up film.
> And waving flags, in zero g or vacuum, are still subject to inertia. And, of course, the one at the Apollo 11 site had wire reinforcement, if I recall correctly, to make it stand out straight. I mean, you don’t have to have a degree in physics to grasp that. But that’s part of the “hoaxer” claims?
To be fair, most hoax believer claims are a bit more sophisticated. Anyone with any knowledge is aware the flags had a rod at the top to hold them extended, and most are aware the flags were slightly bunched, giving them a wavy texture. However, video clips show the flags moving around slightly at times. These are the things that get their attention.
Typically there are two conditions. One is that an astronaut is wiggling the pole, or just finished wiggling the pole. Thus inertia. The second has to do with an astronaut moving near the flag but not directly touching it. These cases are what get the hoax believers stirred up. Probable explanations include vibrations through the ground and static electricity from the astronaut.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
@ The Chemist:
From your link:
No no no. No.
First off, vacuum is filled with every field that contributes to it, such as EM, the quark fields, inflation, and sundry others. There is plenty of action even at low energy configurations of space, as you have zero point energy of the fields and uncertainty allowing particles to be created and destroyed all the time.
Second, looking at actual space instead of idealized there is both molecules and chemistry going on in interstellar space. And fields and their radiation, such as the ubiquitous microwave background radiation, permeates it.
Temperature is a thermodynamical property, and as such statistical in nature. It tells you how energy is distributed among the microstates of a system.
The Wikipedia article is actually comprehensive albeit terse. It tells you how temperature can be measured for radiation or vacuum systems:
I assume that the problem with a strict assigning of temperature to a field would be its high degree of freedom.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@ Torbjörn Larsson, OM
You’re right! I’m totally wrong about the definition of a vacuum, that was negligent on my part.
Still, in pointing out the statistical nature of temperature, in counting the temperature of individual and disparate molecules you may as well include the temperature of planets and stars. Temperature in a vacuum, net temperature of the universe, and what a thermometer would register in a vacuum are three completely different things. Right?
By the by, I’ve seen people suffix there names with “OM” before, what does that stand for?
July 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
*Oops, I meant “suffix their names”. Sorry.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:55 am
It is the Order of the Molly from Pharyngula,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
It is named in honour of the late and much lamented Molly Ivins. The blog’s readers vote each month for posters who they felt have made a significant contribution in one way or another with their posts that month. It is considered quite an honour among Pharyngulans, think of it as our Nobel, except that of course it is much more important than a mere Nobel
July 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
@ The Chemist:
“OM” is my (only) web title. It is not everyone that can be “the” BA.
.
Agreed.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I’m so glad they are taking this on.
It will get a lot of airplay and maybe Buzz can give his fist a rest. Not that I can EVER get enough of that video.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:04 am
Hi, all -
I’m new here. May I comment on Apollo 11?
The Apollo 11 astronauts wrote (can’t find Underline) First on the Moon. With that book, my Rand McNally Lunar map and my Tasco 60mm refractor, I found the Maskelyne series of craters from the text, on my map. Then, the area on the moon itself, with my 6 x 30 binocular. Then, with my telescope, I traced the line of craters on the moon’s surface, to Maskelyne G, I think. That would be the crater the astronauts described as having landed beside it.
Through my eyepiece, I could see the reflection of the sun off something by the crater. I viewed for several minutes, and the reflection remained bright and steady.
I then concluded I was looking at sunlight reflecting off of the Lunar Lander of the Apollo 11 lander.
I doubt there’s many conspiracy carriers among you. But, I submit this, anyway. Other than my own observation, there’s the fact that no secret among thousands of people, could be kept this long.
Regards,
Don
July 21st, 2008 at 7:11 am
Oh, I forgot to include:
This was in March of ’97, from the driveway of my property, in the shade of my house.
Any of you should be able to find Maskelyne crater, the line of smaller craters, and see the same reflection, which I saw. I would think.
Respectfully,
Don
July 21st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Often these moon hoax shows make me very angry, but if Phil is involved, this is the show that will put them all in their place!
Another punch in the face to Bart Sibrel!!
Tom
July 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
So this may be a really stupid question, or may have already be asked so feel free to make fun of me. I read this site almost every day and and have wondered about this. Why can’t we just take Hubble or some other really strong telescope, and take a picture of the flag or other equipment that was left of the moon? Bang, you have proof. I am sure there is a good reason why we can’t, so can someone tell me that?
Thanks!
July 21st, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Hubble is 250,000 miles from the Moon. At that distance, the smallest objects it can see are several 10′s of meters across, so the LM and other equipment left by the astronauts are too small to see.
In November, NASA is planning to launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. It will carry a large camera similar to the camera in the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has successfully photographed the rovers and the Phoenix lander, and LRO will be even closer to the Moon than MRO is to Mars. There’s no atmosphere to slow it down around the Moon, so it can orbit right down to the altitude where it’s in danger of hitting a mountain.
LRO should have no problem imaging the LMs, moon buggies, and will probably also be able to spot tracks from the buggies, and maybe other stuff.
I think the primary purpose of LRO is to map the polar regions looking for good landing sites and evidence of ice, which would be a huge advantage for setting up a moon base, but I’m sure they’ll attempt to photograph the Apollo landing sites if at all possible.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
When the LRO goes up in November, why not also have it photograph that huge tower on the moon, and the ancient alien spaceship while it’s taking snaps. Of course, you realize that if they photograph the areas and nothing is discovered but ordinary moon things, then it has to be another coverup and doctoring of the photos. That’s right. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I think it’s best to ignore the people who seriously believe in that moon hoax stuff. They create their own evidence and that’s good enough for them. Don’t bother them with the truth because they don’t want or need it. I think it was Buzz Aldrin who said, “Truth needs no defense.” I think we should respond to the moon hoax believers pitiful challenges with that sound advice.
Speaking of Buzz, I hope you all have watched the YouTube video where he decks a moon hoax believer. The man accused him of being a “coward” by not admitting the moon missions were faked. I can attest that Buzz’s reaction and solid punch to the man’s jaw was no fake. I never get tired of watching that video.
I’ll TiVo Mythbusters and catch that episode, since I’m not a regular viewer. Hopefully, they’ll have a few of the moon hoax believers give their “evidence” for the program’s comic relief section.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’m pretty sure Adam and Jamie will get it right.
One of my favorite moon-hoax busting comments is from Buzz Aldrin who pointed out that the Russians were monitoring everything, and would have been only too thrilled to provide proof that the decedent Amerikanskis were hoaxing the world! And they could have done so, if that had been the case. The hoaxers say the Russkis were “in” on the deception. (The have to say that or their case falls apart.) This makes me laugh until I plotz.
On the side, the most cogent argument about UFOs and Area 51 being fraudulent comes from a NASA guy who points out we would be shouting it from the rooftops. He said, imagine the funding! Congress would shovel money with bulldozers at us! No amount of coercion can stop that much funding lust!!!! It would make Apollo look like a flea market!!
July 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Can’t wait to watch it!! I’m gonna force my boyfriend to watch it with me…. He thinks it was all a hoax…. *headdesk* …….. *headdesk* *headdesk*!!!!
August 6th, 2008 at 6:03 am
[...] Plait of Bad Astronomy acted as a consultant for the show. One of the commenters on his post referenced this xkcd cartoon about the Mythbusters, [...]
August 20th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
[...] Mythbustin’ the Moon Hoax: Part 2 [...]
August 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
[...] Posted by 01101001 BA Blog: Mythbustin
August 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[...] take on the Moon Hoax (check your local listings)! OK, for you newbies, read Parts 1 – 4 (here, here, here, and here). That’ll catch you up on the [...]