The day has dawned, the clock has rung, the time has come, calloo callay!
Tonight, the Mythbusters 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 history.
I was able to get an advance copy of the show — I have powers beyond those of mortal men… or maybe I’m just on a Discovery Channel mailing list for the show, and I asked for a DVD when they said they’d send them to journalists — and let me say, it’s really good. One of their best, in fact! I can’t reveal the results of their tests, but I will say that however each of the tests did in fact turn out, I could see why they came to the conclusion of "busted, confirmed, or plausible" for each.
Having helped them with some of the tests, it was very cool to see the results on screen. They tackle several of the biggies, including why shadows on the Moon appear to be non-parallel. To my great surprise, they came to a somewhat different conclusion than I usually claim for this. I will have to amend my own discussion of this when I give my Moon Hoax talk. Seriously. Nice work on the MB team’s part!
Oddly, one thing that stood out for me was the pronunciation on the show of the word "regolith" (the powdery surface dust on the Moon). I have always said rehg-o-lith, but they all said reeg-o-lith. Now, they talked to NASA folks who must know how to pronounce the word, so you’d think that was right. The thing is, I’ve talked to experts as well, and the ones I know say it the way I do! So now I’ll have to dig into this (haha! Dig! It’s regolith!) a little deeper. Interesting.
One big laugh was that Adam has his own space suit. It was a wedding gift from the MB team. He then modded it to make it more accurate, including a wrist-mounted booklet of instructions just like the Moonwalkers had. But in one part, I noticed that while he put red commander’s stripes on the arms and legs, he left the stripe off the helmet. I was gonna take him to task on this, and then found out that the helmet stripe was only added after Apollo 13. Knowing Adam as a close personal friend*, I’m sure he modded the suit to be an Apollo 11 one. The funny thing to me is that Neil Armstrong was the commander of Apollo 11, and took all the pictures of the lunar surface during their short stay in Apollo 11, so all the shots show Buzz Aldrin, the astronaut without the stripes. Edited to add: As has been pointed out in the comments below and personally to me via email, the stripes weren’t added at all until Apollo 13, so in fact Adam’s suit is incorrect if he’s trying to make it an Apollo 11 simulacrum. I will very much tease him about this when I get the chance.
OK, so it’s not all love and roses for the MB guys: I do have one minor complaint, and it’s about their test of the flag-waving in a vacuum. They seemed to focus on the flag continuing to move after an astronaut stops manipulating the flagpole into the lunar surface, whereas the Hoax goofballs always seem to be complaining that the flag is moving at all, even when the astronaut still had his hands on the flagpole. When I show clips of the flag waving, I make a big point that the corner appears to flap up very high on the Moon, and that’s due to no air and lower gravity. On the Earth, air resistance makes the flag flap rather lackadaisically, and that shows the astronauts were in a low-gravity vacuum environment. Hmmm, where would the nearest low gravity vacuum be? Oh, I know: the frakkin’ MOON.
The MB team also tackle the idea that NASA may have slowed down the footage of the men on the Moon to make it look like they were in lower gravity. Basically, as has been argued by me as well as my friend Jay Windley, slowing down the footage makes it look like the gravity acting on them is less, but it won’t make non-gravitational motions look right. So if an astronaut picks up a rock and drops it, the rock will fall slower, but the actions of the astronaut moving his arm is slowed as well, and that looks goofy. The Mythbusters did a fine job going through this argument and their experiment was not only well executed but Jamie made an excellent observation during that part. I won’t reveal what they found, but keep your ears open for his comment there.
I have some more notes, but I can’t really discuss them without giving away the results, so I’ll hold off. But I think that’s probably enough. You should see for yourself. If I have any real complaints about this episode, it’s that is was too packed with stuff. They should have made it a two-parter! For example, I would have loved loved loved to see how Adam made the model of the Lunar Module (over which I still lust). And there were other aspects that would have been cooler if more details had been given. But still and all, enough is there to cover the ground regolith on this hoary and hairy myth.
For those who want more, Robert Pearlman at CollectSPACE did an interview with the MB team which is now up, and there are some tidbits from me as well.
And I must leave you with this: a screen capture of the title credits for the show:
Squa-weeeee!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I wanna see this show! C’mon BBC buy the rights fer crissakes so we Brits can watch too!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“rehg-o-lith” Was the common pronunciation at the Asteroids, Comets and Meteors Meeting last month.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
The TIVO is set and my night is planned!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
F!r$+ p0$+ ?
So, did they finally prove the controversy theorists right, Dr. Plait?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Sigh,
When Discovery Canada will air the episode, FSM only knows, but it won’t be before mid-September. Grrr.
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/schedule/series.aspx?timezone=est&type=series&series_name=mythbusters
August 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Thanks for posting this, BA. I had forgotten that it was Wednesday, and thus, Mythbusters Day.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am
@madge
At the very least, you can watch the extra stuff that they post on their web site… Not the same, I know, but better than nothing, no?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Am I the only one who saw the tiny space-suited figure to the right of Adam? Is this an accidental revelation of NASA’s real secret? The FACT that NASA sent GNOMES and not humans to the moon? The HOAX was not that NASA sent people to the moon - the HOAX was about the SIZE of the people sent! NASA built a great big rocket to make people think normal-sized people were sent, but in fact they sent GNOMES. Note the ‘mythbusters’ completely failed to address this damning truth.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I’m a bit worried. The last several Wednesdays where I live have been reruns instead of new episodes. Guess I’ll have to call TWC…
August 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Who knows when we’ll get this episode in Australia. Surely there must be alternative ways of viewing tv shows that have already run in other markets hmmm….
BA, it also appears that you have your very own IMDB entry too. That makes you, like, a star.
OT, the “Antivaxxers must be stopped!” page (post and comments) has disappeared, gone, ceased to be… at least for me with Firefox and IE.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Awesome. Can’t wait!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
llewelly, can’t be gnomes. Gnomes are bigger and have pointy hats. Could be a fairy?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Good thing you made this post, as I was completely unaware that the episode is tonight! I set my reminder. Looks like it’ll be a good one.
By the way, I’ve also always pronounced “regolith” the way you do
August 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
What about ray-golith and rego-lith (as in reginald)?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
You’re a doctor?!
I get this pain in my elbow righ here whenever I do this…
August 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Aw, I wish I had my name on Kari’s… um. Mmm…
August 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Tonight! Sweet! I’ve been waiting for this one!
I was sad a few weeks ago when the viral video episode was supposed to be on… only to find a repeat, and read that it had been moved.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Actually Armstrong and Conrad (CDR of Apollo 12) both had suits that were indistinguishable from those of their PLTs. Lovell’s suit on Apollo 13 was the first to be red-striped to distinguish him and his helmet also carried a red stripe, with an additional anchor decal (he was Navy.)
August 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Wait, Mike Evans? Do you know, Phil, which Mike Evans that is? (I’m sure there are many, but the one I’m thinking of is a fellow astronomer, but not necessarily someone I’d expect to be involved in this.)
August 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
…Wow… Not wow for the show, but wow that Adam would ever read this post without sighing and rolling his eyes, and not in a good way. If I did all this work only to have someone complain about pronunciation and a stripe I’m sure I’d have the same reaction. And no, “they pride themselves on attention to detail so it’s only fair to point it out” is hardly a defense. Yet another example of taking the whole “unfoolable ungullible skeptic that is too smart to miss anything and has to prove it to everyone” role to ridiculous heights.
I hope I remember to watch this tonight, I’ve been looking forward to it. I remember as a kid seeing “evidence” that it was all a hoax, and actually believing it since I didn’t know any better, and because the visual evidence appeared solid. But now I just want it to be put to rest, and hopefully the episode will help.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I also agree with your pronunciation of regolith, as well as several folks I’ve spoken to at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston.
I think we can conclude that the MB pronunciation is “busted”.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
There were no Commander suit stripes on Apollo 11 or 12. Check out the mission photos on Kipp Teague’s Retroweb Project Apollo site. There are a few shots of Armstrong on the moon; none show stripes. The famous shot of Aldrin has a reflection of Armstrong in the gold coated helmet visor. No stripes. In Apollo 12 photos it’s really hard to tell Conrad from Bean because there are no stripes. Any lunar surface EVA photos showing an astronaut with suit stripes (and helmet stripes) has to be a photo of Alan Shepperd, David Scott, John Young or Gene Cernan.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I have my DVR set for this one! Congratulations to you for providing so much good stuff to the MB team.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I’m impressed with you managing to capture your name in the credits, each page is only on screen for about 1/120 second.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Ahh, thanks to the awesomeness of bittorrent, I will be watching this episode shortly after it airs, no matter where I happen to be at the moment.
Also, it is pronounced Regh-o-lith (rĕg’ə-lĭth’ )
listen here:
http://www.answers.com/regolith&r=67
August 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
BoC:
In the US Mythbusters had a couple of shows for Discovery Channel’s Shark Week at the end of July, but the new season of Mythbusters starts tonight, August 27. The shows in between then and tonight were re-runs.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
@shane
I noticed the same thing happened with the Ed Mitchell followup thread with over 1000 posts. Gone. Kaput.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Ah, the reviewer were participating. Plausible, confirmed, and busted!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hmmmmmmmmmm……. I think Viewer3 has been sucking on a lemon this morning……… OTOH, nitpicking the nitpickers is a lot of fun. I’ve sent the MB crew a nitpicky email or two myself.
I’ve been jumping up and down and nearly peeing my pants waiting for this episode. I’m sure it’s gonna TEWTALY RAWK!!!!!!!
OT but hilarious: BA, what’s this I hear (via almightygod on Twitter) about all those wingnut prayers for rain on Obama’s acceptance speech backfiring? The Faux Snooze skybox at the DNC got flooded by its sprinkler system! There is a God, and he answers prayer, but he’s sure got a diabolically twisted sense of humor!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Darn. I’ll have to miss Bill Clinton’s address at the DNC… of course, TDC repeats after 10:00 pm…
Nah! Mythbusters wins. I’ll take Karri Byron over Bill Clinton any day!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Viewer3 - gosh, angry much? I’m sure Phil was just pointing out those things as curiosities, not as “gotchas”!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I have to wonder: What did Joe Rogan think of this episode?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The OED agrees with your pronunciation of the word regolith, and that’s how I’ve always heard it, as well.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
p.s. @ llewelly: Not a gnome. It was either a pygmy or a dwarf. I ask you: WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE PYGMIES AND DWARVES?!?!?!?!?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Obviously haven’t seen the show, but might that not have something to do with lower frame rates on the cameras? I seem to recall that they reduced the number of frames per second in order to conserve film. That would produce faster motion, which would then have to be slowed down once the film was copied. This change would produce some jerky, unnatural motion.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Arthur Maruyama:
That would explain it, thanks!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I’ll take Karri Byron over Bill Clinton any day!
I did not bust myths with that woman!
J/P=?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@Todd W
Thank you for that. We poor Brits (this one at least) are grateful for any crumb offered. you are sweet
August 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
@madge
I try.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
It’s about time, what with Discovery’s last minute postponement of new episodes.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
So Phil, how are you going to find the million bajillion dollars for the Adam’s lander model now that they dont need it anymore?
Embezzlement at the JREF?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The OED agrees with your pronunciation of the word regolith…
ˈreg-ə-ˌliθ (although the Webster’s link has it as ˈre-gə-ˌlith).
Reg (as in ‘regulation’)-uh (schwas aren’t Os)-lith
August 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Ah, language. Isn’t it wonderful? I thought it was pronounced the way you say it. Wheny Hyugens was landing on Titan, I noticed the ESA controllers talking about the Mee-thane. I laughed at that.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Robert Laska, stem cell researcher, comments on physics and astronomy in the September 2008 Discover interview
“It all fits, but the problem is, you then do need to accept what people will not accept: When you turn your back to the moon, it no longer exists.”
August 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
What did they need stripes for anyway? I mean there’s only two people on the whole rock and if you where one of them and had no recollection of any promotion coming your way, you could pretty much assume that the other guy was in charge.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
A quick google gives ῥηγος - long <e>, short <o> in the original Greek for “blanket”.
Similarly the first pronunciation guide gives /’ɹɛɡəlɪθ/ (I know people complain when you use imperial measures ; I’ll just suggest that you look into a bit of IPA - it really is very convenient).
You could always ask John Wells. He would know how the stressing changes the Greek vowel lengths.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
@John Paradox: LOL! Really, I LOLed IRL at that one!
August 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Viewer3, I know this is kind of a cliche and all, but maybe you need to get out a little more often.
As I said, I can’t talk about the actual conclusions of the show (part of the contract in getting the advanced copy) which limits my ability to discuss it.
Also, I wasn’t kidding: Adam is a friend of mine, and I know him well enough to know that he does in fact pay a HUGE amount of attention to detail. I will enjoy very much teasing him about his suit.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Thomas - You made me laugh! But I suspect the distinguishing marks were for photographic purposes.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I had lunch with Kari in Las Vegas last year.
Of course, I only bring this up to make you implode with soul-collapsing envy.
Ha ha.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
John Paradox define “bust”.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed so hard when I saw your name on the credits that night!
August 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Michael: what do you say, Meh-thane or something?!?! Hahahahahaha!!! Oh wait, is that the way you all feel? Well…fine then.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I notice that Jay Windley is also mentioned in the credits.
Nice to see the Mythbusters using actual EXPERTS.
Congratulations, Phil!
August 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Nice! Now i only have to wait 1,5 year to see it on Dutch television
August 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
But what is Nina Persson from The Cardigans doing in the screen shot?
August 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Discovery channel in Canada is still on repeats as usual. At least they have stopped showing Neanderthals building choppers for awhile. That seemed to all that was on for way too long.
Please feel free to pronounce Neanderthal any which way you please. Its less painfull than hearing some people try to pronounce “th” properly.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
@RAF
The Mythbusters are using experts? What elitists!
August 27th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Just on a hypothetical question does anyone torrnet mythbusters.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Yay! But remember, Phil - if this is not going to be absolutely awesome, it will be YOUR FAULT! There’s your name in the credits after all.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
yeah but the true HBers will just reject our reality and subisitute their own.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hmm, can’t seem to find any torrents yet. Maybe tomorrow morning I’ll have more luck with my “sources”. If anyone finds one, please share the goodness?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I wish they would put the episodes up on itunes more quickly - the current one on itunes is still MacGyver, and episodes from April still aren’t up. It seems like Discovery would get more revenue by putting up the episodes quickly.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
@Davidlpf, who astutely said
> yeah but the true HBers will just reject our reality and subisitute their own.
I reject your spell-checker and substitute my own.
(ducking and running…)
August 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Thomas Siefert Says: “What did they need stripes for anyway? I mean there’s only two people on the whole rock and if you where one of them and had no recollection of any promotion coming your way, you could pretty much assume that the other guy was in charge.”
The real-time TV cameras were remote controlled from Earth. With two white-suited guys bouncing around, you had to be able to tell them apart from a distance.
- Jack
August 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
@billsmithaz, d’oh did not use spell checker.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
@Madge.
You’re online, aren’t you? Then sure you can watch MB (and everything else from the Colonies).
***Cough cough**BT**Cough cough***
August 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
A few years back, one of the leading moonbats (Bart Sibrel) accosted Buzz Aldrin at a Beverly Hills Hotel. Sibrel asked Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he really walked on the Moon.
Aldrin’s response was brief:
http://www.rigoletto.com/blogger.html#02091715
“After considering Mr Sibrel’s request, Aldrin gave Sibrel a good left jab.”
August 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I suspect the distinguishing marks were for photographic purposes.
The real-time TV cameras were remote controlled from Earth. With two white-suited guys bouncing around, you had to be able to tell them apart from a distance.
Guess it’s better than Mission Control constantly going: “Yo! You with the golf club… get back to work! and stop messing around with the flag or people might get funny ideas”
August 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“rehg-o-lith” is the only pronunciation I have heard in my 17 years as a geologist, including my current job working on terrestrial regolith.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Not only do they make a great show but they also make for decent artists.
http://picobsd.amdwebhost.com/~kbob/nvision/DSCN0991.JPG
August 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
NOOOO!!! I missed it!
August 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Oh wait, my bad, I didn’t miss it.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hi Phil, As a geo, I can confirm (at least with an Aussie accent) that your pronunciation of Regolith is correct. Also, Adam should have put a stripe on the helmet, everyone knows this makes it go faster…
August 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I missed it! And not because of scheduling, but because the frakking TV at the house I rent doesn’t get Discovery Channel! ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
August 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
That was great! One of the best Mythbusters ever!
August 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The first thing I thought of when seeing they were doing this episode was Phil Plait and badastronomy.com. I’m so glad I came here and read your post prior to the end of the episode so I could pick your name out of the credits. I think it’s awesome that they consulted you.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Wow, I saw the episode, and it was awesome! I always have known about the reflector thing on the moon, but it is refreshing to see that in TV. The moon hoax guys just got pawned.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I can hardly wait till next year when I will be able to see the episode here in Canada.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The only place I had a problem with was the laser reflectors. They could have been emplaced by an automated lander rather than a person. So that one was 50/50. They could have mentioned that.
Great show. When the Mythbusters are “on” they just can’t be beat.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I didn’t think they needed to test the laser reflector. The reflector could have been placed using robotic equipment. Other than that, excellent episode.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Doh. Ray beat me to it.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Maybe I missed it, but he boot print in a vacuum bit, did they not show any test of the boot in regolith not in a vacuum? I saw the boot in the wet/dry sand, but not in regolith with an atmosphere.
And, I agree, BA, that there was too much packed into a single hour. It felt rather rushed, but still a cool episode. I doubt that it will do anything to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists, but rather give them material to revise their explanations. Not much to helped about that, though.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Tory’s “Take that, conspiracy theorists!” made me laugh. And my bf was thrilled at how Adam explained away the possible problem that detractors would have with their photographs being on a set. And they got to show off Apache Point! Awesome episode.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“I doubt that it will do anything to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists…”
Sure, but for the countless people who know little of the subject and have seen all the specials biased towards conspiracies now get to see some hands-on experiments that counter them. That, I think, is the goal.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
AWESOME episode! Loved the line, “In your face conspiracy theorists!”
August 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Haha, whoops, I got the quote wrong. Thanks WX
Ok, and Kari pulling a nail file out of her sleeve? Love her!
August 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Darn late work night. Now I have to wait for a WHOLE HOUR, to see the encore episode.
Sorry couldn’t help giving a little grief to my neighbors about an hours ride north of me.
Dish network rules
August 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Word pronunciation isn’t set in stone (or regolith). It varies widely over space and time, for many words. Ree-go-lith is just as correct as reg-o-lith. Perhaps more so, since it’s easier to say to native English speakers, which is the last word on pronunciation of any word.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
For those that may have missed the show because they may not live in a broadcast zone the first… um… syndication is available in the usual places if you know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink…
August 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
@Nicole
“Sure, but for the countless people who know little of the subject and have seen all the specials biased towards conspiracies now get to see some hands-on experiments that counter them. That, I think, is the goal.”
Oh, I agree that the show was aimed more at the fence-sitters and not at the conspiracy theorists. However, I do think the “moving in micro-gravity” was a pretty big blow to the nutters. The slowed down video was just off, and while the bungee-like rig made Adam overall “lighter”, the movement of his helmet and the rest of his suit was just off. In both, normal gravity threwthings off. Only in microgravity did both Adam and his suit move correctly. Good to see that.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Watching it now, DVR is wonderful. Great show, sure is taking the wind out of a bunch of conspiracy goofballs sails!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Yeah, but they consulted NASA!
They’re part of it!
(ducking and covering)
August 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
First Band on the Moon?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Awesome episode! I was upset that they didn’t explain how the Schumann resonance interacts with 2012 and the Van Allen belts pfftthaahahahahaha…thank the flying spaghetti for newagers and UFOlogists and moon hoaxers.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
*oops (flying spaghetti monster)
August 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
# Davidlpf Says:
John Paradox define “bust”.
Welll…considering where BA’s name is located on the photo of Kari……
I will NOT go with the obvious definition… besides, I have to watch the DVR’d version of Mythbusters.. and am listening to AM coats to coats.
J/P=?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Fun episode. I watched it with my kids in real time and taped it on the VCR. Kids watch things over and over. Conspiracy theorists could say that the “moon dust” provided by NASA was their special creation that worked at leaving distinct footprints. No one else has been able to go fetch “moon dust” and bring it back. How do we know it wasn’t engineered here on Earth? Actually, what they used was engineered substitute moon dust.
Don’t attack me. I know we went to the moon, and I’m sad that I’ll never get there. But NASA helped on the myth-busting.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Great job mythbusters! Great job Bad Astronomer!
“I watched it with my kids in real time and taped it on the VCR.”
A VC-what?
August 28th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Loved it! They needed to cram all that into two hours instead of just one, though. It was a great opportunity for my kids to see how to reason these things out and not just get on the conspiracy band-wagon. Impressive to see your name, Phil! You continue to make me sick.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:04 am
I’m gonna have to go against the crowd. I didn’t like it all that much (and I love Mythbusters!!)
I looked at it from a “Hoax Believer” standpoint, and everything they did could easily be refuted(I’m not a HB, btw). It also seemed rushed in the middle and end because the first 15 min actually had nothing. Every hero has a bad day, now I’m looking forward to the water powered rocket car thing!
All that, and Kari’s dress(?) was distracting…”if yuck was an article of clothing, that was it”, that was my wife’s reaction
August 28th, 2008 at 7:12 am
GREAT show - definatly one of - if not THE - best. And you are right on your pronoundiation of (if not the simulated guide to) regolith. Unlike some OTHER words
Their use of Zero-G flights was outstanding! And I loved the “In your FACE…!” comment by Torry.
This one definately needs a reprise - and I too was quite surprised by their shadow facts (apologies to JRR).
JC
August 28th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I just wanted to point out that only Adam and the voice-over guy said it with a long e. The second mention of regolith in the show was by Jamie (the only time I noticed him mention it), and he pronounced it as you do.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Saw the show. Loved it. I especially liked the fact that they did not try to “prove” the conspiracy theories by testing FOR the conspiracy. For example, the hoax-believers claim there were multiple light sources. The Mythbusters COULD have tried multiple light sources on their models, but instead they simply showed, once and for all, that ONE light was all that was necessary. To use a bit of modern vernacular, the conspiracy theorists were pwn’d.
@BethK, of course NASA helped with the myth-busting. Who else would you suggest? What other country or space agency claims to have sent humans there? I believe the former Soviet Union retrieved lunar rocks robotically in their space program, but good luck getting some samples from them. Since nobody else in the world can claim to have actual moon dust, it seems NASA is the only logical source.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
The only thing harder than landing on the moon would have been faking the landing. So says Armstrong and I think one of the astronauts at the conclusion of the wonderful documentary “In the Shadow of the Moon.” The show did a good job of designing and executing the experiments so it was quite an educational experience. I watched it with my teenage daughter and I’m happy to say that she picked up on the science of the show with no problem (I had her explain back to me some of the experiments after the show). But I am with those who feel it should have been a two-parter. A lot more context to the problem of the hoaxers and why it is necessary (almost 40 years after the events!) to refute their silly arguments against the reality of the Apollo program would have been very helpful. And more experiments, of course.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:46 am
All those fine, astronomical linguists here! What do you think of:
Regh-o-lith = English (UK and other English speaking areas)
Reegh-o-lith = Texan
Or is this too much of a conjecture?
August 28th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Dang, I missed the show watching the Democratic National Convention. Guess I will have to watch out for the repeats. There, the Bush administration’s “war on science” was mentioned several times, as was the Apollo project itself.
Sometimes you have to postpone analysis of past history in order to watch current history as it happens.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
With regard to Ray and Ignorant Atheist, I agree that the reflector could have been placed robotically. In fact, the Soviets did so, on Lunokhod 1 and 2, during the same time period as the Apollo missions. On the other hand, as I frequently say:
“Any problem worth solving, is worth solving with a laser!”
And they managed to find a honkin’ laser to use!
August 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Saw the show last night–excellent work. We’ve all read (or written) attacks on the claims of the conspiracy nuts, but it was really fun watching the Mythbusters show that those claims are without merit.
So what are the conspiracy people going to do when we go back? I think that’ll take the wind out of their sails, since NASA (or whoever goes) will take great pains to prove that they actually went. Even if the loonies (pun intended) insist that the first round was fake, no one will care, because we’ll have shown that it can be done. And, under NASA’s current plan, the methodology for getting there won’t be all that different. Hah!
August 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Pro Libertate, it’s easy for a liar to change his lie when s/he’s caught up in the truth. That’s what the Hoaxers will do, because truth is irrelevant to them, keeping their myth alive is.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Disappointing that your blog comes well over a half day too late…make that a full day actually…to be reminded. Does anyone else get this blog long after most of the readers have already seen it? But, it’s all moot. The convention had my full attention. It is pretty damned important to know what is going on in politics right now, which will affect all of us who love our science and skeptical outlooks.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
here is footage of the Apollo 11 crew faking part of
their alleged mission to the Moon back
in 1969… Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI
the money shot of the fakes is between 7:00 and the
end of the clip.
we can only go 300-400 miles into space in manned
exploration CURRENTLY!
How are we supposed to believe that we could
have sent men 239,000 miles to the Moon and back 40 years
ago, and with less technology than a ‘Gameboy?’(What
technology was 60000% better 40 years ago than
currently?) Doesn’t that strike you as illogical?
18 astronauts allegedly go to the Moon, none see a
single star?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu6KN89seAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVXd6lRUz0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKb7C_QpN0M
here’s the Apollo 11 crew, neil armstrong, michael collins and buzz aldrin cowering when confronted with the faked footage…
Also, here is a link to an audio interview with the director, bart sibrel, which gives more details on these frauds:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3
I got this info from www.moonmovie.com.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am
It’s about faith and about wanting someone to be in control. Thus the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the moon-landing deniers.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
MoMan, I saw the blog entry a good half-day before the show was on. It was posted at 10:51 A.M., presumably UT so that was real early in the morning here in the US. And there have been several other blog entries which listed the date.
I saw and liked the episode. Some things could have been done better, and of course the HB’s will just say they’re part of it, especially since the build team used NASA facilities for their tests.
They missed an easy one on the vacuum chamber segment. One of the leading hoax proponents (Ralph Rene?) claimed you couldn’t move your hand in gloves in a vacuum, and built a little vacuum chamber with a rubber glove to “prove” it. The NASA chamber had a pair of spacesuit sleeves with gloves which Tori used to manipulate the “stomper”. He didn’t have any problem.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am
They mentioned a lot of unused footage (and other tests) being posted on their web site, but I didn’t see anything last night. Anyone see it?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:30 am
They did a good job of debunking the claims, but the footage of the moon landing is really not the best proof of the fact that we went there. It would have been difficult in 1969, but simulating a moon landing in a studio could probably be done. It would be difficult, but with enough resources it probably could have been done with a LOT of cutting-edge special effects, specially choreographed use of wires and air-brushing film cells to remove them etc.
The real proof is more than just the footage. It’s the optical and radar tracking of the mission, the radio signals from the moon independently verified, the laser reflector targets left behind, the fact that the landscape is a perfect match for the images the USSR took with unmanned probes, the moon rock samples and all that.
If one were to fake a moon landing I think the images would actually be comparatively easy compared to the other challenges. Especially given that the Soviets had a tendency to watch the US space program VERY carefully and would be the first to call foul on any issues at all that indicated it was a fake.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
@Gus Grissom,
I assume you are joking. The first sentence of the video in the first link you provided is simple to debunk. The color film was shot inside the capsule with a color camera, and brought back to earth for developing and processing. There was no way to broadcast that film from orbit, or from the moon. Duh.
The live video was broadcast with the available technology. The moon is in fact a long way away.
I didn’t even bother with the rest of the garbage, but if you’d like it debunked here, others would be happy to do so.
“18 astronauts allegedly go to the Moon, none see a single star?”
C’mon. This too has been thoroughly debunked. Not only on this blog, but by NASA, and many other sites on the web.
Moonmovie.com is
a piece of crapan entertainment website designed solely to sell DVDs.August 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@drbuzz0
“It would be difficult, but with enough resources it probably could have been done with a LOT of cutting-edge special effects, specially choreographed use of wires and air-brushing film cells to remove them etc.”
The problem with faking it in such a way, as the Mythbusters demonstrated, is not the movement of the person themselves, but rather the behavior of their suit and gear. There was a big difference between how the gear behaves on Earth under normal gravity, when the person is rigged to wires, and how it behaves when they’re in reduced gravity. Today, that would be doable with some computer-aided touchups, but back then…
August 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
kuhnigget Says:
Obviously haven’t seen the show, but might that not have something to do with lower frame rates on the cameras? I seem to recall that they reduced the number of frames per second in order to conserve film. That would produce faster motion, which would then have to be slowed down once the film was copied. This change would produce some jerky, unnatural motion.
Only on early missions did they use lower frame rates to conserve payload mass. (Possibly just Apollo 11, but I don’t recall exactly when they introduced the faster cameras. One of the devils of spaceflight is that you are consigned to using technology that is at least a few years old by the time you fly, because of the amount of lead-time required to get it to where you need it.) Playing 12 fps footage back at 24 fps does produce jerky, unnatural motion — a la Keystone Kops — and you can see this in Apollo 11 film footage.
Most of the “stock footage” that gets used from Apollo missions is the grainy TV footage from Apollo 11 (due to its singularly historic nature) and the higher-quality 24-fps color footage from later missions. The 12-fps Apollo 11 footage is seldom used in documentaries simply because it doesn’t look anywhere near as good.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
We all HAVE to get BA to squeeze the plans/drawings for that large LM model out of Adam. He is OUR insider - we need him!
August 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
@MDF
Didn’t Lego(tm) make a couple sets relating to the Apollo missions?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Holy cats–I didn’t know Gordon Freeman was on Mythbusters!
August 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
@ Greg:
Noo… I’m not an expert, but I would imagine that we have a lot more meteorite material from the moon than the handful of mars meteorites we have gathered. Similarly, a good reason to get our feet back on the moon (with real scientists) is to go hunting for earth meteorites (moonorites? no, metéōros as in “elevated would still work, wouldn’t it?) which has recorded parts of the history of earth that the geologically active earth has erased. (Like, possible traces of pre-”RNA world” life. Exciting!)
Of course, the best evidence for that such material emanated from the moon is likely from comparisons with the retrieved material. So as far as the Lunatics goes, you still can’t win. TANSTAAFL.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Here’s a video clip of Buzz Aldrin punching that tosser Bart Sibrel:
August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT***
A couple things that bothered me about it:
1) You don’t need two light sources in order to produce non-parallel shadows. Most single light sources, in fact, produce non-parallel shadows. In fact, in order for a light source to produce parallel shadows, it has to be sufficiently far away (like the Sun, for instance). A closer light source (like one in a studio) would produce non-parallel shadows without the need for a second light source (a second light source would produce a second set of shadows anyway…I really would be very surprised if the Moon Hoaxers really argued that there were two light sources rather than a single, nearby light source, and I really think they were attacking a straw man here).
2) The reflectors could have been placed by robots.
This may seem nit-picky, but it really surprises me that these issues weren’t brought up during production, given how detail-oriented these guys usually are.
Otherwise, it was pretty good. The last segment in the observatory was the highlight of the show by far, even though it was useless from a debunking standpoint.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I would add to the previous post (in moderation) that I’m not sure how the huge difference in escape velocity between the different bodies affect likelihoods of retrieval. The Moon itself is evidence that it is a possibility though. (Similarly there isn’t any convenient glacier “conveyor belts” as in Antarctica geography. Bummer!)
But one can hope for the best, until someone points to realistic estimates.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
For the fine job that the Mythbusters did, I noticed two misconceptions that were reinforced during the show. In the lead into the last commercial before the segment at Apache Point Observatory, a hand draws a picture of an observatory with the telescope clearly sticking out of the dome. It is a common misconception that telescopes stick out of domes, and it is reinforced by almost every movie and cartoon where telescopes are represented.
Earlier in the show, during the BF Goodrich Insider Info segment, one character looks through a telescope and clearly sees a footprint on the Moon. Of course, this would be harmless “artistic license” if it weren’t for the fact that many people do believe you could see the U.S. flag on the Moon in a large telescope.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
no more. “The BAdass-tronomer moves faster than light in his quest to apprehend knowledge” (at least over the intertubes).
August 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Trebuchet:
Furthermore, IIRC, spacesuits only need to be pressurized at 1/3 atmosphere when breathing pure oxygen.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Robotics were MUCH more primitive than we tend to remember, back in the sixties.
I’ve seen the suggestion about the robotic placement of the Apollo mirrors before. I believe that the Russians sent three robotic probes to place similar reflectors, and I believe 2 of them failed to place them properly — a 66 percent failure rate.
In the meantime, those placed by humans, who could adapt to the conditions they found there, are used to this day, and did not have such a high failure rate. In fact, I believe their failure rate was zero.
The American state of robotics was not more advanced than the Soviet’s at the time. We also have no evidence any American robots designed to do this job ever existed. We do have evidence that photoreflectors designed to be placed by humans DID and DO exist.
So, I don’t think the photoreflector argument is useless at all. It just adds to the ENORMOUS body of evidence that humans did, in fact, go to the Moon.
Jonathan
August 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
@Todd W.
Indeed, they did: http://tinyurl.com/6y5fjx
August 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
drbuzz0:
That’s exactly what I said to one Moon Hoax conspiracy theorist, and the silly bugger replied: “The Russians were bought off [by the USA] with grain shipments to keep them silent!”
*Sigh*
August 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I just finished watching it! (Yea… That means I downloaded it. But know what? Blame Discovery Canada for not airing new Mythbusters on the same time. What was I gonna do, wait 6 months to see it and miss out?)
It was AWESOME. Their evidence was pretty conclusive, and I loved their mini replica of the moon surface!
I would… I would do many things just to get my hands on that awesome lander replica. I had stars in my eyes when I seen it!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Getting punched in the face is the best thing Bart Sibrel ever put on film.
Aside from that - the show was great, but way too rushed. They definitely should have made this a two parter. There’s way too much ground to cover to squeeze it into 45 minutes. And I would have loved to see more of it. Hopefully they’ll revisit it again sometime.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@FPS
Not a big deal, but referring to your point #1, I’ve seen MANY hoaxer videos claiming that the shadows in footage could *only* be explained by multiple light sources, and using that to “prove” it wasn’t actually on the moon… so regardless of the validity, I would not say it was at all a straw man.
Just for comedic value, here’s a great quote from the intellectual bastion that is youtube:
“As the Sun shines the Moon gets it light from the Sun and reflects it to Earth, just as Christians get their light from the Sun (Son) Jesus and reflect it outward. It’s an Abomination that Masonic Man stepped foot on the Moon.
Did God allow this blasphemy? Of Man landing on the Moon?
Or was it a fake! A HOAX performed by a secret Illuminati/Masonic cabal? An elaborate hoax to boast the false glory of man, and blaspheme against God. ”
August 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@Torbjörn Larsson, OM,
You said, “Noo… I’m not an expert, but I would imagine that we have a lot more meteorite material from the moon than the handful of mars meteorites we have gathered.”
You could be correct. But what do lunar rocks fallen to earth as meteorites have to do with putting footprints in the dust on the moon?
I wonder if you sanded off 10 pounds of dust from a moon rock here on earth that it would somehow look exactly like the dust on the surface of the moon, formed by millions of years of impacts in an airless, low-gravity environment? The chemical composition would be the same, but I seriously doubt that powdered meteorite would behave the same.
Besides, who would donate their rare moon rock to be ground into dust for an episode of the Mythbusters?
August 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
@Greg
I would imagine that grinding up a moon rock here would result in incorrect particle shapes much more akin to sand than to the regolith on the moon (i.e., smoother surfaces rather than jagged).
August 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@Will - that pretty much says it all right there, doesn’t it?
JC
August 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The Bad Astronomer said:
> They tackle several of the biggies, including why shadows on the Moon appear to be non-parallel. To my great surprise, they came to a somewhat different conclusion than I usually claim for this. I will have to amend my own discussion of this when I give my Moon Hoax talk. Seriously. Nice work on the MB team’s part!
That the uneven ground? That was previously pointed out on Ian Goddard’s excellent photo examination site, http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm . Strange that you are unaware of it, since it’s linked off your Moon Hoax links page, and was discussed numerous times after the Fox special came out.
Speaking of which, Adam makes the point of stating that no one has ever tested the Moon Hoax claims before, but that is just wrong. Not only is there the body of explanation available at Bad Astronomy and Clavius, but there are Ian Goddards photos (linked above), and the National Geographic Channel special (that Jay Windley was in) - both of which specifically address Moon Hoax claims and test them.
> They seemed to focus on the flag continuing to move after an astronaut stops manipulating the flagpole into the lunar surface, whereas the Hoax goofballs always seem to be complaining that the flag is moving at all, even when the astronaut still had his hands on the flagpole.
They did specifically state they were taking the best claims. Given the obviousness of the flag moving when the astronaut is touching the pole, it would make sense to address the more sensible claim that it moves after the astronaut lets go. However, I don’t recall them explicitly limiting the explanation to after the astronaut lets go. They did show the flag move for longer after they stopped wiggling the pole, but they also showed the higher flapping while doing the wiggling.
>The Mythbusters did a fine job going through this argument and their experiment was not only well executed but Jamie made an excellent observation during that part. I won’t reveal what they found, but keep your ears open for his comment there.
Was that his comment that Adam was a big baby?
August 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
kuhnigget said:
>
> Obviously haven’t seen the show, but might that not have something to do with lower frame rates on the cameras? I seem to recall that they reduced the number of frames per second in order to conserve film. That would produce faster motion, which would then have to be slowed down once the film was copied. This change would produce some jerky, unnatural motion.
Perhaps true, but irrelevant. The standard Hoax Proponent claim is that by filming with high speed cameras and then slowing them down, the light, floating appearance of the astronauts is generated. And/or use wires to support the astronaut/suit weight.
Ray said:
> The only place I had a problem with was the laser reflectors. They could have been emplaced by an automated lander rather than a person. So that one was 50/50. They could have mentioned that.
Actually, they were very careful to state that the reflectors do not prove the people went, but having reflectors where NASA claims people went and put them is still pretty solid. So yes, they recognize the reflectors are not proof positive, because of the alternate robotic claims. Which is unlike the National Geographic show which relied on the retroreflectors as solid proof.
Todd W. said:
> Maybe I missed it, but he boot print in a vacuum bit, did they not show any test of the boot in regolith not in a vacuum? I saw the boot in the wet/dry sand, but not in regolith with an atmosphere.
I don’t think they did, and that’s a shame, because I thought the bootprint was the weakest evidence they had. Yes, there was something like a print, but not to the level of sharpness that the Apollo print has. A mix of regolith sand and fine dust would have been much better.
BethK said:
> Conspiracy theorists could say that the “moon dust” provided by NASA was their special creation that worked at leaving distinct footprints. No one else has been able to go fetch “moon dust” and bring it back. How do we know it wasn’t engineered here on Earth? Actually, what they used was engineered substitute moon dust.
Except that the Soviets sent robotic probes that collected a small amount of rock and dirt, so it’s not true that no one else has been able to go fetch some. And samples have been submitted to geologists around the world to study, so if NASA cooked up something in a lab, they had to convince geologists from around the world that it was real.
Murff said:
> I looked at it from a “Hoax Believer” standpoint, and everything they did could easily be refuted
Only by changing the original claim. Remember, the Mythbusters started with HB claims and demonstrated those claims faulty.
kroosing 2 ‘42′ via ‘37′ said:
> All those fine, astronomical linguists here! What do you think of:
> Regh-o-lith = English (UK and other English speaking areas)
> Reegh-o-lith = Texan
>Or is this too much of a conjecture?
Way too much of a conjecture. Texans don’t say “ree go lith”. And it’s in direct contradiction to:
Thanny said:
> Ree-go-lith is just as correct as reg-o-lith. Perhaps more so, since it’s easier to say to native English speakers, which is the last word on pronunciation of any word.
Funny, last time I checked, I was a native English speaker, and ree go lith is no easier to say than reg o lith. Are you prehaps trying to refer to Brits?
August 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Gus Grissom said:…
Wow, it took 111 posts before a hoax believer showed up.
>here is footage of the Apollo 11 crew faking part of
their alleged mission to the Moon back
in 1969… Enjoy!
You’re talking about Bart Sibrel’s ridiculous claims about finding proof of a hoax. Sibrel is a liar and a jerk. Many of his claims are addressed here, including the one that he found secret video of the astronauts setting up to fake a film.
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
Jay Windley has written much more about this on the BAUT Forum under the Conspiracy Theories forum. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/
In brief, the video in question is commercially available from Spacecraft Films. It was never secret or unaired. Sibrel sells his video highly edited and with voiceover to “explain” what is going on. His explanation is faulty, and propoganda. The actual film shows the crew practicing focusing out the window from across the capsule. The “frame” Sibrel is all excited about is one of the crew members’ arms.
> we can only go 300-400 miles into space in manned
exploration CURRENTLY!
How are we supposed to believe that we could
have sent men 239,000 miles to the Moon and back 40 years
ago, and with less technology than a ‘Gameboy?’(What
technology was 60000% better 40 years ago than
currently?) Doesn’t that strike you as illogical?
What is “logical” or “illogical” is irrelevant. Learn the facts. The Apollo missions has as the predominant and driving feature the politics of the 1960’s and the desire to beat the Soviets. It was a hugely political agenda that allowed the level of funding and effort to make it happen. And once it occurred, the political will had largely dried up for several reasons, primarily including “we already beat them, why do we have to go back?”. Without the national political will, the funding went away. NASA changed focus, the money wasn’t there, and low Earth orbit (LEO) became the planned destination. With LEO as the goal for the reasonable future, NASA focused on vehicles to get there, not to the Moon. Ergo, the Shuttle was designed and built with a limited destination.
Sort of like designing your automobile to get you across the USA, but to go to Europe you need a ship or a plane. Complaining that we don’t have the ability to go to the Moon is like complaining that you can’t drive to France from Baltimore.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
regarding the flag, I never see anyone mention the fact that the flags had wires woven into them to make them stay out (that’s why they were rippled, the wires still retained some of the curves from having been rolled up).
So, couldn’t the wires cause some “springiness” that would cause the movements to be amplified, and to continue after the hand is no longer touching the pole?
August 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I just noticed that the episode is on alt.binaries.multimedia.
Just noticed, that’s all.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Noooooooo!!!!!! I got so caught up in the excitement of this episode, I completely forgot to check if it would be aired in Canada too! I counted down for MONTHS, I got all my friends hyped up, I even spent the day at the planetarium to warm up the astronomy part of my brain… Only to find that not only did it not air last night, but there’s no news of when it’s going to be aired in Canada, AT ALL.
What a disappointment!!!!!!!!!!
*fail*
August 28th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“…Wow… Not wow for the show, but wow that Adam would ever read this post without sighing and rolling his eyes, and not in a good way. If I did all this work only to have someone complain about pronunciation and a stripe I’m sure I’d have the same reaction.”
You clearly didn’t hear Adams talk at TAM6 this year.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I may have found the model Adam made.
After a brief Google search and comparing the sheets seen in the build sequence in the episode, (you can see b/w copies of what I think is ‘Sheet A’ and the second sheet of building instructions at roughly the 12 minute mark), I will tentatively say it’s a scaled up version of this paper model:
http://udonfact.hp.infoseek.co.jp/paper/down/lmdown.html
August 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I just watched the episode and completely loved it.
I did, however, have an argument with my roommate about it. She’s been of the opinion that the quality and appeal of Mythbusters has steadily gone downhill as their budget and production values have gone up, and that they’ve busted all myths worth their attention. I happen to disagree, and mostly we just choose to disagree and I watch Mythbusters on DVR when she isn’t around. She came throughthe living room and caught five minutes of the show when I watched my recorded copy, and in her opinion, it’s a pointless waste of time to give attention to the hoax at all. That there’s no reason why anyone should attempt to debunk it. I could have gotten into a debate about just why I have come to think as you do, Phil, regarding whether or not hoaxers and conspiracy theorists should be given the attention to debunk their claims, but tempers are already high due to bad days and high temperatures. (Sonoma County in August with no air conditioning. Ugh.) I didn’t realize that someone I am in close proximity with could have that opinion that hoaxers need to be ignored because otherwise we’re stooping to their level, and that no one sensible would ever believe them anyway.
It gave a sour note to an otherwise very enjoyable episode.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I bet they would at least give you the smaller lunar lander, have you actually asked them?
August 28th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I saw the episode. It was well-done. I liked the part with the laser reflectors, although I admit the possibility they could have been planted there by remote.
For the guy abusing Gus Grissolm’s name:
We went to the moon. The Russians sent remote packages to the moon, including a rover vehicle. It happened. Get used to the idea.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
@Gus Grissom
Regarding the no stars bit, see this link:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars
August 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
@Wendy: Discovery Canada is pretty lousy. They’ll air it… SOMEDAY. They’re just rerunning old episodes of the last season over and over until they finally get to air the new stuff.
I dunno what’s wrong with them. That’s why I download my Mythbusters :\
August 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I know how they faked the whole thing. They put a giant vacuum chamber in one of the zero-G planes and filmed it in lots of little 30-second snips at 1/6 g and then spliced it all together. The inside of the plane was painted green so they could CGI in the backgrounds.
Huh, what do you mean, they didn’t have CGI in 1969? Well, they could have broken the film down frame by frame and photoshopped in the backgrounds and then re-assembled it. Where do you think all those Korean animators got their start? And didn’t you ever notice that all the astronauts have blue hair, yellow skin and 3 fingers? D’oh!
August 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
DLC Says: “For the guy abusing Gus Grissom’s name:
We went to the moon. The Russians sent remote packages to the moon, including a rover vehicle. It happened. Get used to the idea.”
I, too, want to voice my displeasure over having an MHB abusing the name of one of the original Mercury 7. Those that know me know that I don’t offend easily (comes from being a Libertarian, I guess), but this was more than enough to rate ire.
I actually watched the main piece of “evidence” on the linked video. I can’t voice my disgust firmly enough and still have this post pass Phil’s anti-obscenity test. I have a policy of not engaging these people directly, it only drags you down to their level. I stopped laughing at the “The image of the Earth is really the window frame” after they’d hammered on it for three minutes (if that were really just a window shot of the ground from LEO, then why could you see all of Africa, and why wasn’t it passing by the window horizontally?). Dang, I just violated my own rule!
In addition to quote mining, that video was guilty of something called “statistical masturbation.” You manipulate things enough to make you feel good, but it has no use for its intended purpose.
- Jack
August 29th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Saw the show last night and loved it. I kept trying to think of things the hoaxers would say to rebutt the proof MB was showing. They went to NASA,of course, who were in on the original conspiracy: and used their ‘dust’. Of course a special flag had to be made… This all goes right back to what Phil says about the moon landing: The moon is NOT Earth. Things are different. If a normal flag was set up there it wouldn’t stick straight out, it would flop down completely, since there is no wind. So the horizontal bar was needed, obviously. This is what makes the flag look ‘fake’, as if the whole thing were faked? It seems their arguments are actually disproving their ridiculous claims. Thanks Phil, and thanks to the MB guys and gal!
August 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Relevant link. For those who haven’t seen the show anyways…
August 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
lars bruchmann said:
> Of course a special flag had to be made…
The flag was a commercial nylon flag bought from a store and then modified by putting the sleeve at the top for the rod.
> If a normal flag was set up there it wouldn’t stick straight out, it would flop down completely, since there is no wind. So the horizontal bar was needed, obviously. This is what makes the flag look ‘fake’, as if the whole thing were faked? It seems their arguments are actually disproving their ridiculous claims.
To be fair, only the really brain dead HB’s use the extended flag as a proof of air. Most are sensible enough to know about the rod. What many latch on to are the flags flapping in the video, not extended in the still photos.
Pro Libertate said:
> They mentioned a lot of unused footage (and other tests) being posted on their web site, but I didn’t see anything last night. Anyone see it?
No. I went looking for it, and found just about everything else, including some really annoying commercials for a dusting product by an annoying guy with some sort of house program. They seem to have changed the website lately, and made things impossible to find - like specific segments of extras. I now rewatched several bits I saw after their programs aired, but still haven’t found the moon hoax extras.
FPS said:
> I really would be very surprised if the Moon Hoaxers really argued that there were two light sources rather than a single, nearby light source, and I really think they were attacking a straw man here).
You obviously haven’t spent any time reading Moon Hoax Believer claims. Trust me, they explicitly state “multiple light sources”. Some of the claims have to do with apparently converging shadows, some with shadows from people next to each others appearing to behave differently. All of them are explained by simple photographic realities such as uneven terrain.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
DrBuzzo
But, don’t you see? The conspiracy goes far beyond a NASA coverup! The entire “cold war” never existed, and was just a part of the conspiracy!
August 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@ Greg:
Not much. Or it could possibly be used to shore up disbelief, such as in “we know where those supposedly transported rocks came from, and there wasn’t no astronaut needed”. :-\
Yes, I’m pretty sure that it is hard to impossible to recreate the microstructure (and microchemistry) of such dust. For another data point here, see the current trouble to understand and recreate the Mars dust behavior Phoenix sees.
Possibly Phil. Seems he would do anything to get his hands on Adam’s Lunar Module model.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Duh, they didn’t have photoshop programs either.
LOL! Statistical masturbation in a statistical population seems fruitless, yes.
@IVAN3MAN:
At least you can take hearth in that he used the least possible denialist effort. He could have denied the cold war, or Soviet, or even the whole Asian continent for that matter!
August 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I just watched the Myth Busters Moon Hoax show and I have to say, major win. If I had any niggling scary little evil doubt in the back of my mind about whether it might be a hoax, I sure don’t now. To see it first hand solidified the arguments in my mind, and the experiments were pretty comprehensive. T’was just awesome. The best part is the Myth Busters is a pretty popular show world wide now, (it is in Australia) so heaps of people are going to get to see it. Die FOX.
jks
August 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
@Murff: I love that dress! Not only the dress but the stripy gloves and the great boots she wore with the dress. I had a hard time following that segment because I kept thinking, “I want that outfit. How do I get that outfit now that it’s been on television? Everyone will know I’m copying Kari. Damn that Kari! Maybe not everyone watches Mythbusters and only a couple of people will know… no, can’t do it. Damn her!” And then, “She just pulled a file out of her glove! I love her again!”
August 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Torbjorn (don’t know how to do the umlaut), I thought the “D’oh!” was an adequate substitute for a smiley. Then after I posted, it suddenly struck me that some HBer will pic