E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'Mythbusters to Address the Moon Landing' to a friend
Loading ...
18 comments to "Mythbusters to Address the Moon Landing"
-
Finally
March 12th, 2008 at
11:47 am
If Phil Plait is involved then there’s a good chance that the Moon-landing hoax theories will be thoroughly busted, given his track record on such matters. Not that this is a bad thing. Maybe we will finally see reduction in sales of tin-foil hats.
-
Sofar
March 12th, 2008 at
12:10 pm
Dude, I love Phil Plait.
I’ve always said, if you look at the footage you’ll notice there are no stars in the background. This is because the lunar surface was far too bright, if the exposure on each frame was long enough for the stars to be visible everything else would be washed out. It’s nearly impossible to get stars to show up in a film photograph even without something really bright also in the picture. Now if it were done on a soundstage wouldn’t they have said to themselves, “It won’t look real without stars. Let’s paint some stars in the background.” There’s also the matter of the artifacts from the color television camera they used, which in order to save space and electricity was just a monochrome television camera with a spinning disc in front of the lens with red green and blue filters. If any of the astronauts move too quickly in the color broadcast footage you’ll notice they leave a colorful trail behind them, because they appear in a different place on each of the three monochrome frames that make up on color frame. Why the Hell would they have used a cheap, space-saving camera if it were filmed on a soundstage? God, all these idiots can blow me.
-
Sid Morrison
March 12th, 2008 at
12:59 pm
Certainly the moon landings were real, but there is something that bugs this engineer when I watch Mythbusters…
If they can’t duplicate some claimed results in an afternooon of sometimes shoddy experiments, they declare a Myth “busted”. Obviously, they have to dumb down and speed up the action for modern American ADHD society, but I get the impression Jamie & Adam would have “busted” Bell’s telephone, Edison’s incandescent bulb, and the Wrights’ airplane too.
I have a lot more confidence in their results when they are able to “confirm” myths or declare them “plausible” at least. The burden of proof to declare something “busted” is often a whole lot higher than they admit on the show.
-
Justin
March 12th, 2008 at
1:00 pm
No matter how many times this gets busted the tin foil hat people will refuse to listen to reason. People love conspiracy theories too much.
-
Sofar
March 12th, 2008 at
1:17 pm
@Sid: The episodes take at least a month to film, but I see what you mean. Still entertaining, though. I’m rather interested to see how they’re going to do this one, something like The Lunar Landing might be difficult to address via their unique interpretation of the scientific process, generally they to only need prove if something is possible, in this case they have to prove an event actually occured.
-
j.e.k
March 12th, 2008 at
1:44 pm
Not that I agree with the moon hoax theory, but “Mythbusters” is a sensationalist sham, and anything but its name
-
Christophe
March 12th, 2008 at
2:55 pm
All I know from the moon is that Buzz Aldrin has a good punch :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo
Yay Buzz, show them what you got! -
VonSkippy
March 12th, 2008 at
3:12 pm
The “Myth” in “Mythbusters” is that the show has anything to do with real science or engineering.
Most of their “myths” can be solved with pencil and paper an basic physic/math skills.
It’s way closer to “professional” wrestling then “Bill Nye the Science Guy”.
Entertaining, yes - but Science, only by happenstance.
-
Christophe
March 12th, 2008 at
3:25 pm
Funny, a friend just sent me an email about Andy Kaufman…
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there’s nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool -
Tony LaRocca
March 12th, 2008 at
3:52 pm
I don’t think this sort of thing will change anyone’s mind either way. It’s like the 9/11 conspiracy theories: one group will always insist their reams of evidence are more real than their opponents’.
-
emptyminded
March 12th, 2008 at
4:25 pm
Personally I think the Mythbuster’s are great. I always have to agree with Jayme that anyday where Adam get’s hurt (and I get to watch it) is a good day. After first watching the show I had a new definition for my dream job. In fact, if I had birth control eyeglasses, I would be the twin of Adam.
-
Simon
March 12th, 2008 at
4:47 pm
^- Birth control eyeglasses? o_O
The Mythbusters themselves have come out and acknowledged that the show isn’t as scientifically rigorous as they’d like it to be, and they often feel uncomfortable declaring things busted based on the limited dataset that they have. However, ’science’ is not the point of the show. It can’t be; if it were, it’d be boring, or hosted by a smarmy idiot like Jay Ingram (God, I hate that guy). Instead, they’re not (exactly) trying to educate, they’re trying inspire, and get people to ask questions and challenge their basic assumptions. And then blow some stuff up. I think they do a great job, especially since they *don’t* fudge their results, and *don’t* hyper-sensationalise the material like other pseudo-science shows, and the hosts are real, believable, *honest* people.
-
ted
March 12th, 2008 at
7:05 pm
I like how they blow most of the stuff up at the end. Can’t wait to see how they blow up the moon.
-
roger
March 12th, 2008 at
8:48 pm
I love Mythbusters, but I have to agree here w/ Sid Morrison and Von Skippy. Whenever I watch the show I think “would it have killed them to hire an engineer or scientist as a consultant?”. I know scientific rigor isn’t the purpose of the show, but Adam regularly throws the word “science” around and jokes about “science in progress”. They often tackle very interesting myths, and miss out on great opportunities to make science and engineering interesting to the general public because they lack basic scientific literacy to do so.
-
Sid Morrison
March 13th, 2008 at
8:15 am
Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I *do* generally enjoy the show — some of their eager conclusions just make me cringe, though.
My wife (with a Masters in engineering) absolutely *hates* “Mythbusters” (on account of their weak design of experiments), so I have to sneak it when she’s not around.
Obviously, they are pretty intelligent/clever and at least the show encourages some creative thought (unlike most of what’s on the tube), so I give them a lot more leeway than she does.
It’s an aside, but has anyone ever noticed that when a new “educational” cable network comes out, the initial offerings are pretty educational, but within a couple of years get really dumbed down? I remember when TLC was actually about *learning*, A&E had “Biography” shows that were about people of history (rather than Jessica Simpson), and “The History Channel” had real sensible documentaries, rather than lots of UFO and Supernatural coverage. Sigh…
-
emptyminded
March 13th, 2008 at
12:07 pm
Birth control eyeglasses - Back in the day when you needed eyeglasses and were in the military, the government would issue you a pair for free. However, they had thick, black plastic frames and very little style. This type of frame was referred to as ‘birth control eyeglasses’ because there was no way you could ever, ever pick up a girl while wearing your eyeglasses.
-
Orjans Morjan
March 14th, 2008 at
12:05 pm
Ever greater myths eh?
What will top this?What’s that? Some kind of old book, eh?
-
sparticus
August 28th, 2008 at
1:43 am
Some of you people are just plain stupid. Roger,you said, would it have killed them to hire an engineer? What would they need an engineer for? they are engineers! Name one thing they didnt engineer or build themselves? And you fools that don’t like the show, don’t watch it then. Go watch the simpsons or some other worthless show!
PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT
-
Your purchase helps support the blog - Thank you!
