For preview only. Get it at

MythBusters: Moon Landing Wasn't a Hoax

2008, Conspiracy  -   394 Comments
Ratings: 5.66/10 from 67 users.

The MythBusters chose Marshall as one of several NASA locations for an episode to debunk the notion that NASA never landed on the moon.

The cast conducted tests involving a feather, a weight, a lunar soil boot print, and a flag in a vacuum. A team of Marshall scientists helped with the tests.

The MythBusters built a small scale replica of the lunar landing site with a flat surface and a single distant spotlight to represent the Sun. They took a photo and all the shadows in the photo were parallel, as the myth proposed.

They then adjusted the topography of the model surface to include a slight hill around the location of the near rocks so the shadows fell on a slope instead of a flat surface. The resulting photograph had the same shadow directions as the original NASA photograph from Apollo 14.

To test this, they built a much larger scale (1:6) replica of the landing site, including a dust surface with a color and albedo similar to lunar soil.

The MythBusters then took a photograph which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo from Apollo 11. The MythBusters explained that the astronaut was visible because of light being reflected off the Moon's surface.

More great documentaries

394 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Reading the comments on this blog post, it is easier for me (not more satisfying, but easier) to understand how an abomination like Trump could get proposed, nominated and elected to our nation's highest office, and have so many people think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    1. As opposed to the ones on the left that think it's scientifically possible to magically change their biology from male to female or female to male. More than half of the moon conspiracy people are demographically registered democrats, so suck it.

  2. I have been following the moon conspiracy for a while. mostly because I have a few friends and family that still don't believe it happened. There is a huge amount of evidence that we went to the moon. thousands of photos 835lbs of moon rock and dust (11.5 oz recovered by Russian probes) not to mention that 500+ thousand people participated in the feat. but for me what convinced me was the science, and the american propensity to do crazy things. first the science. I have done the math for the orbital mechanics of the mission. It worked out perfectly, with the equipment we had and the size of rocket we used and the velocities claimed it would have worked mechanically. When people do the rough calculations such as had been done here in this forum they forget to account for gravity. when you compensate for the accumulation of gravity's effect on the spacecraft you will see that the velocities line up (the assumption that space has no gravity is incorrect). It is complicated but doable. Plus Russia landed a remote controlled robot on the moon shortly after we landed. Japan did a low orbital flyby and took pictures of the lunar landing site etc. etc. next there is the rocket... that monster had plenty of power to go to the moon. it also had one of the most reliable engines ever developed, a true engineering marvel.
    The flight computer paved the way for the modern computer systems and had about the same power as a Apple IIe it also was surprisingly small and in fact the miniaturization of computer systems can thank the Apollo project for the push in that direction. one can download the operation manual for the flight computer from nasa. its interesting stuff. so establishing that we could technically go to the moon brings us to the next part... would we... if I told an astronaut or say a cowboy that I could send him to the moon and he might die but it would be a hell of a ride would he do it? yep no question. many have brought up the Van Allen belts. Yes the are rings of energized particles trapped in the earths magnetic field. no they are not equivalent to putting your hand in the microwave. In fact the Apollo missions flight path took them outside the inner and hottest ring, and the total radiation exposure to an astronaut was at most 1.14 Rads, in contrast a radiation worker can be exposed up to 5 Rem per year (technically equivalent to 5 rad with biological compensations). So people here on earth are exposed to more radiation in some jobs then the astronauts were. So being that there was no real reason that we couldn't go to the moon I am going to say that we did. If NASA wanted to strap my lucky self to a Saturn rocket and light the fuse? I would go in a heartbeat. next we have the evidence. most peoples misunderstanding about astrophysics leads to all of the questioning of the little details of the pictures, and has been very thoroughly refuted. Mythbusters did some good ones. arguments on heat dissipation, people thinking that space is cold, it really is just from a lack of knowledge on the part of most people today. instead of concentrating on the things that people think are fake, how about the phenomena that would be very difficult to fake. such as the ballistic trajectory that the dust makes when astronauts are walking or driving the rover? the only way to do what they show on the camera is to have no atmosphere. nasa did have a vacuum vessel big enough to set up a stage where people could walk and show the dust behaving that way but they could not have done that with the rover. There is clear footage of dust behaving very much like dust shouldn't on earth. and we still don't have a vacuum chamber big enough to do that. the largest being the NASA's power space facility with a diameter of 100 feet completed in 1969. would the governmet fake this? maybe the first thought might have been in that direction. could they have faked it? not even close. it is ironic that we had the technology to split an atom, and to actually go to the moon, but did not have the technology to fake the moon landing. even today with all of our technology it would be very difficult if not impossible. sure we can make an astronaut appear to be walking on the moon. But the devil is in the details, and eventually the details tell the true story.

  3. No depression from the modules engine on landing no dust on the modules legs caused by the dust after landing, no oxygen to allow the jet engines to work. YOU really are living in fairy land trying to sell this crap to the people.

  4. So why didn't they fake a mars mission? ...

  5. To fake the moon landing US had to make as real as possible. So they spent some time and money from 1960 to 1969 to get ready. That was enough time to run as many fake moon landings as they needed to sort out as many anomalies as they can before the actual launch date. The idea was to launch the rocket around earths orbit and orbit until it was time to come back to earth and never actually going to the moon. While NASA was busy playing the fake videos of the landing to people. Since Russians were so behind from making good realistic movies that some even got fooled until some started asking questions if it was even possible to land on the moon and safely return to earth with 1969's technology. Not possible at all. Trust me! Even if it was possible they should have been failures but sending that many flights to the moon there was no life that was lost. Also JFK said before the decade was over US was going to land on the moon. Well since they noticed this was not possible and wanted to make the people of US to trust the country and JFK they said if we can't make it let's fake it!

    I do not know exactly how they made the fake landing but it may have been special made vacuum stage that whole film and acting was done. So the flag waving can be because they are in the vacuum stage not the wind blowing. I'm sure the film makers will have caught the flag moving anomaly because it's so obvious. So they are on the earth in a vacuum stage to make it as real as possible. So we have to go based on facts and logic to see what parts actually makes the moon landing impossible in 1969.

    1. There was lot of unknowns and it was impossible to get everything right because one little mistake or if one thing was off the whole mission would have failed. Now go back and see the history of all failed rockets and calculations. You really think they could have done that without any errors? Do you know how difficult if not impossible with 1969 technology to land on the moon and then go up and connect to the main rocket to shoot back to earth? Even with today's technology that's still very difficult and maybe even impossible. There is no room to make a mistake and we all know we are not perfect and no matter how much there still something we may have missed. We are not all knowing. There are so much that we do not know and you think we are going to go to the moon and comer back safe??? I was always doubting the flight moon because of the logic and physics behind it. I even ask my Dad who is physics graduate and he said I don't think so it's possible. But hey good video can fool most people seems like even the smart people. This is why it's important to be wise and not just smart. You can fool a smart person but not wise.

    Anyway there are also the radiation in space going to the moon that would have made or killed the astronauts. If moon landing was possible Russia will have done it also. They were more advanced in space race than USA but guess what? USA does what it does best and that is making movies and we noticed the power of hollywood back in 1969. This should make us stronger and wiser to question and use common sense and logic before believing videos that someone just presents us.

    Sorry for the long type but if you read all what I typed I appreciate and tank you for your time.

    We should grow in Truth and not lies because it's the Truth that will set us free!

  6. Nothing living can pass thru the Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the earth and survive, even NASA has confirmed this.

  7. Beyond all the scientific argument we live in a world where great horrors and feats claimed are greatly flawed, deceptive, challenged and troves of information missing in the dark history of the USA. A few examples being the assassination of JFK, Peal harbour, The Vietnam war (Exposed as a complete LIE thanks to heroic Danile Ellsberg ),911, the Iraqi war and on and on. Tell me why anyone should believe anything claimed by the US when they have not owned up to any misrepresentation or challenge even from its own people. They crate lie upon lie. One fall guy for an atrocity by the entire government as with Nixon. I cannot look into a pile of sewerage and spot the tiny gem of truth when most of what is claimed by them is an all out lie. I do not even care to try and investigate. Well done Mythbusters on landing yet another piece of infotainment. I hope you get to buy lots of new toys with the proceeds but I cannot give your dabbling,s any credit.

  8. Like most people, including I presume those on this blog, I've spent most of my life just trying to get through. In the last couple of years I've finally had a chance to put my head above the parapet and look at what has really going on in the world. The simple but devastating fact I've discovered is that everything I've ever believed of any moment about the world has proved to have been a lie. I was 12 in 1969 and the moon landings have held a powerful hypnotic sway over me. However, even as I have dismantled one former untruthful paradigm after another, I continued to cling to the idea that talk of the moon landings being a hoax simply not credible and not worth even taking time to investigate. How after all could a man like Neil Armstrong, who was such a hero to me, be involved in such perfidy? Impossible I thought.

    But alas, the evidence is all too real. If it wasn't before it shoudl have been clear to us all by 2001 and Bart Sibrel's film 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'. Apart from all the other evidence which the Mythbuster JERKS ignore, Sibrel's film includes a sequence which was apparently mistakenly sent to him (or sent deliberately by someone trying to get the truth out) that irrefutably demonstrates Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins ingeniously fabricating an impression of the earth from their window to create the impression they are much further from it than they were. The end of the fabrication, which includes damning audio as well, clearly shows them to be in low earth orbit.

    The hoariest old chestnut - which those other jerks Penn and Teller would have us believe is that there were simply too many people involved to have kept it quiet. that flies in the face of how we know such conspiracies can be made to work. Most of the people involved were specialists in particular areas - only a few have to know the whole picture and those that do know can be kept silent by many methods.

    At least it can be said that those in the know probably felt it was imperative in order to defeat the Soviet Union but that doesn't mean it wasn't a lie nonetheless. It is really disappointing to learn that Neil Armstrong is actually more like his namesake Lance Armstrong, but the evidence of fraud is simply irrefutable. All one has to do is really look and see, and not be afraid.

  9. Prior to reading this website I had a great deal of respect for the Mythbusters. Unfortunately, both the original moon landing footage and the explanations proposed are not relevant and prove nothing. Due to a host of scientific factors, we still cannot land a human on the moon safely today and this is why in the modern era no one has attempted it. I think the general public are not aware that the ISS is 300 odd Km from earth and the moon is 1000 times this distance!! The radiation belts are also ignored as well as many physics principles that clearly show a human will not survive. The matter is easily solved. We don’t even need to go to the moon. Just send a human outside the radiation zone and bring them back. Any volunteers?

  10. Let's just see a picture of the flag through a telescope. I find it odd in all these years that no one has ever reported spotting it certainly someone must have attempted to find the flag.

  11. The space around the Moon is a total vacuum. In a vacuum, the so-called air-conditioning units worn as "backpacks" by the Astro-NOTS had NO WAY TO CONDUCT THE HEAT AWAY. Remember, the radiated surface heat of an object in direct sunlight on the surface of the Moon is 265 to 300 degrees F. A vacuum
    is a PERFECT INSULATOR. Heat (molecular motion)
    must be conducted by molecular motion, transferred from one medium to another medium, for heating or cooling of any kind to be effected.
    An example is the familiar automobile cooling system:
    The heat generated within the engine is conducted into water circulating within the engine block;
    The hot water is pumped from the engine block, into the radiator;
    The heat from the water is conducted into the coils and fins of the radiator;
    The heat (molecular motion) is transferred to the air passing over coils and fins;
    The heat LEAVES the engine in form of heated air moving into the outside atmosphere;
    The water, now holding less heat (cooler) is returned back into the engine block;
    The cycle is continuous, repeating transfer of heat from the engine block to the outside air.
    If the automobile radiator was placed in a vacuum chamber, no convection couldtake place from the fins to the air (because there would be no air molecules to EFFECT A TRANSFER of heat away from the radiator); the heat would keep increasing, until the entire water system boiled away, then engine heat would keep rising until the engine self destructed, burning itself up.
    On the "Moon", the entire CLOSED SYSTEM of the "air-conditioning
    backpack" and the Astro-NOT inside the suit, were ALL "WITHIN A
    TOTAL, COMPLETE VACCUUM". They would have cooked like a burritos in a microwave oven! . WHERE DID THE HEAT GO, NASA?
    (Or has NASA discovered a NEW PHYSICAL LAW of thermodynamics, and just forgot to tell the rest of the world?)
    Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter. The faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower the molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that point where all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold molecules must be present.
    A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known to us. There are so
    few molecules present in most areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.

    1. first off the surface of the moon is not a total vacuum. but it is almost one so i will give you convection is basically non existent. but what about thermal radiation and conduction?

    2. Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect the vacuum. Radiant heat from the
      sun travels through the vacuum of space but does not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has no affect whatsoever until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will increase in direct proportion to the radiant energy which is absorbed by matter. The time it takes to heat matter exposed to direct sunlight in space is determined by its color, its elemental properties, its distance from the sun, and its rate of absorption of radiant heat energy.
      Space is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold.

      Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.

    3. The race to the Moon was USA v USSR - If the Soviets had the slightest Idea that the U.S. Moon landing was a hoax, they would have screamed It from the rooftops! People like you Insult the brave men who sat In a tin-can atop a huge missile with perhaps a 5% chance of total success - but they did It,AND they succeeded! It would be practically Impossible to fake a Moon landing even with TODAYS Technology - In the 1960's,such a scheme would not have been possible - and even If It HAD been possible,the (Dollar) cost would have been more than the real thing! If the 'Hoax theorists' put their time and brain-power Into practical research Instead of this bullshit,we'd have cured cancer by now! Not only are you throwing away valuable 'Brain-power' and countless 'man-hours' which could be spent far more profitably,you are holding back the advancement of the entire Human race with your silly 'theories' and pointless arguments.Get a life.

    4. your analogy is flawed. the backpacks work by the evaporation of water from the backpacks carrying the energy away with them. much like why mammals sweat as well as use blood-air radiation

  12. It's not that they didn't conclusively bust the myth, it's that they proved you wrong and you won't have it. It's a simple fact that the 20% of Americans who say we didn't go to the moon are wrong. "We didn't have the technology." We had rockets, aim and shoot. That simple.

    The double sun problem is easily explainable as a single light source. Double reflection. It's where the sun didn't just reflect off of the outside of the visor, but the inside as well. I've seen it all the time with a single light source.

    The power needed, look at the shuttle and Apollo, how much mass they had, how fast they needed to go, it's simple math and numbers. And the numbers say they had MORE than enough power.

    Why didn't the astronauts fry/freeze when they went in and out of the shadow of the lander when their regulators are not fast enough? Insulation for Christ sake!!! Simple insulation bought the astronauts MORE than enough time for the regulators to keep them alive. It's like you putting on a coat in a warm house, go outside, and you don't instantly freeze.

    Why didn't the astronauts fry because heat cannot be transferred in space? It can in the form of infrared radiation. How the hell does the sun deliver its heat? Also its that same radiation we emit that allows thermal cameras to spot us.

    And those two conspiracies cancels each other out.

    The Van Allens belt. The most damning evidence against the lunar landings. First off, 30 minutes in the belt is equal to 1 X-ray. AKA non-lethal. Second, 2 Apollo astronauts did die of cancer. Alan Shepard and John Swigart.

    Everything else is supposition with no evidence, or easily explainable by someone who isn't a rocket scientist.

    Get a brain. And if you do, make sure it works.

  13. parnoid it's the bogey man did it give them there comfort blanket . they went too the moon only nuttters don't believe it

  14. N.A.S.A = Never A Straight Answer

    I've watched probably every piece of documentary pro & con the Moonlanding controversy that exists out there... Sorry folx who still believe in this modern mythology, they simply weren't there. And if perhaps they were, they simply couldn't have gotten there in that crappy paper-walled aluminium capsule of the same way lame and crappy Apollo program. It was simply the biggest and best global TV-show till 911(funny that most of the people who believe in the Moonlanding also still happen to believe that Bin Laden was the 'real man' behind 911 - coincidence?-). BTW it was also one of the reasons why they shot JFK in the head from the grassy mole, it was him who came up with this unrealizable bullsh*t idea of 'putting a man on the Moon', no wonder, he was a dreaming tweaker though a cool one. After Nixon realized that it simply really couldn't be done in any way, he just faked it the best way possible employing the best man possible for such a job - none less than Stanley Kubrick... his widow openly admits it while Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld are eyetwinklingly laughing their a*ses Dark Side of the Moon (full version) and make up your own mind.

    1. Is there any conspiracy theory to which you do not ascribe?
      Incidentally, it's a grassy knoll not mole.

    2. @ 4GER van Ludyck.
      You make me laugh. Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe.
      By the way, the documentary with Kubrick's widow and Kissinger and Rumsfeld laughing is an April 1st joke you halfwit.

    3. Pity you don't understand the science of it all.

    4. Lawrence
      Ok, You Hoax believers really do get ****** by the year. Over 40 years since the Apollo landings have happened, and not one of the thousands of NASA personal have ever confirmed it was a hoax. furthermore, if the Apollo rocket ships never left orbit, than where is the proof of that? An amateur astronomer could have revealed the hoax! the Russians tracked the first Apollo missions using the most advanced technology possible, why didn't they ever stepped forward and accused the Americans faking it. why? because they couldn't! I could go on and on about why the moonlanding hoax is a load of BULL****, however most amusingly of all you have resorted to 'Dark side of the Moon' as evidence. Now, Go back and watch that documentary and look at the credits of the film. also take note of various characters in the film such as 'Jack Torrence' and 'David Bowman'. Google Jack torrence and you will find he is a character played by jack Nicholson in 'the shining' (i.e. HERREEES, JOHHNYYY!!!!). Was David bowman an actual astronaut? No he was a fictional astronaut from 2001: A space Odyssey. Why do they have fictional characters in a documentary? Why has no other media source acknowledged that Stanley Kubrick directed the moonlanding? why was Dark Side of the Moon broadcast on April Fools? ( well it was in my country anyway)? Finally, If I created a website telling you that the Titanic was a Hoax, would you believe it?

  15. They just proved that you can do it on earth...

    1. You sir are an id**t. Sure they can do a lot of those things on earth however the part where they're trying to replicate the walking motion on the moon was only possible in 1/6th gravity and that was on a plane where they could only fit a few people in.

      The U.S.A. landed on the moon get over it.

    2. u should watch the landind site on moon google maps, its quite interesting how u CANT see the real landing place, sure they went to the moon

    3. No, they proved that the evidence against the lunar landings is a big bag of bullsh*t. Adam said the same thing, only without the colourful language.

  16. I think we did land on the moon. However, I have to say that this Mythbusters episode proves absolutely nothing -- less than nothing. This was NOT a scientific investigation. It was a few guys from a TV show on a mission to "prove" what they already believed. The most striking fact, and only striking fact, in the show is just how eerily similar the Mythbusters phoney pics and videos are to the NASA ones. If anything they demonstrated that it is at least possible that the moon landings could have been faked. Again, I think we did land on the moon. But I've also read the books and watched the documentaries that question the moon landings, and they do indeed ask some rather valid, legitimate questions that neither NASA nor anyone else -- including this hokey Mythbusters episode -- have provided legitimate answers to. While I believe we landed on the moon, the fact that NASA can't or won't answer these questions leaves me with this tiny doubt, maybe 5%, about the whole project. See for yourself. Read the books. Watch the docs.

    1. Rubbish comment. As they said themselves, they didn't prove man landed on the Moon, but disproved the arguments by conspiracy theorists that certain things couldn't have happened on the Moon. E.g. conspiracy theorists say the flag couldn't have waved like that on the Moon so it proves man didn't go there. The mythbusters showed it could wave like that on the Moon and it doesn't prove the landing as fake. They never said they were proving anything, you are making that assertion.

    2. Actually at the end of the end of the documentary they proved man had been to the man by visiting an observatory. The Astronomer bounced radio signals off the radar reflectors left by the landing team. He also said those who claim we never landed on the Moon never visit to see the proof.

      It's a little sickness known as "belief perseverance" ~ maintain the conspiracy regardless of all contrary evidence.

    3. Somehow I think you're a hoaxer in disguise. As Cernan once said "the truth doesn't need defending" Educate yourself on the science behind the Apollo missions and it is very clear that they were done. As for the rest, radiation, film ad nauseum, that has been debunked so many its its sad that people still cling to their delusions that it was all faked.

    4. John, just wanted to add to your post. When we are talking about the "greatest achievement of mankind", the burden of proof falls upon the moon landers. The general public does not have to disprove it. For so long I wanted to believe we went to the moon however the evidence just isn't there. I still haven't seen any credible scientific explanation for how humans travelled through the radiation belt and handled the conditions in outer space. The focus appears to be on 2 dozen dodgy pictures and footage. This is not really relevant to me as you can argue validity both ways. I think the debate should refocus on the physics. Unfortunately, the information at hand suggests we could not send a human to the moon even if we tried now which leaves us all very disillusioned....

  17. damn these days money buys even scientific proof...i PERSONALLY wouldn't believe the professional liars from nASA even if they took me on the moon ...i would still believe they drugged me up :D

    1. @vvindred
      do you have any proof of your claims or are you just trolling ?

    2. i've just stated my opinion , is that called trolling? and what proof do you want? if i ever reach the moon i'll be ale to bring you unrefutable proof otherwise it's only talk...all the best

    3. @vvindred
      i can accept that is your opinion and as long as someone claims a statement as an opinion i would not respond in the manner i did but "damn these days money buys even scientific proof." was not stated as an opinion. i know i am being picky and now that you cleared it up i retract my previous statement.

  18. Wait a min there fender 24. What caused the metal to melt. I've. I've been a heavy strucual welder for a dam long time now and even I ain't no expert on metal. I do know a little bit about what heat does to it though....and aluminum. Tell me your expert knowledge and I'll put a little in here and there,OK. I work on trusses heavier then the ones they had in the towers, and I or any other welder can tell us that steel is an unforgiving mother f*clerk.

    1. Officialy burning jet fuel is what melted the steel causing the floors to collapse on eachother making a chain reaction. ive heard experts say it should have been a much slower event if thats the case. the floors were built around the core, wouldnt the core stand some hundreds of feet in the air then? u see no core.
      steel melts from 1100 degrees right, though ive heard white smoke to black smoke indicates cooler temperature, tell me if im wrong. So if the steel wasnt warm enough what made the floors to collapse?. WTC's own engineers says the building could withstand a passenger plane. im not sure what tests they had supporting that but im sure they have some clue about it.

      the second tower was hit last but fell first. and u got the building 7 aswell which collapsed later. and from what ive seen from other controlled demolitions this looks pretty similar.

      all the evidence is gone cause the steel remains were removed and shipped away before any investigation could begin. by ,strange enough, a company called controlled demolition. They hold back evidence which could have given us the truth.

      please tell me what u know.

  19. there were other moonlandings we dont officially know about. which they couldnt afford they say. *laughs*

    Kennedy’s vision of a joint space program finally materialized in the mid-seventies when the two nations teamed for a historic space mission. Clearly the Soviets needed the aid of NASA’s precision equipment. But what did the US need from the Soviets? Why would President Ford violate Nixon’s doctrine and welcome such an alliance in the midst of nuclear arms proliferation, and the violent expansion of communism throughout Asia and the Americas? What was more foreboding, more threatening to the United States than the dreaded red menace? The answers to those questions laid in deep space. And on July 15, 1975, a team of cosmonauts and astronauts set out to find them.

    By the late 1960?s, investigating the lunar surface for alien life suddenly had become an urgent matter. The United States dedicated no less than five government agencies – Majestic 12, Project Sign, Project Grudge, Project Blue Book and the CIA to identify, analyze and conceal evidence of alien encounters. Between 1965 and 1966 at least six NASA astronauts had reported orbital run-ins with space bogeys and gave detailed descriptions of UFO sightings – specifically Gemini 4, Gemini 7 and Gemini 11. Unexplained classified images from U.S. unmanned lunar landers urged NASA scientists to install top-secret fiber optic cameras hidden within the frame work of their Apollo vessels – and create a private radio channel through which mission control and astronauts could communicate covertly. NASA committed to such deceptions after the government committee authored Brookings Report warned the agency that public UFO disclosure would “probably disentegrate stable earth societies (otherwise sure of their place in the universe) or at least cause the public to suffer extreme changes in values, attitudes and behavior.” The report also predicated artifacts left by intelligent life forms likely to be discovered within next twenty years through space activities on the moon and mars. After Apollo 11?s accidental admission of an UFO encounter enroute to the moon and Surveyor 3?s classified photos of the moon’s Mare Cognitum, NASA executed its first lunar black-ops mission. The crew of Apollo 12 conducted a dark 19-minute S-EVA at the location Statio Cognitium, “THE KNOWN BASE.”

    The Soviets had also encountered lunar alien anomalies. Following the Lunokhod 2 moon rover’s mysterious “disappearance” during a classified lunar transmission, the CCCP invested maximum effort into their N-1 manned rocket program. Officially, the N-1 never reached the moon, but several reports cite “missing cosmonauts” and suggest the USSR did indeed reach the lunar surface, but buried the mission as a covert failure since no cosmonaut returned to earth alive – a huge embarrassment given the US had successfully returned a dozen moonwalkers to terra firma. (An example of this Soviet refusal to generate negative space propaganda was illustrated in 1961 when the nation announced cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin the first man to orbit the earth aboard Vostok 1. Two previous Soviet attempts which resulted in the horrific deaths of those cosmonauts were never publicized.)

    In 1972, NASA, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency received orders from President Richard Nixon to schedule 100% covert manned lunar missions. To accomplish this remarkable feat, “Tricky Dick” publicly announced the cancellation of future planned Apollo Missions Eighteen, Ninenteen and Twenty – “unfortunate budgetary cuts” was the excuse given, although the total amount saved totaled less than a mere $42 million. Since those missions didn’t officially exist, on paper, a clandestine launch site was established off the West Coast near Lompoc, California at the U.S. Space Command’s Vandenberg Air Force Base – one of the few viable remote staging grounds that could accommodate a heavy rocket lift off. Two years later, Apollo 18?s lunar module “Liberty” touched down on the surface of the moon’s dark side. It’s DoD crew secretly carried out their top-secret EVA’s as planned but, unfortunately, Apollo 18 never safely returned to earth. Whatever data Apollo 18 had collected and whatever alien discoveries were made remained a mystery.

    1. @fender24
      two things
      1 if you are going to copy and paste have the intellectual honesty to credit the source.
      2 what does any of this have to do with the doc in question?

    2. what im saying is backed by MANY engineers and experts in the field. so i have done reasearch heard both stories of what happened and come to my conclusion. :D

    3. 2. it was a reply to epicurus.

    4. if u are refering to the 9/11 comment it was my own words, something else u need to know?. :D

    5. i am referring to to post starting with "Kennedy’s vision of a joint space program " a direct copy from lunartruthdotcom all you have to do is paste your comment into google to see for yourself

  20. The sort of people who believe in these conspiracies are not going to be won over with logic.

  21. You M*RONS bought the holohoax, so selling the MOON landing was just child's play.

  22. "In a kingdom of the blind, the man with the one eye is king" its nothing but smoke and mirrors.

    1. In addition, how about considering how many people would have to be in on the secret, and be able to keep it a secret--all of mission control, everyone of the thousands that worked to build the craft, and astronauts. Ah, duh. You are the blind one.

  23. If the conspiracy theory is indeed true, then why did NASA spend billions and billions of dollars for expensive equipment, scholarship funds for gifted children with IQs 160 and up, and wasting their whole lives just to fool the whole world? Also, how come NASA were able to send people in space to repair satellites and stuff without being sure that they could really send people in space? How come their space suits and ships and other equipments improved if they really didnt have actual data of the effects of going out in space? R*tarded conspiracists. You state your so-called "facts" with biased evidence. Who's fooling who now? Hypocrites.

    1. Of course the conspiracy theory is true Mark. Why would our government spend kagillions of dollars on science when it's much more productive to spend a kagillion dollars on a Rube Goldberg conspiracy. Hell the main function of government is to conspire.

      But in the spirit of true democracy, I believe we should vote what the next conspiracy should be. I think something along the lines of the pictures from Mars are faked. Seems appropriate.

  24. Americans don’t seem to like a lot of proof; the moon landing, jfk shooting, twin towers, bin ladin, to name a few incidents were the evidence is distorted, destroyed, or not properly gathered
    ..just sayin

    1. Yessiree. Why subscribe to only one conspiracy theory? Four in one sentence is the way to go.

    2. LOL, im not american but you have to be a child to think the moon landing was a hoax.

      also 9/11 was not a conspiracy and neither was bin ladens death....JFK i dont know enough about, and so much is distorted by that great movie.

    3. 9/11 is not a conspiracy anymore it is a controlled demolition. many many evidence proves that.

      officially the burning jet fuel metled the steel connected to the core caused the floors to collapse on eachother. if so it should have been a much slower event. and after it collapsed we would see floors pilled on topp of eachother at the ground and the core standing thousands of feets in the air. well u dont see that, all the debris is spread around. experts and engineers of the wtc says the building could handle a passanger plane.

      people talk about bombs before the planes hit and after, police and fireworkers support that fact, there is recordings were they speak toeachother about bombs on several floors.

      seismologists miles away had a 2.1 earthquake registrated before the buildings collapsed. incredible. would a plane alone do that? i dont think so. weeks before the planes hit they had alot of unusuall drills and bombs sniffing dogs were removed from WTC. if bombs were planted they could easily have entered.

      The whole event begs for better explaination and u know they dont tell the truth, cause what happened is the worst lie in human history.

    4. To cause an earthquake with any kind of bomb you would need to place it underground. Since your theorie suggests it is placed within the tower itself you would be in need of a fairly big nuclear bomb.
      I do not think anyone would be stupid enough to use something like that.

      Just look at the construction of the floors.
      A big main truss with lots of air in between with a layer of concrete on top of it.
      What do you think the height of one of these floors is if you drop it from 300 meters and then drop a couple of hundred tons on top of that from the same height?

    5. There were a secondary bomb and several bombs on different floors, the recordings speaks forthemselves. dont u think the people working there and the fireworkers who were in the building have a wery good clue about what happened? there were bombs before the plane hit and after. u should see the core standing since thats the strongest part of a building and the floors are builded around it. u can believe what u want no problem.

    6. everything you said is wild fabrication.

    7. demitri kalezov, look him up,
      that is all.

    8. you still trolling your propaganda? ..everywhere... banging on about 911...

  25. look i just have to say this,if i went to the moon id take pictures of everything,the stars,sun,earth even my friggin hand print,so show me the pictures and i will believe......

    1. there are lots of pictures and videos from the moon. what are you talking about?

    2. Not those pictures Epicuris. Only the pictures the astronauts didn't happen to take pictures of. You know. The first thing I would want to take a picture of when I got to the moon is my handprint.

    3. There are hundreds of those photos. So I guess you can believe now.

  26. The moon hoaxers are not the "kooks" that some think, and the arguments for the moon landings are not as good as they think too.

    1) The Russians would have talked.

    Yes, if they didn't have something to hide on their side, that the Americans knew about.
    In 1961, after the so-called exploit of Gagarin, the Americans newspapers were putting on their headlines "The red hoax" outlining the many incoherences of his flight; in particular the fact that Gagarin was announcing the events of his flight before they really occurred; he said he was flying over South-America only one quarter of an hour after he departed, when he needed at least three quarters of an hour to reach it; and he said he could distinctly see the farms and meadows when he still was at an altitude of 200 miles, much too high to have the least chance to see them; it was obvious that there was a talking machine in his cabin which has started too early, and that he was not in it; moreover Gagarin did not land in his space cabin, but in parachute, exactly where he used to make his parachute trainings while his space ship was crashing far away.
    Yet, what the American newspapers contested, the American government accepted it readily; the CIA told Kennedy Gagarin's flight was regular when they had the proof it was not!
    Of course, it was not a free gift made to the Russians, it was called "return", and we can guess what this return was.
    Two weeks later, the Americans were sending their first man to space, who would become the first man in space if Gagarin's flight was proven fake, and two weeks later, Kennedy was asserting that the Americans would send men to the moon and return them safely before the end of the decade; Hum, perfectly timed!
    Of course, with the Gagarin hoax, the CIA was now sure the Russians would shut up if they wanted to keep their "hero".

    2) The NASA was counting a great number of poeple working on the project, so some would have talked.

    It is naive to think that the CIA would have informed the whole personal of the NASA about the hoaxed project; they only put into the secrecy the minimum number of people they needed, and the rest of the personal was completely kept out of it; of course, those who were in the secrecy had to be tightly watched after, and informed of the consequences for them if they dared talk out.
    In the control room, there were two lines of communications, one real with the rocket, and a fake one for the lunar mission; at one moment, the fake line of communication was taking the relay with the real one; normally there should have been an unique line of communication, but with one line, it would not have been possible to make the hoax.

    3) The astronauts went to the moon because they put a retro-reflector.

    No need of a retor-reflector to make the laser beam bounce; in the sixties, at several occasions, before Apollo, a laser beam was aimed at the moon, and the beam came back and could be recorded; it bounced on a natural reflective plate of the moon; of course, if you aim a laser beam at the moon, it won't come back anywhere; but, if you sweep it, it may meet a natural reflective spot on the moon, and then it comes back.

    4) The astronauts went to the moon for they brought back moon rocks.

    There are lunar meteorites fallen in antarctica which have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.
    Precisely, Von Braun made a trip to Antarctica in 1967, two years before Apollo 11.
    The Apollo advocates say that the moon rocks cannot come from these meteorites, for the lunar meteorites are burnt on their surface, and the micro-holes, the zap pits, would have disappeared, but after having removed this surface, and broken a meteorite into smaller rocks, it is easy to recreate artificially these micro-holes.
    And the argument that too many lunar meteorites would have been needed to fabricate all the moon rocks they brought back can also be easily swept away: They didn't need to create as many genuine moon rocks as those "brought back" by the astronautes; only those which were analyzed; the other ones, those which were not analyzed, could perfectly be the one which has recently be analyzed in a dutch museum and proved to be simple petrified wood.

    So you see that no argument is definitive.

    Little before Apollo 11, the NASA sent a monkey to space, and he came back dead, fried by the radiations.
    And they would have nevertheless sent astronauts to the moon without the guarantee that it was safe for them?
    Landing a lunar module on the moon is very different from landing a plane or a helicopter because of the absence of air; and even prototypes which could take off vertically had wings.
    When the lunar module leaves the command module, it originally has a horizontal speed of 6000km/h relatively to the moon at an altitude of 110km; and when it arrives near the lunar surface, it must have both its horizontal speed and its vertical speed nulled, and this without the help of air which can provide both helpful horizontal and vertical forces; it is very far from being trivial, and it can only be tested on the moon; the Americans never made serious tests of the lunar module; they had a test module, the LLRV, but they only tested it at low altitude and speed, very far from the real conditions the lunar module had to work, and even so this prototype showed to be very unstable and difficult to control.
    And the astronauts would have managed to land this lunar module at the first attempt without this lunar module ever having been seriously tested before? I don't buy it.

    The photos and videos are really full of incoherences.
    I can prove that the delays of transmission are wrong on several occasions.
    The computer makes no sense; it's operating system is insane, and the programs of Apollo are full of errors of syntax and logic which all are intentional.
    The core cope memory could not work by its conception.
    And the way it is described in the documentation confirms it could not work.
    Even the conventional erasable memory could not work the way they describe it in the documentation.
    The management of tasks which is described is completely absurd and made for not working.
    All the electronic interfaces contain errors, without exception, and they are all intentional.
    The radars, as they are described, could not work, and it is also intentional.
    The way that the lunar module flies on the videos is completely unphysical and total fantasy.
    It is obvious that the project has been entirely sabotaged by people who were disapproving what the CIA was forcing them to do, and, as they could not speak out directly, they spoke indirectly by sabotaging the project.

    This is my total conviction, and what I see everywhere in the project.
    Now, if despite that you want to call me a "kook", do it...but remember that the monks also called Galileo a "kook".
    The kook of today may be the visionary of tomorrow

    1. @Pascal Xavier
      1 not only the Russians but the Australians,British,Japanese,Canadians and every other nation that was monitoring or did the cia get to them as well. now i do not know the history of the Russian space program to say you are wrong but can you provide proof they were threatened with exposure of their "hoax" if they didn't go along with the American "hoax"? or are you just making an assumption?

      2 even if you limit the #'s as much as possible there would still be the engineers and designers lying about their designs being able to work. the astronauts themselves, the cia, the people who faked the pictures. all the scientists and researchers that studied the moon rocks (i don't believe a good enough fake could fool them all), modern science which confirms all these things (better tech but 40 year old fakes still hold up? and so on still a large #. and do have proof these people where hushed up? or just another assumption?

      3 reflecting off a "natural reflective spot on the moon," would not return a signal. the reflection would bounce off a reflective surface according to the angle of incidence and most likely reflect off into space. even if it does reflect back to earth the probably of it returning back to the same spot is effectively 0 and even if nasa got lucky it could only be reproduced at 1 spot on earth and at 1 specific alignment of the bodies even being off by a miniscule amount would make it fail over the large distance traveled . but the retro reflectors have been used all over the earth. they are specially designed to reflect light back on the same path regardless of angle of incidence.

      4 the astronauts not only brought back moon rocks but 840 pounds of them.all of them have been tested by multiple scientists and researchers. even if it is possible to make lunar meteorites appear to be moon rocks (remove impact damage,contamination from the earth,chemical changes due to heat from initial lunar impact,entering earths atmosphere, and earth impact ......) there have only been 129 pounds of them found in total. so if you used them all (nobody would notice they all went missing right) altered them to appear as regular moon rocks you would still be short 711 pounds?

      ok i answered your questions now for mine
      1 why fake it multiple times when once was enough. each time would multiply the chances of the fake being discovered

      2can you explain how selene (jax orbiter) confirmed the landings by detecting the halo produced by the lander and with their photographic and 3d imaging matches the terrain in the origional photos?

  27. Moon landing... real.

    9/11... hoax.

    That's about all I have to add.

  28. Also, in regards to this documentary, I was a little perplexed by some of the "obvious" conclusions that were drawn.

    Indeed, this episode did a good job of addressing some of the main points about the moon landings. However, their 'reflective surface powder' was more reflective than the moon's (as clearly shown in the picture in comparison to the NASA one) and yet didn't light up the guy as much. Curious. Their boot print was far from conclusive, it looked pretty similar to the dry sand one to me, and not a lot like Aldrin's supposed one.

    In fact, I was left thinking, "yeah, it may well NOT have been a hoax". but this ******* show doesn't give the unbiased scientific evidence you need in order to disprove a huge theory like 'moon-landing hoax'. It was smelling more like propaganda to me actually.

    One more thing, there seems to be heavily contrasting evidence being put forward in the comments I've seen from various videos on this subject. Some people say, "we've never been back to the moon since 1969" others claim that we have been there a total of 6(!) times. I mean... what? which the **** is it? cos that seems like a discrepancy in people's story that could be stated right now. Either: NASA claims to have been to the moon only once, due to the vast resources needed to do a relatively pointless thing now that we've already done it. Or: NASA sent a total of 6 teams of astronauts onto the surface of the moon to conduct tests between 1969 and 1972... and have since ceased because it wastes resources and is relatively pointless. If someone would enlighten me, that would be great, thank you.

    Also, I know EVERYONE thanks Vlatko for this site and it's now probably cliched but man... it's places like this, on the web, that define the web's purpose. Not only that, but this site proves that the internet really belongs to the masses, to share information and talk about it in an uncensored environment. I've learned many things from this place, and I thought I knew a lot before. Thank you, and thanks to all of you who make this site a community.

  29. Here's one for Mythbusters: Crash a plane into a steel-structure mesh skyscraper and see if you can get it to collapse, within the hour, into its own footprint in 10 seconds.

  30. I need to double check my zipper each time after i pee and these american hypocrites made a perfect landing to moon in one shot in the 1969?

    1. No, not one shot, but six shots, six manned Moon landings in all.

    2. they still made it to the moon in one shot in 1969 though didn't they...

  31. Reality check, guys: NASA is one of the best things you will ever see in your life time.

    Oh,and like the space center could'nt fake the "evidence" on the end.

    1. Get with the program, already been determined there were manned moon landings, new photos from 13 miles up from the moon of the the landing sites and rover tracks and footsteps, from an orbiter. "Reuters news service."

  33. only a mental midget thinks we didnt go to the moon the russians at the time would have screamed bloody murder if we didnt go

  34. It's amazing that we have all this stuff that came from the NASA space program and yet...we didn't have the technology to go to the moon? Please, people, we have TANG!!! what more proof do you need?

  35. the stuff they "prove" means nothing. in an episode they tried to out run a speed camera and failed and concluded it couldn't be done yet in top gear (UK) they done it so just go's to show they cant prove jack.

  36. the stuff they "prove" means nothing. in an episode they tried to out run a speed camera and failed and concluded it couldn't be done yet in top gear (UK) they done it so just go's to show they cant prove jack.

  37. regardless of your opinion of what happened this was a poor documentary. one sided from the beginning and no controls in any of the tests. very weak.

  38. Come on guys, do you really think NASA is going to let them on site at NASA to prove that it was all a Hoax, I don't think so, so will the MythBusters get to tour Area 51, to prove whats not going on there to???

  39. 20% of us do not believe Astronauts ever went to the moon, and I am one of them. The technology was just not there. Also, I am convinced Columbus never discovered America. Do you really believe he crossed the Atlantic Ocean in a wooden boat??? 1492????????? Do not be ridiculous.The truth is we all have to be living in Kenya. When people say Obama is a Kenyan, they are correct. We are all Kenyans. Honestly, do you really have any proof you are living in North America? The technology did not exist. Please join me on my blog tomorrow where I will prove the internet was never invented.

    1. Please don't act like a silly child. It is quite feasible the USA arranged a hoax because of the cold war. They have lied and made incorrect statements before as have other countries and large organisations

    2. I don't claim to know if the moon landing is fake or real, how could I know unless I was directly informed one way or the other with so much dis-information that exists in the world today but I find your comments of disbelief based on absolutely nothing, no facts to back up your beliefs and on top of that you give so little credit to the heart, determination and vision of human kind in general just because they are from a long ago past seems to me is completely ridiculous. Look at all that humans had accomplished well before 1492 and give some credit to those humans from long ago who so obviously had more brains, imagination and spirit within them than your family tree!

  40. 20% of us do not believe Astronauts ever went to the moon, and I am one of them. The technology was just not there. Also, I am convinced Columbus never discovered America. Do you really believe he crossed the Atlantic Ocean in a wooden boat??? 1492????????? Do not be ridiculous.The truth is we all have to be living in Kenya. When people say Obama is a Kenyan, they are correct. We are all Kenyans. Honestly, do you really have any proof you are living in North America? The technology did not exist. Please join me on my blog tomorrow where I will prove the internet was never invented.

  41. With the alleged SIX SUCCESSFUL MANNED MOON LANDINGS from 1969 and 1972, and the technology they "had" back then (and developed from scratch in just a couple of years!), now 40 years we would have commercial and tourist flights to the Moon, and the long-distance manned space travel would become ordinary. But there is no development whatsoever, no more manned Moon landing ever since, and even the shuttle program is shut down as non-perspective. In 1969 men on the Moon, six times in a row without any accidents?! C'mon, really?!

    If they did send men to the Moon, dozens of spaceships would have crashed first against the Moon or just disappeared in outer space first. The real Moon expedition would have taken decades to develop, hundreds of monkeys, dogs, rabbits and mice killed, not to say about astronauts.

    Photos, shadows, flag, stars, etc. is BS, what really matters is the technology, which was simply not there yet. And we still don't have it these days.


    1. No accidents? Really? It just proves that you know nothing about Apollo mission. It seems to me that you don't have any idea how much money is needed to achieve such goals. The technology did not develop further because there was none private capital that could afford to take such a risk and the US government had (and still has) to spend money killing people in their places of interest (like oil rich countries) instead of doing something beneficial like developing space programe further.

      What concerns technology... Pyramyds in Egypt were build a millenia ago, however even now such task would seem ipossible for most of the builders. So are you saying that pyramyds does not exist because Egyptians did not have the technology to build them just like the moon landing is fake?

      And do you think that soviets would have broadcasted moon landing on their main media if they knew that it was fake? They would rather embarass the USA by exposing the hoax if there was any.

    2. Apollo 1 where all 3 men died. Apollo 13, "Huston, we have a problem."

    3. The answer is simple: we ran out of money.

  42. I've listened to both sides of this long standing dispute of did we/did'nt we, and there is still no resolution.
    The LRO will take pictures of the apollo landing sites from 20km on August 14 and 19, 2011, so just a few days. The last pictures taken of apollos landing sites were good but probably not conclusive, its doutful if any pictures will be proof enough for some, as it will simply be said they have been 'manufactured'
    Mythbusters debunck the common inaccuracies, which were debuncked by a british programme years before, but there is a whole new wave of questions which have been put forward recently, so i think the mythbusters will need to do another one to debunck them.

    Personally, i do believe NASA put men on the moon in 1969 and beyond, it's just a shame space exploration did not progress.

  43. haven't seen much of what's out there for either side of the argument. my simple question is this. a lot of physical evidence should still be there, including a sandwich bag discarded at the supposed mirror site. (why NASA would allow a baggie on the flight...?) BUT.. my point is, can't we just take a satellite photo today of the footprints and debris and mirror that is all supposedly still up there?

    1. I don't know if any satellite telescopes exist with resolution good enough to take photos of footprints or equipment left on the Moon. But if there are, then they are most certainly owned by government. Since anybody that thinks the Moon missions were a hoax already thinks the US government is lying, they would be unlikely to believe such photos.

    2. The vlt in chile is pretty powerful and could easily take such photos, they said they would in 03 and no pics ever surfaced I'm still waiting as I think it would be awesome to see.

  44. considering how bulky technology was back then, just think how heavy all the s*** they dragged to the moon would be? plus i wanna know what havok all that radiation and interference would have with equipment. bottom line is they could have landed on the moon but had to fake the proof. either that or they tipped the project money into the cold war funds and used the moon landing as a legit cover up. who knows? how much bulls*** did i just invent then that questions the landing?? its not hard to poke holes in the story. thats because its history.. a story.. would you believe it if it was in color?

  45. Ok all you moon landing hoax believers out there let me clear this up for you. IT WAS REAL!!!! Buzz and his buddies even put mirrors on the surface so they can tell whether the moon is moving away from us or toward us using lasers. (turns out away) If you don't believe me just ask your local university. It's not hard to find out the truth from actual scientists. I do agree that mythbusters are a huge waste of resources and their methods are questionable at best.

    1. have you personally used these "mirrors"?

      And if you answer in the positive, did you track the moon before the the installation of these mirrors?


      If I owned a major media outlet...I would want YOU to be my "expert" talking head.

    2. I give up oddsr. What is NOT a conspiracy with you?

    3. how did this guy get an anonymous profile?

    4. he looks as though he deleted his account.

    5. thats convenient...maybe I will do the same.

      Then I will come back as various entities...all in opposition to my own points....won't that mess up people's perceptions of, the what was my point?

      Never mind, a little digging reveals the "guest" as "lakhotason". Has he/she left the site now? dang I wanted to beat on that person with stupid logic!

      Oops! today's parlance the LOG part of logic could be perceived as a weapon.

  46. Lol, MythBusters can't make there name true. Again, they forgot to make use of science.

  47. this is pretty funny. i saw this on tv and again here. you know what i'd really wanna see. "Mythbusters: 9/11" lol
    i recommend watching "Apollo Zero" also posted on this amazing site and comparing the extent of the detail shown there to this episode of mythbusters. i stopped when they went to NASA (of all places) to prove the legitimacy of the moon landings .

  48. Not recommended.

    I found myself not trusting MythBusters as much after this biased little piece of work. Don't watch it, and enjoy all MythBusters good work they have done.

    Let me be clear, I am not for, or, against the legitimacy, or, validity of the Apollo Missions, but that this MythBusters exhibited obvious biased approach to science, and well.... that's not right.

    You will genuinely have this sensation when watching this, that MythBusters had the answers pre-determined in this episode, then they produced the science to back it all up.

    Chin scratching, disappointing, scientific bias from MythBusters, willful "Debunking" of serious scientists that have legitimate concerns over the reality of the Apollo Missions.

    Makes you wonder, on a personal note, whether the Apollo missions potentially where a part of the global power struggle between the USA and the Soviets for world domination, and was too big to fail level mission.

    JUST A THOUGHT... Wouldn't it have been funny if MythBusters proved it was a fraudulent Phycological Warfare Operation perpetrated against the soviets & the world after all... and it aired on Discovery Channel. That would be... Priceless.

    1. Do you know of the term, "contrarian"?

  49. Mythbusters, even as friends of Obama prove fun but do not prove convincing here. The shadow play is entirely under-baked, the footprint, amazingly weak (what *was* that powder and was it really in a vacuum?). The flag most definitely did not behave in a "wind-blown" manner, as did it on the NASA footage.

    Mythbusters have sold out to the NWO. I'd still do Kari though.

    1. God I hate conspiracy theorists. It's amazing how you people so wholeheartedly believe in things you or anyone else can't prove. Anyone who thinks with any certainly that it was a hoax is an idiot. Gullible fools all guided by one nutcase. Probably one who was jealous he didn't get to go.

    2. Yeah, I guess you also think Oswald shot the president and the bible is all true, etc. Jim Jones and I just made some kool aid, perhaps you would like the first cup. Jealous, lol

    3. I hear you Seamus and I agree! That would have been one hell of an expensive Hoax! Imagine launching 14ea 3000ton Saturn V's to support a sham...and doing it in public. Yup Yup Yup..da Moon Laddingz was FaKeD. God I hate the stupidity of Moon Hoax conspiracy theorists. They are simply, dumber than moon dirt.

    4. Sorry guys i've had a lot of fun wathing the series but this *BS is just so lame. Mythbusters have sold out to the NWO.

      I'd still do Kari though. ;) god one

  50. I have questioned a few "mythbusters" conclusive results. But this one is indefensible. Unless the guys, built a Gemini type rocket and took it to the Moon, what the hell, did they prove????

    1. "Unless the guys, built a Gemini type rocket and took it to the Moon, what the hell, did they prove???"

      Pssst....The Gemini was our second generation space capsule not a rocket bubba. The Gemini scape craft was a two seater, was put into orbit by Titan Rockets and never went near the moon.

    2. oops...replace the "word" Gemini with argument is STILL valid. But thank you for redundant correction.

    3. HA i know i am two years late to this discussion but what the hell. You are still wrong. Apollo is the third generation capsule, you want Saturn V

  51. having something debunked here* is like eating doritos and calling it dinner

  52. "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"watch it for your self! The astronauts Get caught faking the photos! It is very obvious what they are doing, You need to see it for yourself> we didn't go to the Moon!
    * if we had the ability to go there, we'd be there NOW! dah

    1. 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon' is the worst pile of s*** I've ever seen. Its so full of glaring inaccuracies and pure bulls*** that its actually very funny even if the humor was unintentional...and that makes it even more hilarious.

  53. Not very convincing mythbusters try not being so biest

  54. Mythbusters are the most unscientific debunkers out there. Low credibility, low arguments, rely on making you feel stupid for emitting doubt about official stories. Bye bye Mythbusters.

  55. my fault. after they added the geographical features to the surface you can still CLEARLY see that the angle of their lunar lander matched those of the frontal rocks, whereas the nasa photo shows a distinct difference in shadow angles

  56. back to the show I did not like the fact that they did not address the blast crater "conspiracy" from the lunar lander. Also, when they are testing the different lighting shadows "conspiracy" they "busted" when they compare the angles of the "real" photograph and theirs you can clearly see that their angle, of what I remember to be the the most predominant rock in the background, is still the same perpendicular line as it was before they just used their manipulating of the surface to create a slight illusion

  57. @madskillz:

    What? you do not believe your own country?

    One of the major tracking stations for the manned moon missions was in "your land down under" Get some info from them and then talk.

  58. @ madskillz
    nasa's vacuum tanks (the worlds largest) weren't built til 1969 and at 100 feet in diameter too small to use to fake all moon shots and even in a vacuum you still have to overcome gravity.the shielding issue you bring up i already answered in post #220

  59. I think I see whats going on here. A bit of a (; from the Mythbuster crew.

    Notice that they point out in the intro section that THEY are going to 'cherry pick' parts as to the counter claim?

    They then proceeded to show us EXACTlY how possible it is to fake a man moon landing; and did a somewhat better job than the 'orginal' methinks (LOL!)

    Also note, they used the 'GIANT' vaccuum tanks at NASA. AT NASA PEOPLE; this is a major Experiment Control Fail. However, they can still be the real deal. I wonder if they have an even bigger one in the 'basement'. LOL.

    Now, all I needed to be busted, to convince me of this man on moon ever occuring;

    How the bloody hell did they get PEOPLE though the intense gamma radiation belts surounding the Earth? Like, every micro gram is taken into account for the weight/energy ratio;
    How did they achieve this without several tons of VITAL lead to keep them alive through this monumental 'hurdle'? HOW.

    One can bounce lasers and whatnot off the moon as much as they like, all that proves is we got SOMETHING to go up there and put the 'reflector' in place. Woop tee do.

    I'm bored of Rocket Surgery; we are never gonna convince the greater masses of the need for Univeral expansion ($) untill the BS ends.

    Lets get a sucka on da moon.

    Keep it real.


  60. @Cabaret
    Thanks for the reply. For a while I thought I might have been just talking to myself.
    I appreciated your well thought out comments.
    I am a little disappointed though because I don't think you quite got what I was getting at.
    What I was trying to point out is that sometimes the governments are the conspiracy theorists. The 9/11 stuff was just to point out that the most unbelievable of all conspiracy theories was indeed the governments explanation of what happened.

    I was an investigator & sometimes prosecuter over many years and the first question asked is "que Bono?" "who benefits?"

    The 9/11 incident resulted in clearly the largest benefit being for US government & corporate interests. The official figures show in the trillions of dollars.

    I would argue this is reason enough to at least look further.

    To then group people who apply an empirical standard evaluation to some of these subjects and who happen to come up with a different viewpoint than yourself as "tin hat" wearers & "conspiracy theorists" & to liken their viewpoint to Nostradamus quatraints etc is unfair.

    You used the, I am sorry to say, cliche of refering to what are documented & reasonable facts as "cherry-picked to death" & "a few tiny bits of truth".

    "Focusing on a few tiny bits of truth, in my opinion, is a very dangerous thing" - You said!

    With the 9/11 incident, perhaps you may be dismissive of some rather large pieces of evidence that are no longer even in dispute.

    That perhaps being so, getting back to the moon landing question, maybe there also, you may not be looking at all the facts with a completely open mind?

    Look! the 9/11 incident really is a "no-brainer"
    The evidence is clear and it has been clearly shown by many eminent scientists, engineers & physicists (Richard Gage, Steven Jones, David Griffin etc) that it could not & did not happen as per the official government explanation. Yet the government still sticks to their conspiracy theory on 19 Arab terrorists etc.

    What I am pointing out is that if it has happend as openly with 9/11, it could happen with other things too. Perhaps even the moon landing. As I said I am not sure on that one. But I do not dismiss it because their are at least "que bono" arguments to support the proposition.

    But please don't ignor the clear empirical evidence that governments & their financiers have & will lie if it suits their purpose.

    A good citizen questions their leaders!

    1. I am a few years late to the post but great job I agree with you 100%

  61. @ Cabaret

    You write the metaphors and I'll make the retro-active predictions about them. I'll start a website and bring it to the attention of the world. You'll become famous and more importantly so will I (by proxy, of course).

  62. @jack1952

    Nostradamus' vagueness made all his predictions come true -- after the event already takes place, it's pretty easy to go back and retro-prophesize everything.

    You're inspiring me to work on my own collection of predictions. I'll write vague but colorful metaphors that could mean anything, and after something really bad happens in the world -- you can come in and "interpret" what I said. Yeah?

  63. @ Cabaret

    Are you saying I'm not like Nostradamus?

  64. @ Cabaret

    I forgot about that one. If I remember correctly didn't they use the smallpox vaccinations to introduce AIDS? It fits that category perfectly.

  65. My "Really, you have to be kidding?" theory is the one that the US government introduced AIDS into Africa and/or USA to kill homosexuals and/or blacks. This is believed by more people than you would think.

  66. @jack1952

    The moon hoax conspiracy would just adapt itself to include the Soviets, the Chinese, and the Indians from the very beginning.

  67. @Weigh up the evidence

    I guess my stance is just more of being a skeptic. I'm all for a healthy dose of paranoia. I agree that some conspiracy theories hold more water than others -- but conspiracies by their very nature, you know, getting together a ton of people into the same room to pull off something on a global scale that would fool the entire world... I don't think things really happen like that. The 9/11 thing? The US government is full of imbeciles and pencil-pushers and nobody could organize something on that scale. What you're really seeing instead of a conspiracy is a bunch of incompetent bureaucratic retards who are making one mistake after another, which snowball to some big tragic event that people want to try to wrap their heads around, because there's NO WAY 19 hijackers with minimum training could do this OUR country. So in hindsight, instead of highlighting the incompetence, we see instead, oddly, that it was somehow all diabolically "planned" from the inside. It's easier to digest tragic events this way. Jack1952 brought up the tsunami -- a perfect example. There's NO WAY nature could kill that many people! It must be a diabolical government conspiracy to kill entire populations! (replace "tsunami" with "AIDS" or "swine flu" or whatever else is the newest craze) If governments wanted to kill entire populations (and they have, Native Americans, Jews, Stalin's purge, Hiroshima, for example) then they do, whether by gassing, smallpox, executions, or even by going nuclear. Governments have never been ashamed about this sort of thing and don't need a pretext to kill. I'm not naive enough to believe everything the government tells me (in fact, I believe very little of what they say), but a conspiracy involving thousands of people? Whether 9/11 or the so-called moon hoax, come on... people aren't that intelligent. Instead of a global, intra-government conspiracy, I'd chalk it up as incompetence. Not finding bin Laden? Incompetence. Thinking there are WMDs in Iraq? Shoddy intelligence, tunnel vision, and incompetence. As far as the moon hoax, I think if NASA thought that people would've made such an issue about it afterward, they would've changed a few simple things.

    After spending billions of dollars, why would they make the mistake of publishing a "studio" photo of a man in the shadow of the lander? You'd think that if the conspiracy already involved thousands of people, these photo "fakes" would've been discussed early on. Something that's faked like that -- the moon landing -- they would've rehearsed hundreds of times and gotten it right for the Big Show. Doesn't compute.

    The 9/11 thing is too lengthy to get into, but it's the same sort of cherry picking. To the conspiracy theorist, the most obvious answer never is satisfactory. The terrorists chose WTC not because they were trained by a shadowy arm of the US government who had beforehand loaded the building with explosives and told them to fly planes into it as a pretext to invade Iraq, no, they chose it because it represented American Imperialism, American power, American capitalism, the American way of life. The fact that the towers actually came down probably surprised bin Laden more than anybody else.

    Here's an analogy: If I leave out a glass of milk overnight and wake up the next morning and see that it's spoiled while I was asleep, I don't say, "Hey, somebody came into my house last night and swapped my old glass of milk with this spoiled one." That's a conspiracy theory.

    But I don't dismiss every conspiracy theory off-hand. Some theories get at least some of the facts right, even if it's cherry-picked to death. Focusing on a few tiny bits of truth, in my opinion, is a very dangerous thing. It's good to be skeptical and not believe everything in the mainstream -- but, you know, that's got to be weighed against factual evidence. The more factual evidence there is that it is not a conspiracy, the wider the net has to be thrown by conspiracy theorists for a conspiracy to work... Then, at some point, the net's thrown so wide that the conspiracy theory itself becomes one of PERSONAL persecution, that for the narrative to work the ENTIRE world must be conspiring against you, and that, my friend, is called Paranoia Schizophrenia.

  68. Won't the U.S. government be embarrassed when China or India send men to the moon and don't find any of the things that are supposed to be there. What's even worse though --- what if they do find that stuff? How are we going to find a way to disbelieve it then? Although, I suppose China could have brought the stuff with them to support their friend and ally, the United States. Wow! I just saved the moon hoax theory; in advance too. I kind of feel like Nostradamus.

  69. I would say there is enough evidence to say man went to the moon and walked on the surface but a lot of the pictures taken on the moon seem to be fake, maybe enabling people to see the images was deemed more important and so they had to create them. I think the 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies dont hold much weight when you take everything into consideration, I posted that on missing links comment 165, would be interested to hear your thoughts. look on comment 172 also it would be good to hear some unbias feedback

  70. @Jack1952
    A number of them came out in the media several years ago independently of each other.
    It really was as simple as that.

    A lot of the stuff is so obvious that it beggers belief, I know. It is like they have hidden it in plain sight.

    That is why I think we shouldn't just dismiss so called conspiracy theories out of hand. A lot of them are just that, a conspiracy theory. But we tend to forget that sometimes what our governments put out as truth are nothing more than conspiracy theories too. Like the 9/11 official story which has a lot of Arabs conspiring.

    Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everything is not as the governments portray them. But, sometimes that is the case. I have studied the moon landing stuff for quite a while and there are some compelling arguments both ways. So the best I can say on that one is I'll keep looking into it before I commit to an opinion.

    But there are some so called conspiracy theories that have substance.

    The one I mentioned above is simply too obvious for a truth minded person to dismiss out of hand. It warrants further investigation because the official story has changed a few times and the evidence just simply stacks up against the official story.

    I am not interested in winning or losing a debate. That isn't the important thing to me. What is important is that we avail ourselves of all the information & make an informed decision on that.

    One thing I should clarify is that when I refer to "the government" I really mean certain ellements of the government, those who profit from the event.

    Anyway, enough from me. I wish you well my friend!

  71. @ Cabaret

    The chem-trail theory really had me chuckling. The one about the U.S. causing the tsunami in the Indian ocean and the earthquake in Haiti is a good one too.
    I love the quote from the Skeptic's Dictionary.

    @ Weigh up the evidence

    9 are still alive? You mean the American government murder thousands of people and let these guys live? That is quite a loose end.

  72. I know my really weird conspiracy theory has nothing to do with the moon landing stuff.
    But you did ask
    "What’s your favorite conspiracy theory that makes you say, Really, you’ve got to be kidding?"

    I thought that you guys would appreciate a really wacky theory & that was the best one I've heard in years.

    It makes me say "Really, you’ve got to be kidding?"


  73. @Cabaret
    Goody! I love these games.
    Here's a good conspiracy theory for you.

    How about we have 19 Arabs (lets make 15 of them Saudi nationals) with 9 of them turning up alive afterwards, crash 2 planes into 2 buildings & the resultant fires on a few floors bring down 3 buildings at free fall speed.

    Now, these buildings are all steel & concrete type construction of which fire has never before or since this day ever caused the collapse of such a building. But lets just say that on this day, the only 3 buildings of this type ever in history collapse like this.

    And lets just make them collapse exactly like a controlled demolition. So then they can also be the only 3 buildings in history to have all the hallmarks of controlled demolition to not be controlled demolition.

    Now, so people don't wonder how all these pilots managed to have 4 planes hijacked and fly over the most protected airspace in the world, for the first time ever, we will have 5 seperate military exercises on this same day which will completely immobalise the most sophisticated and most powerful defence system in history so that not even 1 plane will be scrambled in response.

    And while we're at it, lets say the guys who pilot the crash planes can hardly fly a single engine cesna let alone a commercial jet aircraft. People won't even give it a thought.

    Oh, and just to make it really believable, we'll get a 6'5" diabetic to coordinate it all from a cave in Afganistam.

    And then on top of that we can use the biggest & best military force in history to fail to find this guy living in a cave.

    You'll love this one too. We will tell everyone that as a result of these mainly Saudi terrorists, another guy in Iraq has all these WMD's & lots of chemical & biological weapons so we have to kill him.

    But then we just wont bother to prove any of our claims & after a while we will even admit that we were wrong & those dumb plebs wont care. They will just believe everything we say because we are the government & therefore the good guys.

    Yep! I reckon we could get a few people to believe that one. So long as they don't think abaout it too much .....

  74. From The Skeptic's Dictionary, and quite relevant to moon hoax believers:

    One of the more curious behavioral traits of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists is that they always follow the same procedure and it always runs in an infinite loop: they demand proof of X and when proof of X is provided, they reject it and reiterate the demand for proof of X or they will now demand proof of Y and repeat the cycle ad nauseam. Furthermore, if proof of X is not delivered immediately, the "delay" is seen as proof of a conspiracy to hide the truth and justification for doubting the authenticity of any evidence eventually presented.

    Reasonable people soon recognize that the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist doesn't really want proof; for, nothing counts as proof in his eyes. What he really wants to do is keep the conspiracy theory alive. This is evident from the fact that the PCT never provides proof himself, but rather offers speculations.

    1. but all your doing is the same thing? plus your arguing about conspiracy theorists which is completely different to people trying to come to scientific conclusions. you can say all you want about govt incompetence, you can say that its too big to cover up. but when it all boils down to it, we are the stupid ones they are the genius's. and why?? knowledge is power and while we are guessing they are running a country. hell who is the govt?? a bunch of people working together to acheive the goals layed out to them by the person next up the rung. sometimes i cant help feel that the whole govt system is a smoke screen for the real people pulling the strings and thats putting conspiracy vids aside because reality is, if someone somewhere with enough money doesnt want information to get out... then that information will not get out. so contemplate that when watching ANYTHING you get access to on the internet, the controlled information super highway.

  75. @jack1952

    It's just about as nutty as chem-trail theory. Birthers are people who believe the US president wasn't born on American soil even though his birth announcement appeared in TWO US newspapers on the day he was born, the doctor who DELIVERED him at the hospital has come forward, and all his birth records are in order. Something like 25% of Americans think he's foreign-born. You just can't satisfy conspiracy theorists... because there's never enough proof. It's easier for some Americans to believe that he's a black foreigner hijacking the country than someone who could actually be VOTED into office by Americans. Total silliness.

    Don't get me wrong, I like watching conspiracy theory videos. They're great with popcorn and a couple of doobies--nothing beats watching self-proclaimed experts stitching together some Dan Brown-esque theory about the world that has nothing to do with reality. I'd rather watch people make fools out of themselves and see how far they run with it than watch THE DA VINCI CODE.

    What's your favorite conspiracy theory that makes you say, Really, you've got to be kidding?

  76. I'm giving 6 1/2 points on the Steelers beating the Packers!

  77. @ Cabaret

    What is a "birther"? Is it as nutty as the chem-trail theory?

  78. And since when did conspiracy buffs all become "experts" in multiple scientific fields? It's like going to an astronomy website and reading all the drivel people post about their version of string theory and how black holes "actually" work without knowing anything beyond long division. (Here's where you cut and paste some "facts" from a "reputable source.")

    It's nice to see that astronomers at least don't have to come out with a bunch of books to debunk every crackpot who develops their own un-scientific theory. What do you know, really, about the feasibility of rocketry in 1969 unless you were in NASA? Probably absolutely nothing. I think NASA not only didn't go to the moon and never had, but that JFK was a reptilian alien and was shot by Buzz Aldrin who was somehow able to magically avoid detection by using futuristic technology from Atlantis given to him by the "birthers," all in the hope of bringing down America, which they, that is NASA, tried to do on 9-11. Now that's a conspiracy.

  79. The thing with people who believe in conspiracies is this... It wouldn't matter how many pictures you showed them (if they were taken today) of the Apollo rover, flag, footprints, or whatever else is on the moon--you could show the medical records of 15 astronauts with radiation poisoning and it wouldn't matter--they'd find a way to fit their conspiracy around it (everything is fabricated, duh, they'll say). That's how conspiracies take a hold of your imagination. You take all these tiny little "facts" and sort of stitch them together into a narrative that, for whatever reason, makes more "sense" to you.

    I'll just come out and say it: If you believe people didn't land on the moon in 1969, and it was a conspiracy orchestrated by perhaps THOUSANDS of people, then you are an IDIOT to the Nth degree. It's correct that the Soviets would have been the first to point this out. But no amount of facts will satisfy any conspiracy buff because they want to "believe" they have some sort of inside knowledge of something they share with a minority of like-minded people. Like Atlantis. Or 9-11 conspiracies. Or alien autopsies. Or Illuminati. Or the more recent "birthers." I bet if you put any of these conspiracy people on a space shuttle and sent them to the REAL moon, they'd still find a way to convince you they were really still on the planet in a NASA simulator, and that their own trip to the moon was FAKE.

  80. Mythbusters rock

  81. It makes me so mad. Sorry.

  82. @ Stephen

    Music is a government plot designed to divert us from seeking the truth. It makes so mad!!!

  83. There seems to be a lot of mind-reading going on in conspiracy theory circles. When your convinced that the entire world is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, evidence that validates that belief carries far more weight than anything to the contrary. I believe we landed on the moon and, admittedly, I giggle slightly at those who suggest otherwise.

    A friend of mine showed me a couple of Moon Landing Conspiracy Docs and, admittedly, I could not answer every question that was raised off the top of my head. After doing a little research, however, I was able to find information (not on this doc) that debunked every aspect of his beliefs. After ***Much*** prodding, I finally was able to convince the self-procliamed "Truth Searcher" to view a couple of films that presented ideas in contrast to his view. We did not make it through the films, unfortunately, as he was angered... truly angered by each one.

    The entire experience felt strangely similar to the anger I've seen from religous friends who see something they consider blasphemous. The entire debate, and complete and total closed-mindedness my "open-minded" friend came as a shock, at first. I believe there is something deeper at play here.

    Humans have evolved Culture, the development of a belief system, that is crucial for our survival. When comparing Scientific Culture to Religous Culture, and even Conspiracy Culture.. One common human trait shines through. Paradigms will be defended beyond all reason and logic. Humans are pre-programmed by evolution to behave this way.

    By my experience, your chances of convincing someone from Conspiracy Culture that the "Moon Landing Was Real," are about as good as Convincing a devout Muslim that Allah is a fairy tale. Its just not going to happen.

    I am still good friends with my Conspiracy Theorist pal, we just dont venture into those subjects where agreement will never be possible. Instead, we concentrate on Music and a few other areas of thought that we share in common. It's more rewarding to cooperate than it is to argue.

    Just my experience.

  84. @ Ryan

    If any part of testimony is untrue then the entire testimony must be disregarded will invalidate all history. One can find inconsistencies even in the truth.

    Read the section "impact on space travel" in your widipedia link.

  85. These guys also 'debunked' the john bediny electric motor.

    This motor generates more energy than is required to run it trough the use of magnets (which is clearly stated on johns website since the beginning of the internet (john is from the 80ties)).

    Mythbuster debunked that this was possible by making an engine that DID NOT HAVE MAGNETS :p. DEBUNKED BAM from that point on i can never take them seriously and stopped wasting my time by watchin em.

    John Bediny *free energy motor in action...

    Get it on pirate bay

  86. Thought everyone knew there was two moon landings.
    Perhaps they should also put Joe Escamilla's Moon Rising on here too. One of the astronauts that made the half a million mile trip recently caught the nose of a debunker, bam! I was in high school in 69 I remember the astronauts had a 3 day rest after the splash down (perhaps to unremember certain details of their journey? (yes)) then the big parade! Then Hendrix died the following year, 9 sleeping pills, dang. It's fuzzy, those were my missing years. The CIA just before that made acid so strong put my friends in special homes. Wolfman Jack knows why. Anyway, anything with the word myth in it, question it even deeper.

  87. @jjj I agree there is a lot of things which raise serious questions about the moon landings but that video got busted as a hoax and propaganda, unless the footage which shows them inside or beyond the Van Allen belt is fake, the windows in the LM are square not round aswell but I wonder why if the video that debunks it is genuine then why did they fake some of the footage from the moons surface if not then why did they fake it all. NASA needs to explain things but they wont do that because they were getting bad publicity when they were going to release a book on debunking it and another story says there were complaints about the cost of making the book. That doesn't wash with anyone and only increases the doubt but hey who cares anyway makes no difference really when in 100 years the knowledge is lost forever under a totalitarian Islamic world state. Lets hope everyone wakes up and Islam is banned from all over the world.

  88. Conspiracy theorists are the new priests of our world. They claim truths that are appealing, yet unverifiable. In that sense, they are not worthy of the term "theorists". Because a theory can always be disproved. So think about that when you post a comment: Your hypothesis is not complete until you are also willing to state what experiments or observations are needed to make you abandon your theory. If you can't get to that point, then you are holding a belief, not defending a theory.

  89. @ Antony

    This a weekly tv show here in Canada.

    I was 19 years old when the first moon landing happened. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that the Russians would have exposed any moon landing hoax. This is the truth. The moon landing took place 7 years after the Cuban missile crisis. That crisis was scarier than 9/11. We were all terrified of a nuclear war at that time. The competition between the Soviet Union and Western democracies was incredibly intense. The Russians would have loved to expose any American hoax, especially one of this magnitude.

    Nixon couldn't hide Watergate; the Iran-Contra affair was exposed; Clinton was caught with his pants down. It is very difficult to keep a secret in Washington. The moon landings cost an incredible amount of money. Filming in a studio is a great deal cheaper. Where did all this extra money go. There has to be a paper trail. Also 40 years later not one of the hundreds of people involved has stepped forward with evidence to prove it was a hoax. If I had evidence of a scam like this I'm sure that using it as a pension plan would have crossed my mind. Anyone corrupt enough to try and fool the world once is corrupt enough to try to cash in on it years later.

    There could be many reasons for a lack of thrust craters. The reason may not be readily apparent and makes for an interesting question. A question is not evidence.

  90. Many of these "busted myths" prove me, that conspiracy theorists should do more research, before telling their perception as if they are the truth & twisting minds of other people. But I do agree with CrazyApe, that they should have explained the missing thrust craters. I'm still not convinced by any side yet, but it just due to my lack of knowlege. Anyway, I enjoyed the show, but this isn't a documentary is it?

  91. Their were thousands of perfectly clear pictures taken on the moon. When you divide the number of minutes on the moon by the number of pictures it's close to 1. The cameras were clunky and fairly uncontrollable. There's no way they took so many perfect pictures. It was a studio job.

  92. @ Drew

    The reason that no one has gone back is because there is no payoff, scientific, economic or even national pride. NASA felt that money was better allocated towards the shuttle program and other near Earth projects. Landing on the moon is very expensive. It is much cheaper to send multiple probes to Mars than it is to guarantee the safety of lunar astronauts.

    As for the rest of the moon myth questions that are asked, they are just that; questions, not evidence. Evidence of a hoax would be some one who was actually involved with the hoax coming out with documents and videos proving that it was one elaborate scam. Since no one has I must assume that the moon landings happened.

    Most conspiracy theorists assume because there are questions that this is definitive proof of conspiracies and lies. Five people witnessing the same event will disagree on the details of that event. These discrepancies does not negate the event only the way the witnesses interpret what they have seen.

  93. Theres one thing they missed out. Please, do explain why there is no dust on the feet of the lander module, in all of nasa's photographs of it. its not like a few thousand pounds of thrust wouldnt move some dirst now is it.

  94. arrogant bumbling "smart guys"* sorry. didn't reallize the "i" word was profane.

  95. I really don't like these guys. They don't try to find results. They just try to prove their opinion is correct and at the same time ridicule and generalize the "conspiracy theorists" (which they always seem emphasize in a derogatory way). I have no strong opinion one way or the other on this subject, but it's obvious that these narrow minded ego nerds had no intention of looking at this subject objectively. I couldn't even watch the whole program.

    Here's an example of an objective look at one their "scientific experiments". The photo.

    They shone a light through a hole in a black sheet onto a nice looking lunar lander model. Then they made sure you knew their moon surface material/dirt had accurate reflective properties. And...that's it. They fail to acknowledge anything else that would be a variable. Maybe that black walls are a little different than the darkness of the void of outer space, just a little. You can even see the lights reflecting off of them. Then the guy with camera snaps a photo two feet away, not shielded from the light in anyway. In comparison to the model, that's like a ten story building. Also they kept their cameras in there and who knows who/what else. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt where the curvature of the moon comes into play. I don't care how nice their toys look. I care if the model is accurate. Then, the ego-nerd says "busted" as if he proved his point. It was just one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

    I don't care if the moon landing was a hoax or not but no one should take these arrogant bumbling idiots seriously. I have learned one thing, though. When looking for info Mythbusters holds absolutely no credibility.

  96. Brilliant piece. Most of these myths were once thought to be truths by me. As a "conspiracy theorist" I don't find any joy in calling my Government liars, or speaking about secret societies. I much prefer to be proven wrong in most cases.

    Which mythbusters despite their annoying humor has managed to done.

    My only question left is, how were we able to fly to the moon between 1969 to 1972, yet now during the year 2010 why haven't we gone back?

    While this video does a great job in debunking all the lunar myths, it does beg this question to be asked as well" If Mythbusters with a Hollywood studio budget could fake this, Couldn't NASA which has all the resources of America fake it as well." However it isn't enough for me to say "Well they could do it, thus they did" and get away with it.

    Which is why the only question left to be answered is why haven't we been back?

  97. why is it that americans dont claim the moon. do they own it now ? why dont they comeback there.

  98. to condense scientific result by these 2 "mythbusters" in a half hour format is akin to the happy ending formula practiced in sitcoms.formula meets the i know how far the educational system has gone to dumb down the population with producing those 2"scientists"

  99. I appreciate that they are moving through myths, however the particular charged bias they have towards "conspiracy theorists" doesn't bode well for science or objectivity in general.

    Btw, I would like to see them Bust the 9/11 "Myth"

    LO f@#$%^& L, NOT!!

  100. @uncleduke316 are you being serious? I'm sure it scared the crap out of the Russians, who wouldn't be scared of a country who can land men on the moon, also I'm sure rich Americans were afraid of losing their privileges if the world began to view communism in a favorable light, there is no logic in calling communism evil unless you stand to lose a very privileged lifestyle, if you are living in a shit pit communism may well be appealing if it can create a good strong society with low poverty and hence low crime, this is very appealing if you have half a brain so the rich had to drill it into the minds of Americans that it is evil, it's very simple, think how you would feel if you were sitting on a fortune and you stood to lose it you would be very scared of that prospect I imagine, the rich control how the rest of us think but the world is going down the toilet, society is rotten, think what ever you will but the evidence speaks for itself, how can there be so many anomonolies and hard pills to swallow about the moon footage. Hitler once said if you are going to tell a lie make sure it is a big one and keep telling it until people believe it, it seems to work.

  101. what would be the motive: to distract the taxpayers while the government diverted millions of dollars into the cold war???

  102. I have come to the conclusion that people agressively try to convince people that man walked on the moon because they are scared that if they think it didnt happen, that then it will come true that it didnt happen, its a bit sad that. I've looked at all the evidence and my conclusion is that man may have got past the van halen belt, if the footage which shows this is not fake and so man could have walked on the moon, but the footage of the moonwalk is fake because the sun is fake (it is too large and has concentric reflections which the real sun does not have) so no one has yet to see someone walking on the moon. I dont believe they would fake the footage if they had actually did it unless the radiation on the moon stopped the cameras from working but no one has ever said that. Also why build a giant moon ball, why is there photographs of a previous mission sitting on the legs of the LM on one of the missions, that is impossible in 250 degrees heat. It's a burst baloon.

  103. When you have to go to a show as this, you know that you have reached bottom. The youth all around the world have learned to question. JFK, Vietnam, and yes the moon hoax. This type of TV desperately trying to prove or disprove anything, is about as desperate as NASA could get. Their hoping that young people will somehow gravitate to this simple approach to science. Their afraid that their sherade will come undone. People learned to question their governement before watergate. Lying Lyndon Johnson moved NASA to houston tx. and brought the Vietnam war to our doorstep. The moon landings were simply one more story to tell among seasoned well trained liers. The art of deception. Thanks Stanley Kubrick.

  104. @ReligionisntAllBad it is people like you who have halted the progress of mankind through history, why dont we just go back to believing the earth is the centre of the universe or that it is flat. You do science a massive dis-service, I want to see a man on the moon and in my opinion it hasnt happened and I find it quite upsetting that a country may have lied to the world about achieving it. This has resulted in a period of nearly 40 years where man has not been trying to overcome the obstacles of manned space exploration so it is very important and it should be taken seriously. So conspiracy theorists are the friends of mankind not the enemy and we shouldnt be given disrespect for our beliefs it is up to you to convince people of what you think is the truth.

  105. You may have unanswered questions about how NASA landed on the moon. That is normal as you probably are not an astronaut, electrical engineer, physicist, etc all rolled into one person.

    However, to push your misunderstandings as a proof that the first moon landing (and the 5 other moon landings afterwards) were all conspiracies, is quite foolish indeed. NASA was going to commission a work to publicly debunk all of the conspiracy theories, but then decided it was not worth even acknowledging the crazies who come out of the woodwork to scream shenanigans from under their tinfoil hats :D Nothing can convince some people that because the government lied about some things that they didn't lie about this.

    What about the radiation, the cameras, the fuel, the huge distance, the me not being able to comprehend it, the O2, the shitty computers of the time, the LM doing this or that ... yeah everyone has heard it ALLLLLLLLLLL just give 'er a rest O_o

    (x_X)G-(._.Q) <-- conspiracy theorists vs overwhelming evidence

  106. @ antogonist
    i am now getting mad i didn't say there wasn't a disturbance in the center are you so out of arguments that you have to change what others say to try to hold on to your half truths and unsubstantiated claims how about some positive proof everyone wants to attack the established facts without producing anything in their favor .no evidence of a massive vacuum chamber needed for the fakes no nasa death bed confessions no positive proof at all only negative proof

  107. I apologise I must be wrong about the law of physics, so a halo can form around something without disturbing what is in the centre, it looks to me like the moon has been toasted in the images but I must be wrong again

  108. @ antagonist
    please don't put words in my mouth. where did i say there was a lot of disturbance. i only stated that the halo was detected.if you look at selene's photo's there isn't a huge amount of disturbance. i don't want to argue with you any more for the reasons stated above but please don't misrepresent what i have already said

  109. @ Achems Razor well why not, so can you explain why the japanese probe from blog 213 shows a lot of disturbance yet on the sister video to this "the truth behind the moonlandings" it says there was only a tiny little bit of disturbance, hence why there was no sign of a crator under the LM, also the surface of the moon under and around the LM seemed to be completely undisturbed. My theory is that liars always trip themselves up in the end.

  110. @antogonist:

    On your blog 218... "the fact the LM changed course on (sic)-"appolo" 11 proves nothing"

    Right, and I suppose that they threw in the aborted mission of Apollo 13 in for good measure, Right?

  111. I'll try to be brief. Mythbusters moon show had as much to do with science as baking a cake at different altitudes. Werner Von Braun was among the hundreds of German scientists and academics who were secretly and hurriedly herded into the U.S. following WWII cessations. Rather than subject these people to criminal war trials, the U.S. opted for the "brain drain," under a program called "Operation Paperclip." Anyway, Werner Von Braun was already known as "the father of rocket science," after sucessfully developing the first armed missile known as the V-2 rocket which the Nazis rained down on England. Von Braun headed the propulsion division of the Gemini program, a precurser to Kennedy's Appolo moon vision. Werner Von Braun posited that a moon shot was "many many years away." He wrote that because of (this was and is established theorum) the phenomena known as the Van Allen Radiation Belts, no manned craft could leave earth's gravitational pull using current fossil-fuel-based propulsion systems. The lead-based sheathing required to protect the humans would be so heavy that a fuel tank one acre at the base, and 45 stories tall would be required to propel the weight of the shielded craft and the weight of the fuel itself, through and beyond the radiation belts. Travel to the moon? Impossible.
    The engines required still have not been built, and no moon shot will occur until we have discovered incredibly light weight energy sources and propulsion systems and something very light other than lead, for protection. Conveniently, Mythbusters went to the very people who wish to perpetuate the lie, and would not dare address radiation.
    Secondly, the Russians are the only space racers who have ever successfully achieved a "soft landing." That is, a balanced, reverse-propulsion soft decent of a spacecraft. A soft landing incidentally requires the resistance of an atmosphere. With a little searching you may find videos of attempts by NASA to soft land the moon module in earth trials. All of which failed and would have failed anyway on the atmosphereless moon.
    Consider also: Appolo is circumventing the moon traveling at a minimum of 17 thousand miles an hour. We are to believe that the landing module detached itself at that speed, slowed itself down in a virtual vacuum without benefit of atmospheric resistance, almost to a full stop in nothingness, then achieved a soft landing in that vacuum, a feat they could not succeed at on the earth. Sorry, no moon landing ever happened.
    Toss this around: NASA made 3 moon rovers. These were nothing more than dune buggies running on electric motors and batteries. Now these buggies could have been built in my Dad's garage for well under a thousand dollars each.
    So you may be realizing that the moon shot hoax was to convince the cold-warring Russians that we had more advanced technology....but consider this as well...those moon buggies. They cost the taxpayer $20,000,000.00 each. That's right. Twenty million dollars each. The entire Appolo program?? This citizen-science guy has no idea except to say it was many many billions into the pockets of NASA administrators and the Industrial Military Complex.

  112. I thought about that a long time ago and for me the fact the LM changed course on appolo 11 proves nothing. If I were to fake the moon landing this would be a perfect feature to include to make it seem the testimony of the astronauts concurs with the actual movement of the LM. So lets add a little bit of drama that would shut the Russians up. I seen an interview of a cosmonaut commenting on the apollo missions and whether he believes the USA landed on the moon, he replied did they see a naked Russian while they were up there or words to that effect. What I am saying seems silly but perfectly plausible, in light of the fact it is sold as the definitive proof that the event actually took place. Two things it was only data which was sent back as far as I know but also just because if appolo 11 did actually land and behave in the manner in which is suggested by the data it doesnt mean that the boys werent still in earth orbit doing the silly video where they pretend to be half way to the moon. In a court of law there is too much evidence against and only circumstancial evidence in favour of the manned moon landing. 50 years hard labour would be a fitting sentence for making a mockery of the court.

  113. @antagonist
    i replied already but it is not appearing so i will try again
    (no fault of site my firewall is a pain)
    first did you even go to the site i suggested? next the fact that the moon is in a vacuum doesn't mean that a force applied will not have an effect only that it will act differently then on earth (i don't believe i have to explain this sigh).
    you said there is no evidence but when provided you ignore it
    the Russians were monitoring and would have liked nothing better than to embarrass the states, don't forget they were leading the space race til then and they analyzed every detail
    (see Roald Sagdeev, former director of the Soviet Space Institute)
    Australia and japan as well as many countries confirm this and lastly if the landings were faked why fake it 6 times and multiply possible leaks when once was enough i will take my leave now as i now accept no proof or logic will sway you

  114. lol if this is evidence remind me not to hire you as my solicitor if I'm ever in trouble. Ok explain the glint of the wires holding up the astronauts in apollo 15 footage is this fake also. This is one of these stories that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the event actually did take place but there are loads of things wrong with the provided evidence, we are just expected to believe what we are told because why would a country lie about something as big as this. This is one time however where it is much more plausible that it was faked because it deals with national security, I recommend people make their own minds up about the situation however you are doing the same thing mythbusters have did and that is say because one person says something stupid and it is proved wrong then the whole thing must be true. You still havnt answered why the sun is so big in the photos, it seems like just as this program has tried to attempt is that you are trying to use propaganda in order that you can make people believe in a religious cult. It's a tragedy for the human race that an issue as serious as this is not questioned properly, NASA owes the world the truth one way or the other, launch a satellite to the moon and map the surface and show us these footprints which I know are not there. If as I suspect NASA hasnt been yet then they have cheated the rest of the world but I guess there is nothing we can do about it because we will just get our ass kicked I suppose.

  115. @ antagonist
    the reason there was no dust (or very little) on the legs is unlike on earth any dust given a outward trajectory does not have wind resistance to deal with so it continues outward without any resistance other than the weak gravity
    now you say the Japanese are lying i suppose the Russian,Australian. french, Canadian and countless others are lying as well look you said there is absolutely no evidence so i give you evidence independent of nasa and you still dismiss it well i am done

  116. @overthedge what is this halo, if the rockets of the lunar lander had caused disturbance to the moon surface, why is there no evidence of this within the photos, it has been asked on many occasions why there has been no dust kicked up onto the legs of the LM during landing which apparently was because it landed in a vacuum and therefore there was no air to push to cause disturbance or whatever bla bla bla yet now you are saying there was disturbance. Which to me would suggest that if this photo is not a fake then this object on the moon is not the same object in the photos.

  117. @antogonist
    how about some non NASA evidence would that appease you
    quote from Japanese space agency "According to the May 20, 2008 Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) press release entitled “The 'halo' area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA),” the spacecraft has taken an image of the approximate one-square-kilometer “halo” left when the engine of the NASA Apollo 15 lunar lander descended to the Moon."

  118. @overtheedge I find the claim that Nasa were about to release a book which proves that all the conspiracy theories are wrong but didn't because there were complaints about wasting public money as laughable considering how much money has already been wasted. It seems like silly little nitpicks about things but the main questions havn't been answered here. Why is the sun so large in the photographs in comparision to the earth when the cameras the astronauts used had no zoom function. I havnt had time to try to find the images which Aulis claim have false backgrounds but I will attempt to find them when I have time. Maybe you are working for NASA, if so why not just release some images from lunar orbit which show the craft at each landing site.
    Google (Lost Soviet Reflecting Device Rediscovered on the Moon) which kind of proves that it is possible to find things on the moon. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest man has ever walked on the moon.

  119. @ antogonist
    those photo's are funny nice to know the makers of the site can use photoshop there is no proof there only doctored photo's. in the "about the authors" section it clearly states that Mary D. M. Bennet believes she has psi abilities and she practices remote viewing. the photo's on the site have reference #'s on them look up the corresponding nasa photo's they don't match . i will post a link that has your claims debunked now links tend to go to moderation so be patient please. while you wait check out how many of the photo's on the site you suggested have no id # the fact that the numbers are missing proves that they are doctored

  120. @ overtheedge google the following search (AULIS online- different thinking why is the sun so big). Sorry to destroy your dreams but at least it's still something which has not been done yet, getting to the moon I mean or could you explain away the numerous findings found here? I'm happy you have taken the time to reply thankyou.

  121. @antogonist
    please point me to the photo's you are talking about. it is you and others that are making the claims why should i find the evidence for you ? again how about some positive evidence i have investigated most claims and as of yet there aren't any that cannot be explained

  122. @overtheedge, if you do some investigation on the appollo photographs you will know the moon landings were faked. Since when is the sun larger than the moon from photographs made from earth yet on the moon the sun is bigger than the earth, the earth is bigger than the moon so, the sun should appear much smaller than the earth from the moon. There also many photographs which have problems with the backdrops in each location, the mythbusters program doesnt adress any of the real anomonolies it just as thruthseeker states confirms it could be faked with a decent budget to make it work.

  123. Why have no other people went beyond the Van Allen radiation belt?

    It's been decades....

    In the 70s, we would have to call on a land-line to have this discussion.....but we don't have nearly the same space technology?....LOL

  124. @truthseeker
    please give some evidence for your argument not speculation only. by for your argument i mean positive proof of a hoax. for example the extremely large vacuum chamber required of reproduce moon conditions (the largest chamber to date is 100 feet in diameter and not completed yet but a much larger one would have been needed for a fake moon) where is the proof of such a chamber. or why has no government documents leaked showing the cover up ,or at least as few death bed confessions of people involved in the hoax. the fact that the governments of the world have lied to us in the past is not proof that they lied about the moon. it never seems to bother the hoax people that there is no proof for their argument only speculation against it happening and all the speculation can be explained rationally

  125. it seems to me that all this episode did was prove that they could have faked the moon landing. if a couple of guys can recreate it here on earth then couldnt the government do it too. and one thing i will never undertand is why anyone who thinks it was a hoax is considered a wack job? all you have to do is look at the facts. and history has shown that the people have been lied to before by the government so why is it so hard to believe.

  126. You don't have to be a patriot to believe the landing happened. You just have to be sensible. there is overwhelming evidence that the lunar landing really did happen, and only far out pseudoscience and wild speculation against it. Now just to frame who this is coming from; I believe in several conspiracies. I believe in the one world government stuff, most of it. I believe 9/11 was at least partially an inside job used as a pretext for war. But the lunar landing??? Come on people, the whole world watched it happen. The only thing lunar conspiracy theorists do is make all people who believe in ANY type of government cover-up or conspiracy look as nutty as they do. Yes, it was a long way to go, that's why we did it. No, we haven't been back since, because it is EXPENSIVE, and there is no economically viable way to make a buck off of it yet. Like another poster said, I can't wait until we finally do go back, just to hopefully shut all these wack-jobs up.

  127. ´Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.´

    Shiiiiiii these moon hoax/conspiracy believers are even dumber the I thought... Anything you´ll throw at them they´ll believe except when the evil government is somehow involved, then nothing is true. Not even well documented and verified events as the Moon landings.

    1. Glad you mentioned Stanley Kubrick and Donald Rumsfeld, along with Henry K, and yes good ol buzz A.
      These men all have had one thing in common, that is that the last missions in each of their lives will be the same, dis-information, and bullshilling the American John Q Pubic into believing whatever they say, as if it were truth.
      That makes it very easier for the rest of us to understand the techniques used when in that business.
      The last, is a few questions: Why is it that so many people have come to the defense of the so-called moon landings? Why did they not utilize Stanley Kubrick tech. of the day and make adequate films that could clearly show the faces of the astronauts, as they walked on the lunar surface?
      Who was holding the movie camera when Ast. Neil Armstrong decended the ladder?
      Why have they threatened dissenter/researchers with death, and why have investigators been killed after the Apollo one fire?
      Why is it that the Glen Beck followers all have to redicule the people that have genuine questions concerning many of the US Govt. activities during these last 50 yrs?
      Its not unpatriotic to question our government, but it does take insite, decernment, and courage.

  128. Its sad that the government paid these guys off. I cant say that for sure but to cover their butts, you know they would.

  129. Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger both have admitted (on video record - youtube it)that they agreed to fake footage of the moon landing IF they were unable to achieve it, as asked by Richard Nixon at the time. Therefore, they would have faked it is VERY plausible that they did fake it...

    PS - This documentary proved nothing in my mind.

  130. Flags: not important.
    Shadows: not important.
    Footstep: not important
    It the radiation man ... Brains get fried in space
    Earth is the only place

  131. Like 10 hours or so of Jarrah White doesn’t fry your brains. One random video of his is enough to see he’s full of it.

    As for this whole ‘moon hoax’ thing… It’s not even discussion worthy. If you’re convinced that man never made it to the moon you’ll have to come up with something more substantial as a wobbly flag and multiple light sources in pictures…

  132. And now they want to go to Mars. Even a bigger hoax.
    Why not go to Venus?
    It is warmer over there, and the women are hot.

  133. First watch all the videos of jarrah White....
    After 10 hours of video's, pay attention to the "debunkers"
    sometimes they are right, Mostly They bring only disinformation.
    Like "Red herrings" and small debunkable facts.
    Look at the tactics of this payed "Illuminate" debunkers, or persons who will never learn. sometimes plain stupid oned.
    Start wihh "moonfakers" If you have seen them all, switch to
    his opponents.]
    Jarrah White is not stupid.

  134. The "moonfaker" youtube serie is fantastic.
    Jarrah White does a tremendous job in explaining what did happen on " The way to te moon and back hoax"
    More than 10 hours video clips

  135. Myth Busters Like Penn & Teller & all the other mainstream hoes like to label anybody quesioning our beloved government's "Conspiracy Theorist" loon "Tin Foil Hatters". YAWN easily manipulated the sheeple are.

  136. If mythbusters can make a replica of the lunar landing site how do we know if NASA did not wen they claimed to have landed on moon

  137. The moon is where dreams are made.
    The Media Moon Men are made of cheese.
    Nasa is like that, they are the limburger.
    Aged, smelly and full of holes.
    Can anyone dig that it's hard to plug
    a hole spilling oil, but so easy
    to traverse to a day trip to the moon
    and broadcast live over 30 years ago?

    Has anyone seen Truman lately?
    Oh yeah, he walked out that exit stage left.
    I don't doubt our ability, I just doubt
    that old story.

  138. Whoever that wants info. on the radiation issue, @Reason Voice, kindly gave a link about that on "For All Mankind" 18.

    Also @Epicurus, kindly gave a link for the same issue on "For All Mankind" 10.

  139. @corey
    i answered the shielding question already. If you have some proof that i am wrong i would like to see it. also i asked for your proof of the crews condition and what it means.

  140. actually i need to make a retraction to #2.
    #2 i got it from a second hand source and didnt check it out sorry.not to mention the radiation was at its highest from 1969 to 1972.i dont think a few cm of alunamum would be enough.charles B i think going back to the moon would be a great thing. just think about how much of an advantage it would be to lauch a nuclear missle from there .sadly i only had enogh time to say a bit all be back after the weekend

  141. Well, it's an historical fact that for the past that for the last 38 years no human has ventured more than circa 250 miles out from the Earth's surface, that is out of Earth orbit. Using a common school globe to illustrate this humans have been operating in circa one centimeter above the globe while the moon is about ten meters away. Face it; if man had really landed on the moon 40 years ago we would have bases and even freaking malls there by now.

  142. I think China will be the next ones to step on the moon itself. That is what they are planning, I do believe. It's an ego thing, I think.

    Corey: The questions about about the rediation was answered on another doc about the moon landings. Who cares what Japan and Russiah says (and who is saying it?)! Do you blieve them, and wouldn't they just be mindless doubters like you are now if they are saying this now?

    It takes millions of dollars to go to the moon again. Why? Been there; done that. It would be better to concentrate on other space programs and/or rebuild new space shuttles that are being retired now.

    Let the Chinese do it next; just as long as they don't remove our flag. Small chance of that, but ya never know about them.

  143. 40 years ago... why no one can go back there... you think mythbusters would be allowed to broadcast this episode if they did prove the moon landing was fake.. it's a great show but there are things they can't put on the show... never seen a way to skip authorities that can be usefull today(i.e. fooling contraband sniffing myth. anything against the us government will not be put on air. what about the myth that is it possible to GO TO THE moon in the first place. i bet you there are alot of dead rats and chimps in space... if the americans did 40 years ago... why nobody else could do it till today.. i say the chinese will be the actual first to land on the moon, but i'm rooting for the indians! then there will be bollywood movies about space! the space will become so colourfull! lollll. yes, I get retarted sometimes.

  144. @corey:

    Don't have the patience to answer your questions when all the answers are already on all the moon doc blogs here on TDF

    Plus you may find, that by demanding like you do, and going a little rank, will not put you in good stead with the commentors here, we do have respect among us!
    So learn some manners, corey.

    @over the edge: easily answered your questions for you!

  145. @corey
    1.the astronauts passed through the belts in approx four hours the exposure has been compared to living at sea level for three years. van allen himself supports this. most of the radiation would have been shielded by the spacecraft itself. the radiation of the belt is mostly high energy protons which are easy to shield against.
    2. i cannot find an official or credible Russian denial of the moon landing if you have one please produce it for me . japan on the other hand confirmed the landing in 2007 launched selene (their own lunar orbiter) and detected the "halo: from the exhaust and compared their own photos to the original apollo photos and said they matched
    3. i don't know their condition and please show me your proof and what it means
    4. haven't been back because it is too expensive and the public lost interest. obama never said the technology doesn't exist he stated it will wait til the shuttles are replaced.
    5. they are not scientists and never claimed to be

  146. Wow I just think you just cant answer them.I have read the facts and watched the documentary and that is the conclusion that i have come up with. Yet you respond to me like i am some sort of uneducated christian fool.There are many people who agree with me.Time to put your balls to the wall razor.An answer my questions.

  147. @corey:

    It is obvious you have not done your homework corey, so keep studying!
    A lot to learn!

  148. I have done my homework Razor.And now I am more convinced then ever it didnt happen.And i now challenge you to answer my 5 questions.(ps I am still pretty new to the site dous Vlatko see all the comments to improve the site if so he must have alot of spare time.)

  149. Moon hoax is just another American fable for business and profit. Like other major silly official fables it's designed for the consumption of total i@#$%&.

  150. Myth Busters likes EXPLOSIONS
    Me NoT Lke ExPlOsIoNs

    Myth Busters Sick ......................

  151. Some “conspiracy theories” are real
    Some “conspiracy theories” are not real
    Some “conspiracy theories” are invented by people with fantasy
    Some “conspiracy theories” are invented by “ILLUMINATE”
    Some “conspiracy theories” are partially true
    Some “conspiracy theories” are partially wrong

    The real ART is to determine the truth from fantasy

    Conspiracy theorists ?? BUSTED ??

    Adam told afterwards he was NOT HAPPY with this edition of mith busters.
    They focused on the easy “conspiracy lunar theories” and they did it with tiny scale models and phony simuations.
    One should start to debunk with an open mind.
    I did not see any open minds with the Myth Busters
    Of course they were warned, they could lose there Jobs
    DISCOVERY channel ???????

    They are talking about “conspiracy theorists”
    Who are those people?
    9/11 is 100 %
    The moon walk 50 %

    And so more, and so more

  152. of course they landed on the moon. Remember the aliens told them not to come back

  153. To position a reflector on the moons surface, one has to send and land it over there. (no people necessary)
    If there is a radio controlled horizontal and vertical stabilization system with small electro engines and a battery aboard, one could set it in the right position by radio signals from earth.
    The computing power could be present on earth to accomplish this.

  154. Some "conspiracy theories" are real
    Some "conspiracy theories" are wrong
    Some "conspiracy theories" are invented by people with fantasy
    Some "conspiracy theories" are invented by "ILLUMINATE"
    Some "conspiracy theories" are partially true
    Some "conspiracy theories" are partially wrong

    The real ART is to determine what is true and what is fantasy

    Conspiracy theorists ?? BUSTED ?? Adam told afterwards he was not happy with this edition.
    They focused on the easy "conspiracy lunar theories" and they did it with tiny scale models and phony simuations. One should start every debunk with an open mind.
    I did not see any open minds with the Myth Busters

    "conspiracy theorists" Who are those people?

  155. @corey:

    Fairly intelligent?? Nay, am highly intelligent!! (I joke)

    All your answers are on all the moon docs. here on TDF. corey, from various commentors that are in the know, you will have to find them yourself, am sure you can do that right??

    Have a good day!

  156. if you can give me a good explanaition i would. i have an open mind. and i have done my homework.(ps i see your comments over the site. your farly intelligent :)

  157. @corey:

    I can answer your 5 questions without any problem! But what good will that do? Will that make a believer out of you? I think not! therefore will refrain, so go and do your own homework, there is no free ride!

  158. I would like people to answer my five questions:

    1. How did they get past the miles of radiation around the moon?
    2. Why do both japan an Russia say it is b@##$%^& that America has been to the moon?
    3. Why were the astronauts in such good condition when they came back?
    4. Why haven't they been back there lately, i heard Obama said there going to try when the technology better why would they need to wait if it was fine in the 60s?
    5. When did special effect artist become scientist?

  159. Strype: For one thing, they didn't let go of the pole with the flag on it on the moon clip. He still had his hand on it and even a slight touch could cause movement when there is vertually zero wind/air resistence. You seem really very unintelligent to me. Mythbusters even mentioned that if there was a clip of the flag moving when no one was touching the rod it was on, then they could take it from there, or did you not notice that statement? I think they did a fantastic job and I want to log on to discovery and view their extra meterials that they mentioned (when I have time).

  160. They show 15 seconds of the flag waving in their vacuum... Then show a 1/2 second comparison from the original video? Myth was FAR from busted. In fact, it appears they couldn't bust it, and weren't able to show a real comparison because of it. Complete fail with some manipulation on top.

  161. @samusakis

    oh.. u mean like the moon "ringing like a bell" and what not.. yes I agree, very interesting.. especially the bit about the age of the moon rocks not matching current theories of its origin.. truly fascinating

  162. After reading what everyone here has said I'm fairly convinced that the moon landing very well maybe not a hoax, however there is alot of stuff about the moon it self that bothers me, but all in due time ^.^

  163. ahh ok..
    retractable steel antennas...
    plausible explanation.. my skepticism is again put to rest (at least for now)
    *retrieves to lair* mwahahaha

    I did not appreciate the condescending tone of this clip (not you guys, but myth-busters response), as if i want them to have faked the trip to the moon.
    "i hope I hanven't ruined your day!"
    on the contrary, I would be much relieved & excited if i could accept the thing was f'real and could have more confidence in current research as I am very interested in space travel, but its so hard when there is such a high level of misinformation.
    thanx for ur intelligent responses.

  164. I have kept up the search Achems however going to abandon for the day after the "giant cave spider" video i suffered through. Debunking the obviously insane Debunkers can make one insane, thus an insane debunker... A nasty cycle.

  165. @ ez
    i have to disagree on the whole "don't privatize space exploration" bit. the governments is the most inefficient entity we know.. to the point where they are funded through violence (no one would voluntarily pay for that ish) . I would bet everything I own that Private companies will outperform any governments space program, and actually, this is happening now, which is the reason why NASA is resorting to private contractors for their next flights, although they have already wasted billions of dollars in their own shuttle program.
    the only challenge private companies face is that they don't have billions to waste on "just curiosity" because investors and potential consumers actually want results for their hard earned money, and not vague idealistic platitudes.
    IMO, the only reason corporations look like the bad guys is because instead of the fair and open competition they would have to resort to in a truly free market, many corporation realize a shortcut by just bribing government officials (lobbying) so they can monopolize and force out competition (also getting away with scams)..
    just a thought tho.

  166. @ jono
    a bit dismissive, i mean even mythbusters footage shows the same thing.. seems most unlikely that "lens flare" can cause such an effect, but again, i'm no expert and am open to more evidence.

  167. I'll Look into it Achems. No problem love this kind of stuff. When there is a plethora of available work on a subject my life takes a turn for the better. Broadening my mind and acruing info is heroine to me.

  168. @Imightberiding:

    Am going to look into how and why the fellow levitated back up so fast, wires?? am going to see what I can find on that also, anything that I can find, will post.

    Great link by the way @RV: for the Van Allan belts, thanks, can you add anything to the wires? or the fast levitation?

  169. @princeton
    I have to agree with you on the wires. It is painfully obvious that something is amiss when that one fellow tries to stand after falling & is miraculously levitated back into a standing position. Almost like running the film backwards. At any rate, I think I'm going to sit this one out. I tossed my hat into this discussion back towards the beginning but since then it has deteriorated into a bizarre back & forth that makes no sense to me.

  170. Looked at the YouTube link, nah that doesn't do it for me, lot of that could be lens flare, also the guy whos fronting it so stands to gain with his cruddy little digital studio.

  171. @princeton
    I would have to say probably a photographic anomaly but its defiantly one of the better arguments. I'll check into it and let you know what i come up with.

  172. @princeton
    It really does look like there are wires. I like the part when the guy is trying to stand up. lol

  173. about this film & moon hoax

    will no one answer me?.. whats up with the wires?

    u can see the cables (unless I’m missing something) in this film — part 4 @ 3:00 & 6:21-6:27 or u can see more footage of it here:
    youtube / watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE (short 3 min video)

  174. NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Really? How is that possible. One of the most important accomplishments of mankind. Non-sense! Kind of like when no cameras were working at the pentagon on 9/11.

    The government will always show you pictures or videos to support their claim, and you will never see pics or videos when they cant. I have read books on both claims saying it was a hoax and not a hoax. Scientist, professional photographers, etc..etc. I am not sure what to think. We have been lied to so many times over by the government, its hard to tell when they are telling the truth.

    The good news is they found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money. There is an oxymoron, the government saving money. They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.

    Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing. I feel better now. With the technology today, I am sure these new films will support the landing.

  175. @ DaveandConfused

    I have already replied to this once but is in moderation (arghh) for some reason. I will shorten it up this time and just say that NASA doesn't just decide what mission to undertake. They get thier funding from the government and as such all missions must be congressionally approved.

    At the time we landed on the moon and through out the later Apollo missions there was a big push from Americans that we were spending too much money on space exploration and that the trips to the moon were pointless. This, in my opinion, has alot to do with why they never went back after the last Apollo mission. That said we made like around five landings on the moon, not just the one that is so famouse. After five or six trips it is easy to see how the government might say, "O.k. thats enough lets move on."

    People had become so used to the mission that the networks would not even cover the latter missions, as no one wanted to watch anymore. Thats Americans for you, all about the novelty but who cares about the real science. We had beaten the Russians and that was good enough for the mass public. NASA wanted to keep going from the interviews I have read.

  176. @ The Imposter

    You are right, my apologies to all. The first pic is for the NASA mission- wow, I was sleepy. Any way if you scroll on down you will see that the land scape does match perfectly between the two photos, as you pointed out. I am a little embarrased but I still stand by the FACT that we did go there. How else did they fake the land scape so well, how could they have known that a later mission by the Japanese would take a picture of the exact landing site. Proof enough for me, and the qoute by Van Allen is really an eye opener as well. That said it is not the earth shattering evidence I thought it was, sorry guys.

  177. @imposter
    Thank for the link. And to a degree, that's my point. I find it hard to believe there's nothing worth extracting from the moon, for test's at the very least. Alot of smaller rocks land on that rock. One of them must be carrying something noteworthy. And since they've already been up there it's should be a problem to go back. But it seems to be taking them awhile for some reason.

  178. @ DaveandConfused

    All is forgiven, I am a little jumpy this morning so i apologize as well. One reason I think we didn't go back is that the American public started viewing it as a waste of money. In fact they barely had an audience for the Apollo 13 mission and most networks dropped the coverage, I am sure that made the guys out there in the vacuum feel real good to know that the puiblic was that indiffernet to thier sucess. Now as soon as they got into trouble, boom it blew up all over television- thats sad.

    "WE dont give pause until the blood is flowing" That's a lyric from a Tool song I love called Vicariouse. It talks about how we, the mass viewing public, live vicariousely through other peoples pain and tradjedy- its a beautiful song.

    Any way i think NASA wanted to recapture that spirit that we had when we first went to the moon. They thought that a improved two way vessel, for lack of a better term, like the shuttle would do this as well as bring down costs so they could return. It didn't though and NASA has suffered every since.

    But we have to remember that NASA doesn't just decide what missions they will undertake, and that they get thier funding through the government. So maybe they wanted to return to the moon and governement disagreed? I really don't know about that but I know that the government has a lot to do with what missions get fullfilled and what missions get scrapped.

    Right now there is a huge push to privatize NASA. I think that is the WRONG way to go. We all know how corporations work and how they exploit and digest everything they touch. Do we want commercial ventures on the moon or in outer space at all? Will the science take a back seat to profit, expanding markets, etc.,etc. I think so, but thats just me. I have always been proud of our space program though i am not really a patriotic guy. I hate to see us lose that as a function of this nation and see it turned over to big business.

  179. @ez
    I am not implying you're being dishonest, and am sorry if you took it that way. I was refering to the People on here that pat themselves on the back every time someone finds evidence that they call proof. Proof to me will be when someone other then nasa gets to the moon. i know that's asking alot, but at this point i don't trust nasa's ability to tell the truth. They don't have the best track record if you ask me. lol. These are interesting images those:)

  180. @ez
    Sorry man. i typed in what you told me to type in about the selene images and found a bunch sites, including the nasa site. That's why i said i may have found old pics. that can be a problem of the internet, for sure. I am really looking though. See, when it comes to the moon landing, i haven't made up my mind on if they pulled it off or not. I'm just very skeptical about the whole thing. Too many strange things about the whole thing. Like why they don't go now. I don't believe for a second that's there's no reason to go to the moon still. I can think of a few reason to be on that rock:) I did manage to find those pics though just now. Thanks for the effort though.

  181. @ The Imposter

    I never said that SELENE was manned, did I? If so I was mistaken or just too sleepy to know what i was saying, it was not a manned mission. If you will follow the link below you will see that they got an excellent photo of the lunar module and foot prints. Its very large in fact and easily seen, not just a few pixels across.

    @ DaveAndConfused

    My goodness man, I have I got to do it all for you. I hate getting caught in moderation so I will try and express this web adress in a way that doesn't land me there. IT IS the lunar module and foot prints, not just some blurry crater. I have no idea where you ended up but you nor The Imposter are looking at the pictures I found.

    3 w's dot universetoday DOT com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

    Something tells me you don't want to find this. I found it again in less than a minute, very easily. I also found the pictures you referred to. You simply clicked on the first image to jump on screen, you can do better than that. In fact the very next listing the first one to pop up under those pictures is the right site, enjoy. If you still cant find it let me know and I will go ahead and just post the link, I hate moderation but before I will be called dishonest or accused of misrepresenting what I found I will deal with it.

  182. Television had the potential to be a great power to inform the world.

    But it was compromised by money-men. Now it is a bill-board for selling soap.

    The internet had that ability... but now it is a bill-board for selling soap.

    Not that there is anything worng with that, but you have to see it. You have to acknowledge the horror.

    Look at it coldly.

  183. @imposter.
    Yes, you took my ebook sentence right out of my mouth. I hear students what like this often, saying "you can believe a book over any other source of media." makes me laugh. I think of how the earth was flat in many books.

  184. @Randy
    I think the internet is a very important tool for spreading information. I like to hear other peoples opinions on here, even if i don't always agree with them. Yes, even your opinions randy:) But if you can't find a way to use the internet to help on your quest in learning, there's something wrong. People tend to fear new sources of information.

  185. @Randy
    Sure you go read your books... with the internet I can read the same thing in e-book format. Then I get to use nifty search and find features. If i felt like being a jerk I could always torrent them for free too. I found all that information within a hour of random intrigue. Also if you discount wiki still; after all the new rules and the new system; then that's your loss. Unless you can prove something I said came from wiki was wrong. Since I can be a slightly aggressive too... Dawkins isn't that great.

    Your exactly right its who has the money... that's why you always gotta check both sides out first before any conclusion.

    @Any Interested Party
    Obama recently signed into law (already approved) a redirection of the NASA program. From Bush's 2020 Manned Moon +/- Base and late 2030's Manned Mars Missions; to a Manned Mission to a "asteroid body" in 2020-2025 (current codename Plymouth Rock) and Manned Mars in the late 2030's. The imposed limit at this time is a round trip taking 180 days or less. Of course improving technology's too. Now I'm defiantly not saying these plans are set in stone; the last ones only lasted 5 years after all. The things that interests me is the "horizontal space launch system" and what type of "heavy lift vehicles" they will come up with.

  186. Yes, I have all of those books, "Mein Kaumf", "The little Red Book" by Mao Tse Tung, "The Great Struggle" by Che, the horrible Zionists Conspiracy theories...

    I have read them all...

    You read and you think and you do homework, and then you decide.

    The internet is not included.

  187. lol. I shouldn't try typing when i first wake up it seems.

  188. oops. and = can in this case. lol

  189. @Randy
    Yes, tinfoil hat wearers and spread info on wiki. And well connected nazi's spreading disinformation can write books as well. Nazi's like the one's the U.S. got to leader there's space projects. You've got to be skeptical no matter what you're reading. Just because someone has to money to get there's words printed doesn't make them right by default.

  190. @ImPoster

    I'm sorry, I just hate this whole toy with the internet and the bad info...

    Richard Dawkins said much the same thing...

  191. @ImPoster

    Oh! Did you check WIKI? That is awesome!

    You know that WIKI is the end of all human knowledge!

    Did you know that any tin-foil hat wearer can vomit info all over WIKI! Did you know that? At all?

    Listen, if there is a bibliography at the end of your WIKI entry, read all of the books listed.

    Read books! Read all the time... I am reading right now... even as I work and slap you WIKI kids around!

  192. @ez2b12
    Not all of that was directed at you of course but just more general information to add.

    Also about the cameras resolution it was a estimate on a figure i saw awhile back. It bugged me so i checked wiki; its says 0.5 meters is max res. So the lander is about 9 pixel squared(4.3 m) and rover like 5 pixel squared(2.3 m).

  193. Just spotted this

    "Making its first flights early in the next decade, Orion is part of NASA's Constellation Program to send human explorers back to the moon and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system."

  194. Why do you not have your own library?

    And, I am not trying to be helpful. I am a monster.

  195. @Randy
    I am aware they put information in books, thank you. I was asking someone for a site so I wouldn't have to break into the library at 5:30 in the morning. All that brain eating, human hating and russian fearing seems to be distracting you from being a helpful part of this conversation. my friend.

  196. @D and C

    You may not find it on the internet. You may have to *GASP* read a book!

    Oh my goodness! The horror! I may have to read 2000 pages of text instead of a page and a half of internet trivia???!!!

    They cleverly hide all of this information in books.

  197. Would someone mind sending me a link to a site that explains what health problems the astronauts have? i can't seem to find anything on the internet about it.

  198. @Randy
    You're just making stuff up now, man. There's no practical reason to send a man to the moon now?

  199. @ez
    Thanks for taking the time to post some very interesting information. I hate being dismissed as just another "conspiracy theorist" by some people who appear to believe it is wrong or stupid to have opinions contrary to their own. Ez, you gave those of us who have learnt to at times doubt what we are told some good food for research & thought.
    Much appreciated mate!
    I still have doubts about many things related to the moon landing but now thanks to your thoughtful comments I can look into it further.
    So much better when people can exchange thoughts & ideas rather than insults. Maybe if we could all do this for each other then this site could be an example of goodwill in action. Who knows, maybe the idea might take off (excuse the embarassingly poor pun)
    Now I've got some research to do.

    Cheers from Oz mate!


  200. Japan is more practical than America.

    They see no point in sending men to the moon, if we already did it.

    Japan has very much to teach the rest of the world about practicality and hard work.

    They could own the moon if they thought there was some real reason to do so.

    The Great Japanese People have much to teach us.

  201. Yea. I'm happy. That was really well done.

  202. I'd be more convinced if japan accually sent a man to the moon. You know, so japan can finally catch up with the U.S. tech of the 60's. wait a min..... lol

  203. @ez.
    It's a pic of a blurry crater. No, foot prints and No lunar lander. Come on here guys, at least check what he's saying before you start clapping. lol. Maybe a found an old set of pics?

  204. @ez
    I'm not seeing anything about them finding foot prints. All i see is a lame picture of the halo. lol

  205. Mythbusters! Wow! I wonder if I could find these on Youtube! It's slowly dawning on me that people post nearly everything there. I haven't seen an episode in like years! I gotta watch this tonight. Love it!

    Thanks Vlatko! You da man!

  206. @ ez
    thank you
    you are very knowledgeable on the subject and very eloquently put my skepticism to rest (for now at least) i will look into the works you referenced and am glad you took the time to share.
    sometimes facing skeptics claims head on and providing evidence to the contrary works much better than simply dismissing them as CTs... skeptics get that way because of the information & arguments they're exposed to (though incomplete & fallacious at times)

  207. Randy cheers for EZ!

    "Three dimensional trajectory..." Excellent. Well said.

    Too many people around me are two-dimensional thinkers.

    And yes, sir, the solar flares... NASA was scared poop-less about them.

    The Sun is a harsh task-master!

    (Kind of like Vlatko... just kidding you Vlatko... don't murder me... or anything... I love you!)

  208. ...and ez for the win.

    Enough said. Anyone still skeptical? Go check the rocks... or go to the moon yourself. :)

  209. @ princeton

    I would have to disagree with you on this one. The technology of the time was just not advanced enough, a device with the capabilities you speak of would have been enormouse. Besides, and I hope this at least helps all you guys accept that we did land on the moon, you should check out what the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar mission found when they went to the moon.

    @ Everyone that says this is a hoax

    Go to google and type in the Japanese SELENE mission finds apollo 15 landing site (images). You will see that they found the landing site along with the foot prints and lunar module from Apollo 15. Someone earlier wanted pictures of this that were not from NASA or Google, well here you are. I would post the link but I hate my comments getting stuck in moderation. Yes I know, the Japanes are now in on the conspiracy as well, right. Why- why would the Japanese help fool the rest of the world that we landed on the moon?

    I have also been doing some research on the Van Allen belt. But i think it is best summed up by this guy- "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

    Now if we can't trust the word of the man that discovered the belts existence and infact shares its name, who can we trust? Dr. Van Allen goes on to explain that the two demensional trajectory shown in the press for the Apollo mission was misleading. One must view the three demensional trajectory that was the actuall path to see that the rocket barely past through the edges of the belt and did so very quickly.

    Further more the vast amount of radiation in the belt is high-energy protons. This is very different from the radiation one would experience at say the chernobyl site or at ground zero in Hiroshima. This is not to say that there was no danger passing through the belts or being on the lunar surface. Infact most of the astronauts suffered some permanent damage due to exposure.

    NASA did know of the danger and did do several things to help protect the astronauts from damage. Their biggest concern however was a solar flare, which if pointed toward the moon would have been a catastrophe. The astronauts were warned that this was a slight risk, but they decided to go anyway. This is just one example of why I say it is such a shame for people to accuse them of lieing and conspiring- we owe these men our respect and admiration, not our skepticism and accusations.

  210. omg i think i seen Mythbusters in a porno

  211. about reflectors on the moon
    Actually, there were quite a few unmanned missions by NASA to the moon before the Apollo missions & around the same time, all possessing automation & robotic capabilities that I think (again, not an expert ) would have been sufficient to place reflectors on the lunar surface... its not like u need a whole "spirit" or "opportunity" rover in order to do that.. (i could be wrong tho). just a thought...

  212. Actually Canada-boy, (I kid you Achems, because I love!), as Carl Sagan said:

    "The Earth lies in a fairly mediocre part of the galaxy... very few stars in comparison with the rest of the Milky Way..."

    Its not like Star Trek where space is polluted with white dots.

    Mostly black. Which is cool.

    Where's my money at?

  213. @Samusakis:

    Don't know what you mean? of course with the naked eye on the Moon, sky would be ablaze with stars, but then depends of the sunlight reflection on surface of the moon. maybe no stars can be seen? certainly not with a camera, unless it was a time lapse.

  214. @Randy
    If somebody landed on the moon and didn't take pics back then, that's would be outragous.

  215. @Achems Razor
    Those are nice pics, but those are all NASA pics. which was kind of my point. i'll have to continue my search. maybe i can find some russian pics of the landing sites.

  216. @Achems Razor

    No not pictutes or cameras I was talking about naked eye observation.

  217. Plus, the cameras that they used were simple, point and shoot, reflex boxes.

    They were designed to be used by the astronauts with a giant, clunky helmet, and big clumsy gloves...

    They just had these boxes on their chest and hoped they were getting a picture.

    They didn't have iPhones back then, I know that is wierd to most of you youngin's but...

    It should be surprising and delightful that they got any pictures at all!

  218. @Samusakis:

    Can't see stars on moon pictures. because of time lapse. google that also.

  219. D and C:

    scroll up, there are links right here on this blog, footprints, landing sites, etc:

  220. At "wechoosethemoon" site there is a cool digital recreation on how things happened with the moon landing and all, one thing tho bothers me, either they did a sloppy job or inacurately depicted how everything should have looked. Tell me, when on moon even if your on the shinny side of it is it possible to see the stars?

    Personaly I think we could see the stars fine even in the daylight on earth if it wasnt for the atmosphere.

  221. @Achems Razor

    Sweet. But i'm looking for pics of the footprints and landing site. I've seen pics from google moon, but excuse me if i don't trust a source of information from a group that's helping to abolish free speech on the internet. lol

  222. Ok a possible solution to the angle problem: each lens is fitted with a electronic/mechanical fine angle tuning mechanism, then use lasers to calibrate. This also means that any future movement of the mirrors can be fixed at a distance.

    I will sleep tonight...

  223. Oh, the Russians, yes.... do not get me started.

    Those boys are tough, tough!

    Many of the Russian mob leaders are former KGB, with skill-sets that put the Irish and Italian mobs to shame.

    Plus, they have petroleum money, and all of that internet p0rn money!

    Technologically advanced, physically advanced... Our prisons are comfy vacations for them...

    Do NOT mess with the Russians!

  224. I have not read any comments (in lack of time)

    But I have seen the episode long time ago.

    While proving it wasn't a hoax; didnt the also prove that it is possible to fake? Just a funny point.

  225. D and C:

    There are I believe, pictures of the reflectors, google it.

  226. oops. who is not google or nasa i mean

  227. @Randy:

    Right! The Irish mob, but you know does not hold a candle to the Russian mob!! Yes?

  228. @randy
    I'd love to see those images of the landing site by someone who is google or NASA.

  229. @Achems Razor

    I'm not sure how they'd drop them in. A lunar lander type device that poops out reflectors? maybe catapults reflectors? lol. i know i'm just making stuff up now, but could that not work?

  230. Oh I know it is, Canada-boy!

    Because you don't want me coming over there and showing you how we do it in Jersey!

  231. @Achems Razor
    Why do the reflectors on a bike not need this positioning? Those are basic reflectors and cover many angles. I'm just suggesting that if you build a good enough reflector, positioning would be as easy a dropping them on the ground

  232. @Randy:

    The money is in the mail! Honest!!

  233. D and C:

    Drop them how? by parachute? no atmosphere!

  234. @Achems

    Yes, sir. That is why there are three reflectors on the moon, just in case some meteor or comet might damage one of them.

    But, you are right, no dust. In fact, the original fottprints of the first astronauts are still there, (no wind, no waethering...) You can see them with a strong enough telescope.

    Hey, you got that money you owe me?

  235. @DaveAndConfused,

    Your right about the reflectors, general location, lens configuration and uprightness count but they still need positioning. The only major dust problem would be from lunar excape system burn. They just need to be positioned far enough away, after that no wind no dust. Answer your own question. How long would it take space dust falling on the moon to cover a reflector?

  236. Well, this certainly has me baffled, I had to go for a short walk in the clean and pure central London air (cough cough) and think about this…

    The checks in the post on both counts @Randy. Simply put, if the angle placement is not correct the laser will not bounce directly back to the point it was fired from.

    Trial and error maybe???

  237. Agree with Randy, they are corner cube mirrors/reflectors, have many angles.

  238. @Achems Razor
    I agree about the dust not blowing around. i pretty much think you could pretty much drop some over sized lawn dart type things with reflectors on them and they'd still work. the problem would be dust settling on the lens after landing. but that could be taken care of i'm sure. just an idea

  239. @DaveAndConfused:

    The only dust you would get is if a comet or meteorite landed close and made a plum of dust, but would settle quickly due to gravity, no atmosphere, so no dust blowing around! Ever.

  240. @Arstotle
    the thing about retro reflectors is how unexact the positioning can be while still working. The hardest part would be kaeeping the lens free of dust i would think.

  241. @Epi_Logic

    Don't make me come after it...

  242. @Epi_logic

    Well, the mirrors, (reflectors), could really go anywhere. When the men landed on the moon, they just put down some reflectors.

    The Lasers can be aimed and targeted at those "mirrors" whereever they might be.

    That part is easy.

    By the way, where is that money you owe me?

  243. @RV

    I know... I know... admirable people!

    You know what one of my Russian friends said to me?

    "You are the people that beat us in the Cold War?"

    Incredulous as she was that we spoiled soft Americans could beat them at anything!

    However, the Russians are rising again. Have you noticed their activities all over the world?

    Good for them.

  244. To be honest after some basic calculations I am absolutely amazed that the mirrors could even be placed at all!

    The "angle of placement problem" of the mirrors must have been sorted out on earth!?? Some basic trig shows that an angle misplacement of one 10 thousandth of a degree would cause over a half a mile displacement on earth. Not acceptable and seemingly not workable under any circumstances. Its also worth noting that a human cannot even form an angle without a +/- 2 degree error!!

    With the angle problem solved, Don't ask me how I really don't have a clue at the moment, this then reduces to a "finding an exact location to place the mirrors problem" a much easier problem.

    Geez one door closes and another opens. This is a tougher problem than it seems… We need someone from N.A.S.A to explain this one or else I will not sleep tonight and wake periodically through the forthcoming nights in a cold sweat until the problem is solved. Alternatively booze will knock me out… damn, bad time to quit the juice always a day too late...

  245. @ simon the sorcerer

    the feeling is mutual! ( I tries my best - alas Im always beaten!) but thank you x

  246. @Randy,

    I believe Arstotle was saying that if humans never went to the moon then the only other way of positioning reflectors is with some kind of precise, remote-automated or self-automated lander/rover. He is correct that the required technology would be far too large of a payload to take. At the time, humans were the only things suitable to do the job.

    The reflectors must be there, as we know that the moon is slowly moving away from us... about a cm a year if I remember correctly.

    I do not doubt that the astronauts were exposed to damaging radiation. The fact that it isn't discussed is probably due to the bad image the US would recieve from the stigma of willingly exposing US astronauts to radiation... there really isn't anything you can do about it, except maybe a giant lead(as in pb) space suit...

    We had the capability to go to the moon. We also had the capability to fake it. I suppose if you really believe it was faked, go get a degree in chemistry and test the moon rocks they brought back.

  247. @Randy,

    Actually I’ve just returned from two weeks in Sakkara Egypt and still dealing with Jet Lag. The comment was directed at @princton speculating unmanned missions to the moon to plant instrumentation just like those on Mars, not possible in the 60s or 70s. I made the leap that unmanned equals robototics.

  248. @Randy; I once shot a hand X-ray on a Russian guy. he had it wrapped in a dirty kitchen towel. said he had hurt it about a month ago. What I found was no fewer that 17 fratures in various states of mending. But the real kicker was that he looked at the films grabbed his own fingers and started to reset some of the breaks while he waited for the doc.

  249. @RV

    I know! Right? These people are just... my Russian friends are just... I can only hope to be half as tough as they are on any given day.

    And they can drink some vodka! Puts us Irishmen to shame, they do...


    Who the hell said anything about robots? Where are you?

  250. @Randy; The Russians, What do you expect from people who decend from the Mongols, Huns, Vikings, and Kossaks. That is one bad az lineage. Combine that with brutal climate you get some hard core vodka drinking people.

  251. Let’s see robots installing reflectors on the moon in the 1960s? I hate to have to admit this but I was very involved in the then current technology in the 60s and have worked with a few NASA engineers over the years. Leaving the last item aside, take a visit to the Smithsonian and look at the size of simple electronic and electro-mechanical memories of the era.

    Vacuum tubes were still in vogue then and teletypes relied on simple pick and drop magnetic dog to halt the rotation of a clutched shaft to begin the reception of single bit of information in 5, 7 or 8 bit code.

    The first chips using DTL or TTL logic did not exist. Bi-stable multi-vibrator (flip-flops), single bit logic elements, consisted of discrete components and was the size of the palm of your hand that is one binary bit. Simple analogue to digital conversion single sensor circuits were on 4 ½” x 5” logic cards with 50 pin bayonet connector points requiring multiple voltages to function. One stable voltage/current source might weigh eighty pounds.

    A robot capable of positioning the instrumentation at that time would have been a huge payload and we didn’t have a propulsion system to get that much of a payload to the moon. The Russians may have but not the technology to build the robot and they were still loosing astronauts in orbit.

    Getting the manually directed moon rover there was quite a feat in it’s self. Simply put it took intelligence and communication to correctly position the reflectors and other communication devices. The simplest lightest weight robot positioning system solution at that time was a human in communication with another period.

    The computing capability of that simple little laptop we have today recreated in 1960s technology would have been too large a payload and would not have fit in your livingroom.

  252. @Sadie the Celt
    Your comments are really refreshing+ you are a women I love your style. Vlatko is going to kill me for chatting so i cut it short. You go girl ! :D Love ya!

  253. @ Randy

    now now Randy ......I want to say Im as thick as 2 short planks, just so I can see you try ......(slap bang wallop)!!

    but I am a bright girl - hopeless at science - as you know

    and....if wit was s**t, Id be constipated for sure!

  254. @RV

    Well said.

    Indeed, there is great literature on the science of the Van Allen belt and the effect there on human tissue.

    These astronauts are not healthy men. They are great American heroes, but they all sacrficed their health for the advancement of science.

    And to beat the Great Russian peoples... so there is that...

  255. @Sadie

    You are still deciding on that!!!???"

    Oh, holy Batman, where is John Glenn to punch you right in the face...

    Not that I would ever advocate hitting a womwn... but...

    A st00pid woman... maybe...

  256. This episode was dedicated to just the photo and film evidence "hoax" conspiracy. That is why the physics such as Van Allen belt were not discussed. Those topics have been widely covered in numerous periodicals and scientific publications. The trouble is that yes the U.S. has been involved in some dubious indevors, however one lie or false claim does not make for a cumpulsive liar. If all individuals were held to that standard we could trust no single person on earth. We all lie from time to time even if it was just to tell our mothers that "no we did not give the dog our brussel sprouts". As to why we have never gone back; We have had no need to the scientific data returned at the time showed no usable resource that would be in any way cost efficient to continue manned missions. Today however some of the minerals available would be of use to us so we may well see more trips to and possible colonization of the moon in our life times.

  257. Mythbusters! omg I just realised who they are! - they are on British (Welsh) tv.....and to be honest, I wouldn't watch their shows other then for 'entertainment' value! (kinda sad - desperados gagging for publicity....and when their rating drop, what do they do? they bring in a pretty girl - thas the oldest trick in the book.
    Of Course they are gonna try and dispel the myth! - I mean thats why they are called 'mythbusters' - and who pays their wages?
    not that I have any opinions on whether or not they landed on the Moon or not ...Im still deciding on that!
    No Mythbusters have not changed my mind one way or the other.

  258. @jono who wrote:

    "Take Randy here for example. The guy would never use the CT lable UNLESS he had done all the researching on both sides then come up with what he will consider his facts, do you see what I mean, he studies it ALL even the side he doesnt like/want to agree with to arrive at his conclusion. I am still not sure about his brain devouring habbits though."

    Yes, sir. You speak all kinds of truth.

    My goodness, your brains are enormous!

  259. well i think its funny that, Myth Busters did not say a word about this Van Allen radiation belt, and what nasa did about it. just looking for facts.

  260. "Everywhere you look someone is standing up srceaming that something is a big conspiracy"

    Unfortunately for us all, a great number of yesterday's conspiracy theories are todays facts. It is rather small and petty minded to lable someone a CT because they hold a belief different from your own. It is precicely the people who leap to using the phrase (because it makes them a better person or patriot) that should be at least asking the questions.

    Take Randy here for example. The guy would never use the CT lable UNLESS he had done all the researching on both sides then come up with what he will consider his facts, do you see what I mean, he studies it ALL even the side he doesnt like/want to agree with to arrive at his conclusion. I am still not sure about his brain devouring habbits though.

    I am not 100% sure of the landing, but you have to admit there's a lot of evidence, I personally believe that The USA brought a great deal of this upon themselves. The reason I am not 100% is a series of images. I am of the opinion that the original ones were few and of poor quality and to gain the kudos on the Russians they did fake some of them.

    "As far as Myth Busters saying that perpetual motion or free energy is impossible, they are correct"

    Yes they are, but it wasn't about a perpetual motion engine it was about a motor that was over unity. BUT looking at the motor in question that wasnt even the claim, what they were talking about was an over unity given the currently known energy forms and suggesting there may be an alternate form of energy being used. So lets say the vacuum energy they claim to have discovered is found to exist, no laws broken as the unit would then be under unity for the total energy used. Once again, I am not saying vacuum energy exists, but at least look at the arguments.

    In the episode of Mythbusters that attempted this, they failed to even use the magnets that are alledgedly the very way these motors use to tap this would be force. In fact the whole thing was very sloppy and didn't do anything to disprove anything.

  261. Yes, I am her slave and she uses me as she wills.

    What of it?

  262. @Sadie

    I gotta say, and I'm not gonna lie to you...

    When you typed, "I'll be back for you... Dr Randy! (go shiver)"

    That excited me, a little bit. It's like when my wife handcuffs me to the bed and leaves me there for hours at a time...

    *sigh* She abuses me, and I love her so!

    However, if she saw me typing to you like this, we would both get destroyed by her. She has flashing black eyes and raven hair and she protects her property... (me!)

  263. @ Randy

    god I love your wit.....sometimes!

    eek its been adjourned til off to the Wetherspoons for 3 pints of the new Guest Ale 'Loddens Bamboozle' - and I'll be back for you....Dr Randy! (go shiver!) sade x

  264. @Sadie

    Well, you know I love the boot in the testicles!

    Let's rock!

  265. @ Randy

    lol I knew that.....was just 'winding you up'...dont be having a 'hissy fit' on me!?
    ...Mexican....Welsh...whats the difference? we are both Minorities (with a capital 'M')
    Im in recess.....and my stilettos are twitching....Oy! You! (Solicitor for the defence) 'come 'ere and meet my foot' lol

  266. I don't have anything against these guys, but their use of the word "proof" in this episode is a joke. They're use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is borderline offensive and eye opening at that same time. When people use the phrase that often and to refer to that many people... I start to think they're reading it from some sort of biased cue card/white house memo.

  267. @Sadie

    I never called you a sexist or a racist. I apologize if you took that as my meaning.

    Re-read my post... please... I said I hate racists and sexists, but NOT you!

    You and I have fun... it's not a big deal... let's both calm down!

  268. Daveandconfused

    Yes, reflectors are more accurate. Prismatic, crystaline, reflectors.

    But, you know, "mirrors" make the monkeys happy!

  269. are we not going to consider the idea that they could get the reflectors on the moon without men to install them. We use the word mirror, which make then sound like fragile pieces of glass. they're more like a reflector on a bike, am i wrong? that sounds like something that could almost just be dropped and still work

  270. oh Randy.....
    Im just tired of listening to you ....saying the same old stuff, as if I am a Racist? or a Sexist? (I dont think so!)
    but you come near my brain and I will stamp on your testicles with my stilettos - promise!
    Have a nice day Dr Randy - Im off to High Court to fight for justice, cya

  271. @ Princeton

    There has been some very promising research into magnet driven motors. In fact there are several already patented magnetic motors, but none have yet achieved varifiable free energy, trust me if they do it is all you or I will hear of for weeks and weeks.

    That said it does present a viable field of research. If you would like some help with your possible designs I would recommend going to peswiki dot com and entering magnetic motors in the search field. Or go to google images and do the same, you will see many magnetic motor designs and videos of them operating, for a short amount of time with no load.

    Unfortunately not a single person has ever been able to demonstrate a working purely magnetic motor that even achieves unity. The magnetic forces, no matter how the magnets are oriented cancel each other out resulting in a balance which when friction is factored in always results in a loss.

    We have all seen magnets in action. Like poles repeal and opposites attract, this is simple physics. Because magnets are a balanced system, most of the time, the power of the north pole on a magnet is exactly the same strength as the power of the south pole. The best you can hope for when using the power of the poles, under ideal conditions, is perfect unity. In reality you can't even achieve that due to friction. (Note: unity just means getting out the same amount of energy as you put in)

    If you try to place a load on the system, such as trying to generate electricity, it may work for a short period, but in the end it will require more energy to keep it running than you can possibly generate. You can't get more out than you put in, over-unity just isn't possible. (Note: over-unity means you get more energy out than you put in. This will never happen)

    If you see someone claim to have a working purely magnetic motor that achieves unity or over-unity, be careful and check the details. Do they need to spin it up to get it started? If they do then that is the source of the extra energy, all they have done is make that motion last longer, but if you add a load so that you can capture the energy, it grinds to a halt rapidly.

    Dont give up yet though. Go to google and type in frustrated magnets, this will give you some seriouse study and maybe something to look forward to incorporating in your new device. I will not try and go into it all here but suffice to say we do not actually understand as much about magnetism as we thought. Good luck with your invention, it is good to see someone trying and thinking for themselves. I sincerely hope you do discover free energy or even just unity, we sure could use it about now.

  272. Oh, and Omega 3's are a very important amino acid... the brain is very nearly MADE of it...

    It could be, that our migration to ocean climes and our eating of seafood, caused our frontal lobe explosion.

    So, what is your point? If I eat your brain, I will gain all of your Omega 3's.


  273. That's fun, Sadie!

    Listen, here is something: women are GODS among us.

    I would be a total psychopath, tearing human beings apart with my claws, if it were not for my wife.

    She calms me. "Humanizes" me.

    Not all women are that way, of course, my own mother was a horror show... but how lucky am I to have met this woman and she might love me?

    And consent to marry me?

    I have already won the lottery! I have everything I need in her!

    (This is why I hate sexism and racism... any man that doesn;t like my Mexican wife or a woman must be EATEN!)

    Sorry... carry on...

  274. ha! ha! ha! youse guys (the Randy & Razor Show) are nuts!
    I mean, Razor.....(much as I adore you) you do know that 'Omega 3' is from Fish and not Meat - right? ...and dont go eating dont need to Cariad!...anyways Dr Randy is obviously relishing his new 'superpowers' - (bet his breath stinks tho)

  275. yes i knew you say that

  276. @beals

    That was a lot of ranbling nonsense!

    Sit down and be quiet.

  277. hollywood can make it real, really save usa a ton of money! nasa / nasi/ cia / kgb , oh how much fuel is needed, well mr. brown told us. lol just saying if we did get there well , the men would still be there. haha no i think there much more to this than meets the eye. maybe we got lucky and did get there , how my times did we go, so we are made to think, yet now nasa is spending tons more to go back to the moon , but in the 60s was a piece of cake, give me a brake!!!!!!!!!

  278. @Achems

    HAHAHAHA! Yes! You know? That mooch is into me for so much Arby's...

    Hawking loves his large, Roast Beef with Cheese and Curly Fries!

    You know? I would think I would get his new book for free, but the little guy will not return my calls!

    ...owes me 25 bucks... OH! You know I'm gonna eat his brain...

  279. @Randy:

    Okay, but we have to pick up Stephen Hawking, maybe he will give us his new book for free? hate paying for stuff!

    Some Arby"s for free book? he'll go for it! me thinks.

  280. @Achems


    Excellent. Let's go get some Arby's...

  281. @Randy:

    Yeah, I hate lean meat myself, need a lot of fats, smart people have a lot of "Omega 3" in their brains, very good for you!

  282. @Achems

    Yes, sir. I have been to the Jet Propulsion Labs in California, where they fire lasers at those mirrors and check the "wobble" of the moon's orbit.

    The data is fascinating!

    But, as you say, these mirrors could not be there, unless we landed on the moon and put them there.

    The idea that we were able to hurl a rocket into space and touch another planet... frightens some people. I understand that, but... you know... wake up, already!

    I would not eat their brains... too skinny and mean... I only eat the brains of intellectuals...

    Is that wrong?

  283. A lot of commenters including myself have put a lot of info, on all the moon landing docs here on TDF, Hubble won't work for the Moon, it is all about "resolution" to get images!

    There are three different sets of mirrors at three different locations on the Moon. Put there on three different Moon landings.
    If anybody wants more info. it is all here on the various Moon blogs, look them up for yourselves, am getting tired of repeating myself!!

  284. about mirrors on the moon...
    I am not an expert.. have not researched this, but it seems to me that its quite possible that same as with mars, unmanned missions could have put those items on the moon
    no one argues rovers on mars or elsewhere in solar system.. just seems that the controversy is around landing "man" on the moon through all that radiation outside the earth's magnetic & atmospheric protection and with the geo-political situation of the times (not to mention dishonest & most imperialistic government with a point to prove )
    I don't know about the individual scientists and Astronauts.. but i trust nothing that comes out of our governments *** (especially patriotic junk).. sorry.. just another thought..

  285. about perpetual motion...

    I think perpetual motion can be achieved without violating any of the known laws of physics and without creating something out of nothing.
    I have been working (in my spare time & sparingly) on a way of doing this using permanent magnets (huge stores of kinetic energy) set up in a mechanical configuration where they repel and/or attract each other to create a perpetual circular motion which can be attached to a shaft for power generation... (think of pendulums, but with magnetic configurations that counter friction/gravity through attraction & repulsion from P. magnets)
    I may be naive.. but i think we overlook magnets which represent huge stores of kinetic energy we can manipulate simply through mechanical systems to generate perpetual motion (until the magnets lose their fields ) which can in turn be used to generate power.. i dunno, just a thought.. but i don't think it'll be that hard to do

  286. "because Mythbusters said so" ...

  287. @ Samusakis Well that could be true. I was merely going on fuzzy memories haha. But all these comments are very interesting, indeed. Even better than the documentary itself!

  288. @ Samusakis

    You may be right about not being able to see the surface clearly with the hubble, I really dont know why it would not be able to do this but I have never really researched it. But i am positive that they did somehow place a mirror on the surface, like i said it is used regularly to discern the distance between the two bodies. Besides if we really wanted to see those sites we could, maybe not with a telescope but we have satellites that can show us close ups of the Martian surface- surely they could see the moons surface as well if they flew by it. We could also put a rover on the surface and have it take close up pictures, if we can do it on Mars I am sure the moon would be a walk in the park. In my opinion when all the facts are weighed and considered in a non-biased fashion the moon landing is credible, therefore I do not fault these guys for saying that there experiments lead them to the conclusion that we did land on the lunar surface. And I do not expect or even desire that the scientific community should waste one dollar or minute of time confirming what is already held to be truth by the vast majority of scientists and lay persons alike, that we did land on the moon.

    As far as Myth Busters saying that perpetual motion or free energy is impossible, they are correct. Physicist determined long ago that in a closed system entropy is inevitable. My high school chemistry teacher told us there are three laws of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing, you can't win, and you have to lose. The first law says you can't produce matter or energy from nothing; they are conserved. The second says the amount of entropy in the universe can only increase. The third notes that friction exists, so entropy does increase. Dreams of pepetual motion usually want to overlook the first or second laws- that is they say they have created energy from nothing, or they say that they have somehow reversed entropy, both of which are impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The simple fact is that even running the apparatus means performing work, due to friction, inertia, and many other factors. Now if you add some work for the machine to actually accomplish as a net effect, such as turning a wheel or gear or whatever- you have lost even more energy- you will never get out more than you put in it is as simple as that. This is not something the Myth Busters came up with but the laws of physics, they are just repeating the facts they have learned.

    For someone that is complaining about scientific accuracy to suggest that it is wrong to state that free energy and perpetual motion are fantasy, that we did land on the lunar surface- thats just odd man. The view that perpetual motion is impossible is a widely held and researched fact. If we could do this, make free energy, we would not be in the enormouse pickle we are presently in. The closest anyone ever came to free energy was cold fusion, which was never really proven to work and in reality never promised free energy- just a heck of a good return on investment but not free. The lunar landing is also widely accepted amongst educated scientists and most lay persons as well. At least scientists can see how it could have been done at the time it was accomplished, that much I can say with great confidence.

    In my opinion you are looking for science fiction not science fact, sorry. I don't mean to insult you in anyway. It is people like yourself that refuse to accept the common standard models that usually make some of the more important break throughs. But in order to gain that knowledge and notoriety they must first stand up to the ridicule that accompanies such beliefs- so my advise is develope some tough skin if you are going to seriousely attempt to sell perpetual motion or a lunar conspiracy- you're going to need it. Good-luck man, I would love nothing more than to discover I am wrong about perpetual motion- I think the whole world would like to find out it is possible.

  289. @ ez2b12
    Thanks for your reply.
    I appreciate what you say & I understand your views on "conspiracy theorists". I agree that there are a lot of people who make extreme accusations about all sorts of things. However, I find it a little disappointing sometimes that when someone expresses their doubts about the validity of something that their concerns can be too easily dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

    Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying that you dismissed my comments. I thought you were very fair. It is just that at times a valid question can remain inadequately answered because it is easy to label them as simply "theory" and consign them to the extremist views.

    I will not make a judgement on any astronauts character as that would be unfair and inappropriate of me. I don't know them. What I will say though is that I have seen a number of interviews with some of them and they sound plausable.

    One exception though was Al Bean. When questioned about the Van Allen radiation belt particularly he had no idea about whether he had passed through the belt or not. An amazing thing for someone who is supposed to have travelled to the moon & back. He contradicted himself several times and was generally very unconvincing. Based on interviews I have seen with him at least, I would have to say that I am very doubtful about his account and knowledge of the subject.

    As far as the mirror and other items left on the moon through the Apollo project, I would like to see a photo taken from Earth of these things? It would certainly help to prove they are there. It wouldn't be too expensive and it would go a long way to settling the issue.

    Thanks too to "Imightberiding"
    I agree that patriotism can blind us at times. I think all governments tend to promote nationalism to an unhealthy level now.



  290. Take me to the moon next weekend and I will believe you. I am not losing any sleep over if you went or you didn't. Its fun to talk about though.

  291. @ez2b12

    Funny fact, I really wanted to see the landing site on the moon with my own eyes, but as it turns out... It cant be done...
    There is no way for you to confirm anything.

    I mean really go ahead and try finding a decent way of seeing whats on the moon right now. To my knowledge not even Hubble is capable of zoomingin on the site not to mention the rover that they have left there.

    If anyone can explain this properly then please do.


    I just really dont like these guys becouse they claim that perpetual engine and free energy is impossible saying that the moon landing was real now that just makes me blind and mad!

  292. OOPS! Sorry, I guess one of my words was inappropriate. For this I apologize. Happy flying everyone!

  293. @Brett Lappan

    Well said Brett. I too was born at the beginning of the 60's & of course took it for granted & believed all the ridiculous propaganda that was fed to us during that oh so idealistic/gullible time in our history. You approached the the subject correctly in that the real issue is to not get bogged down with all the technical rhetoric (which strongly supports the idea of a monumental lie we have all been told over the years anyway) but to just open your eyes & minds, step back from the forrest for a moment & have an objective thought for once concerning this event. It seems to be so wrapped with patriotism in the U.S.A. that even the mention of the possibility that maybe just maybe, man has not been to the moon & back immediately invokes suspicious stares & unbelieving looks of "how can I be so stupid?" not to mention that I probably intended to offend their national pride along with their wives, mothers, children, & dogs!

    Maybe it has some thing to do with being from Canada. Just saying.... free thought & all.

  294. The most interesting theory that I have heard about is that when we arrived on the moon we found out that we were not the first and whoever is on the moon told us not to come back. If you want to look into this you can search under "alien presence on the moon". Im not saying its true, just keeping an open mind to why we have not gone back.

  295. @ Samusakis

    I agree that these guys are a little silly for my taste, the red head that works with them- thats a different story (hubba hubba). Still we have to remember this is a television show before it is anything else, it has to be entertaining or no one will watch. I am sure these guys are capable of a more intellectually based and scientifically correct format, even though they never have claimed to be scientists but retired special effects and stunt coordinators.

    Think about it and you will realize that all of the scientifically based programs on Discovery, History, Nat Geo are a little silly and considerably dumbed down. In my opinion this doesn't give enough credit to the viewing audience but since these networks spend millions every year on researching thier audience maybe they know something we don't like to admit- that most of the US is not sharp enough to follow anything more complicated and that most of our attention spans simply do not stretch far enough to stick with a seriousely scientific format. The gap that is left over is filled by online sites like this one, where seriousely scientific people can find some actuall substance. Valtko includes everthing, from these types of entertainment based docs to the somewhat more boring but very informative talking head formats (my favorites) and even a few dramatic recreation type docs (my least favorite). Point is it is all here and free for the taking, which shouldn't really leave room for complaints in my opinion.

  296. @ Brett

    Correlation does not always imply causation. Yes I too believe that it must have been an option they discussed, but only until it was well thought out. Just as Randy has pointed out Russia was watching us like a hawk. There is no way we could have faked this without them exposing us as fakes. Besides we left physical evidence in the form of a mirror that they still use to judge the distance between earth and the moon. They shoot a laser and when it bounces off the mirror and returns to earth they can calculate the distance down to a few centimeters. As Randy also mentioned almost every astronaught from the Apollo program has permanent radiation damage.

    If thier where any real reasons to question this accomplishment we could simply turn hubble that way and prove the truth. We left a rover and foot prints along with the mirror, its all still there of course. The reason they do not do it, in my opinion, is because we have much more important things to do with the telescope, people are constantly fighting over who gets hubble for there studies next. Besides I am sure there would be some costs associated with turning the satellite the right way and taking pictures of the surface of the moon and if they did do this they would concentrate on areas they need to look at for our next mission to the moon coming up soon. I don't think anyone at NASA questions the landings anyway nor do any real scientists that I have ever heard from. Its always some back yard astronomer or self made scientist that has questions and accusations about the lunar landing, this should tell us something.

    Perhaps in a few years when we have a permanent settlement on the lunar surface the conspiracy guys will give up the ghost? I hope so anyway. I get so sick of all the conspiracy theories I don't even like to go on line much anymore. Everywhere you look someone is standing up srceaming that something is a big conspiracy and we all have to wake up or it's bye bye birdie. I am not saying you fit this bill at all, I thought your post left the question kind of open- it brought up some valid points to think about.

    Still, it is a shame that these brave and honest men who did something so courageouse and praiseworthy get accused of being liars and cheats. Over and over the allegations have been answered in many documentaries, news programs, etc., etc. but no, the conspiracy theorists can not let it go- will not let it go. Many of the men that participated in the Apollo programs would never be involved in lies and propaganda, they are true American heroes from a time when we actually had real heroes.

  297. Very interesting conversation going on here guys.
    I have examined a lot of information on this subject and having been born in 1960 I have some experience of the times & technology available.

    Any thorough investigation should examine the basic questions of
    Where? &

    Who? - USA. One of the 2 competing superpowers at the time. Known to be actively involved in extending it's influence around the war. Although portraying itself as fighting a noble cause, there is overwhelming evidence that the leaders would themselves go to extreme lengths to gain an advantage (Insert here any number of examples of US govenment involvement in unethical operations)

    What? - The moon landing would provide an example of the USA's superior strategic technological advantage over it's rivals.

    Why? - A demonstration of this strategic advantage provides security and helps to extend their influence around the world.

    Where? - In space. A controlled environment where all evidence (images, audio & artifacts) was controlled by the US through one agency, NASA.

    When? - 1960's - A tumultuous time when presidents were violently removed, the Vietnam war was just one of many "idealogical" war zones around the world and the "Cold War" was in full swing. Science fiction was popular & technological advancements made it appear like anything was possible. Technology was becoming more freely available to the general public (transistor radios etc but the home PC was still decades away) & most people still believed that their leaders were basically honourable people

    Now, I want to keep my comments as simple as possible so I have not provided any detailed information to support the above comments but I would think that they are not really at issue here.

    With the Moon landing event in put simple context above, consider also that probably the most common strategy employed in human competition (war, games, commerce etc) is to make your opponent believe something that gives you an advantage. It doesn't have to be true, they just have to believe it & their believing it is to your advantage.

    With this in mind, an option that would have to have been at least considered by the US would have been to try to bluff the USSR into believing that the US had an advantage. (Remember Reagan's "Star Wars" program which is now known to have been a successful false flag ploy)

    Without even going into the evidence on both sides of this argument, when one considers the political and social climate of the time, the technology available and the strategic value of this event, I would suggest that a faking of this event would have been possible and therefore at least an option.

    But probably the thing that puts the whole issue in perspective for me in very simple terms is to consider the fact that man's first powered flight took place in 1903 and in less than 70 years he is supposed to have flown to the moon & returned safely on several occasions (Yet, in the 41 years since then, he has not ventured beyond 400 odd miles from Earth).
    As much as I wanted to believe at the time that it was possible, my recolection of the times & the technology leads me to the conclusion that it probably didn't happen.
    But I understand why the US did it in the context of the "Cold War" etc.

    I welcome your thoughts.



  298. Every astronaut, John Glenn included, suffers from cancers caused by cosmic radiation.

    In fact, 5% of all of the cancers in the world are caused by cosmic radiation.

    There is nothing you can do about it. Cosmic radiation traverses the entire planet, it permeates your home.

    You bathe in it.

  299. I would believe the landing was real if the astronauts suffered some kind of ailment that caused them significant health problems and/or death within a reasonable timeframe of their return. Since they have experienced long lives, this leads me to seriously question them passing through the Van Allen radiation belt. Pop a decent hole in the grating of your microwave oven, stick your hand in and turn the oven on. The astronauts would have been cooked with only thin aluminum as protection. Don't believe it? How's your hand feeling?

  300. Russia was listening and watching. Remember "Sputnik"?

    They heard us, hundreds of ham-radio nerds heard us, all over the world.

    It is a fact. Simple and observable.

    John Glenn, who also talks about aliens and UFO's, that is fine, but the last person to say to him, "The moon landing was a hoax!"

    He just punched them in the face.

    Good for him.

  301. @V

    Pardon me if im wrong but I thought that Hubble telescope is shut down everytime it passes the part of the world where the earths magnetic shield is the weakest (near the coast of south america or something?)

    Point being that while passing it(few hours max) Hubble (and every other 'hi-tech' satellite) is exposed to space radiation that can mess up its electronics ect.

  302. I am not conviced totaly that man landed for a number of reasons but neither can I hand on heart say categorically it didn't happen.

    What I can say is that firstly I intensely dislike the smug self congatultory pair that host this show and secondly there have been a number of statements and experiments that appeared to be making light of certain theories deliberately for whatever reason.

  303. Edit: I accidentally switched the technological and biological thesis's around. My bad... human error haha.

  304. In opinion, the strongest evidence that upholds the truth about the moon landing hoax is the biological and technological science behind it!

    But first lets start with math; though I may be wrong... I'm not a mathematician. The moon is over 238,000 miles distance from the surface of the earth. Apollo 11 entire mission duration was over 8 days. They spent roughly a time of nearly 2 2/3 days traveling both ways to and from the moon, stayed on the lunar surface for the rest of the time that equates to 8 days total. So if one was to take the distance of 238,000 divide it by the time estimate of space travel 5.33 days... this is the amount of miles per day the trio would had to travel = 44652.90 okay, koo. Apollo 11 cruising speed was stated at 4.6 miles per second in space.

    So if in 60 seconds or 1 minute it should travel at least 276 miles total. In a hour it should have accumulated to 16560 miles total. In 24 hours, they should have traveled up to 397440 miles going at that speed!!! Of course they had to slow down in order to land, but wouldn't that have taken an immeasurable amount of energy to slow a craft moving at those speed in a vacuumed environment? Yes it would! But they accomplished this by circling the lunar's orbit to slow the craft down; utilizing the pull of gravity. So it's possible Apollo 11 did complete it's mission with the official facts. This is all believable for me... so far.

    Now to the biological discrepancies, which is where the Apollo 11 feat starts falling apart for me personally. So radiation is uberly abundant in space, as anyone here should already know, right? Yet the cameras of the era had no visual fuzziness that is accommodated with it when a lot of radiation is present and the moon has a total of 29 1/2 Earth days for it's regular solar day; I'm not sure what shielding was emplace around the cameras, but long exposure to radiation should have render the cameras and moreover the astronauts incapacitated after long exposure times (Hubble Space Station has all of it's sensors turned off everytime it passes the Van Allen radiation belt; more on that later). Moreover, transmission times had half a second delay time, which is pretty much similar to any walkie-talkie conversation. But at the distance of rounded to 250,000 miles, delay times should have been over 2 seconds at least; which is not including the probability that other uncontrolled UV, UB, Micro, and any form of electronic disturbance had interfered in the communication between the astronauts and NASA.

    Okay, technology isn't near perfect at all, but the biological effects that happens in space is far far from perfection or controllable, especially in that era without any external assistance satelliting around on a space station like there is presently. As mentioned earlier, the Van Allen radiation belt is the most significant radioactive danger present for all space traveling, whether that be satellites or Apollo missions. It is consisted of an inner and outer belt, which the outer alone extends out into space up to 12,427.42 miles from Earth alone. Yet it's a common NASA practice for current space shuttle (which should be more structurally protected than those fossil Apollo shuttles, right! Yes!) to not exceed space traveling beyond 400 km or 250 miles rounded. What? But the distance to the moon is at least 240,000 miles from the Earth! Yet the astronauts of the Apollo missions suffered no health problems?... oh wait, they did?! Well NASA reported that a total of 33 astronauts had contracted eye cataracts due to radiation exposure from the missions, but my father has a visible eye cataract and he's never been beyond the flying height of a flying Vietnam Huey chopper!

    Alright, I'll stop here. There's just too much to state whether the missions were farce or not; or whether it was simply a show of political or military might during the height of the Cold War between Russia and the U.S. etc. It's understandable that everybody has their opinion based on their perspective and understandings of the universe, but I leave this one quote for all who view this great documentary site, "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." ~Arthur Schopenhauer

  305. An average KGB agent can drink vodka all day long and then put a bullet between the eyes of anyone they think may deserve it.

    These people have serious skill-sets. The CIA is so scared of booze... THEY ARE LOOSING!


    Anyways, you gotta love the Russians... what were we talking about?

  306. During the Cold War, Russia was looking HARD for America to mess up!

    Do you not think that Russia had surveilence in NASA bathrooms? Do you not think that Russia would have called America out immediately if we had faked a moon landing?

    They, (the Great Russian Peoples), acknowledged that we sent some guys to the moon. They didn't WANT to, but they did.

    They listened to everything we did, (they are an incredibly advanced peoples and know all of our secrets, get over it...)

    They said, yeah, yeah... you sent guys to the moon, whatever, we have these former KGB guys that can kick the dirt out of your CIA, so what?

    I love Russians... they kick-a*** and they drink vodka like water... I love them all!

  307. @gmanz

    Cold War, Space Race, National Pride, lots of money and manpower... yeah.

  308. there ARE a few hoax related docs om TDF under conspiracy heading..Dark Side of the Moon,A Funny Thing Happened on theWay to the Moon,and Apollo Zero.Watch responsibly.

  309. 400,ooo miles in 69,we cant go past 400 miles today,yeah right.

  310. I have said from day one that the Moon landing was "not" a hoax.

    Have put on a lot of subject matter in that regard on many Moon-landing blogs.

    And of course will watch the Doc.

  311. How did they get the footage of the lunar craft blasting off the moon back to earth??? its just a normal basic small camera back then .
    Sp\o , they blast off fromt he moon and the camera is filming the craft lift off ..then what happenned ? they popped back down to collect the footage ,,then blasted off again. I know i am simple but just curious ..

  312. Why post this episode of mythbusters and not any others?? Are you interested in this topic Vlatko? If you are I would love to see any other doc's on the same subject.

  313. They always say there is only one light source on the moon the sun but what about the Earth reflecting the Sun's rays. Just like the full moon but significantly stronger because of the size difference. mythbusters busted :)

  314. @coyote03

    "Or are you just making an uninformed unscientific claim?"

    Yes I am, making something uninformed and most certainly unscientific, but it is NOT a claim!

  315. Mythbusters go to great lengths to explain and apply the scientific method, within the limits of a TV show which is also supposed to entertain and appeal to younger viewers. Unlike some copycat shows that are indeed just explosions and bs talk.

  316. Thanks for posting this one. Sadly I also have some friends who believe the "hoax" theory. For most though even this will not convince them. They will of course claim that the crew of the show were paid to say this, tests were manipulated and etc. People will believe whatever nonsense they want to regardless of proof to the contrary.

  317. Science is all about questioning what we see as truth and then testing our hypothesis over and over until we can draw solid conclusions from that. These guys test famous myths using the scientific method, they test over and over and draw conclusions from that, they address any shortcomings in their experiment upfront and present the results for us to see.

    I didn't notice any explosions in this episode, nor were there many jokes (even though both are likeable, funny guys). Yes, there are a lot of explosions in other episodes, but only when the myth has to do with some kind of explosion! I respect your right to have your own opinion, but you couldn't be more wrong about Mythbusters, this show is a stepping stone into many different fields. This episode alone has made me more interested in the fields of human locomotion, space exploration, photography, and more. Nor do I here them saying this is for the sake of science every 5 minutes!

    Are you suggesting that people who enjoy this show are redneck hillbillies? Do you have any proof or evidence for that? Or are you just making an uninformed unscientific claim?

  318. Hoax or not, I still dont like these guys, and it is in my opinion that they are doing more harm to the image of science than there is merits to cover it.

    My friend is a big "Mythbusters" fan. He enjoys the show content and is somewhat inspired by what he is seeing. However take away the jokes, explosions and... (thats about it) from the screen and you get nothing, there is no gain in knowledge (whell most of the time anyway), no stepping-stone to some other relative fields of study or down right understanding of what scientists actually do. And yet every 5min they say that what they are doing is for the sake of science.


    I must admit that my friend is kind of a redneck hill billy... Hes happy tho!