MythBusters to prove manned lunar landings no hoax

FYI, Folks:
"The Discovery Channel - The Executive Producer for Beyond Productions, Sydney, is asking to film at JSC and other NASA centers for a 2-hour special for the series "MYTHBUSTERS." In this episode they plan to counter the argument that humans never landed on the moon, examining seven moon-landing hoax theories."
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime"
www.apolloeecom.com

Sy Liebergot wrote:


About time the Mythbusters take on the Apollo hoax crackpots. Of course, cockroaches like
the Guthball and others of his ilk will claim that "It's all part of the cover-up!" Even when we go
back and have astronauts standing close to a LM descent stage, the usual suspects will still
be shouting "Fake!" They need a rubber room, straightjacket, and appropriate meds.

"Sy Liebergot" wrote in message
...

FYI, Folks:
"The Discovery Channel - The Executive Producer for Beyond Productions,
Sydney, is asking to film at JSC and other NASA centers for a 2-hour
special for the series "MYTHBUSTERS." In this episode they plan to
counter the argument that humans never landed on the moon, examining
seven moon-landing hoax theories."

It doesn't matter. There's no amount of proof that could convince the
hoaxers that they are wrong. Anything contrary to their beliefs is by
definition wrong.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 22:29:57 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"Sy Liebergot" wrote in message
...

FYI, Folks:
"The Discovery Channel - The Executive Producer for Beyond Productions,
Sydney, is asking to film at JSC and other NASA centers for a 2-hour
special for the series "MYTHBUSTERS." In this episode they plan to
counter the argument that humans never landed on the moon, examining
seven moon-landing hoax theories."

It doesn't matter. There's no amount of proof that could convince the
hoaxers that they are wrong. Anything contrary to their beliefs is by
definition wrong.

Yeah, but it should be entertaining. The only thing I can't figure is
what they are going to blow up to try and bust this one!
The sad thing is that this probably will convince the non-conspiracy
thinkers who don't believe we went.
If it's on TV it must be true!
--
Brian Heil | Stay Alert! | Technology Services
Systems Administrator/Programmer | Trust No One! | University of Iowa
| Keep Your Laser Handy | College of Business

It doesn't matter. There's no amount of proof that could convince the
hoaxers that they are wrong. Anything contrary to their beliefs is by
definition wrong.

The purpose wouldn't be to convince Guth, Min, et al. That would be a waste
of time. But there are lots of people who wonder about the hoax claims, but
they don't know enough to evaluate them properly. Those who ask or think,
"Well, what about it?" are the people who will benefit.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

On Apr 10, 10:33 am, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
It doesn't matter. There's no amount of proof that could convince the
hoaxers that they are wrong. Anything contrary to their beliefs is by
definition wrong.

The purpose wouldn't be to convince Guth, Min, et al. That would be a waste
of time. But there are lots of people who wonder about the hoax claims, but
they don't know enough to evaluate them properly. Those who ask or think,
"Well, what about it?" are the people who will benefit.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

Spoken like a perfectly good Third Reich Jew. Infomercial them
*******s to death, just like in those good old days of having put one
of your own kind on a stick, and then blaming others. (nothing much
has changed, has it)

Do you silly folks as much lie to your kids?
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 9, 7:29 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Sy Liebergot" wrote in message

It doesn't matter. There's no amount of proof that could convince the
hoaxers that they are wrong. Anything contrary to their beliefs is by
definition wrong.

That's rather silly, although typically Jewish of you.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 9, 8:58 am, Sy Liebergot
wrote:
FYI, Folks:
"The Discovery Channel - The Executive Producer for Beyond Productions,
Sydney, is asking to film at JSC and other NASA centers for a 2-hour
special for the series "MYTHBUSTERS." In this episode they plan to
counter the argument that humans never landed on the moon, examining
seven moon-landing hoax theories."
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime"www.apolloeecom.com

--
Sy Liebergot

All they'll need is a good interactive 3D solar system simulator (even
CELESTIA will due), of which NASA has lots of those plus spendy
supercomputers to go by, and otherwise sharing a few of those official
words and replicated examples as to Kodak film DR might be of some
interest.

There's actually a good dozen other considerations that via the
regular laws of physics simply do not add up to that moon being walked
upon, although without Venus or a few other off-moon items that would
have easily been within a given FOV and within the scope of Kodak DR
(especially if optically unfiltered) anywhere in sight, what's the
point?
-
Brad Guth

For some silly reason the borg damage control collective of "Major
Quaternion Dirt Quantum" and the like isn't buying into these notions
of our having been totally snookered by those having the right stuff.

It's merely Kodak's or even some of NASA's very own hard science, of
which there's much to draw upon, that has been Usenet and otherwise
formally published, and for the most part is still there to behold,
along with those regular laws of applied physics that's telling us the
actual truth and nothing but the truth.

If you folks elect to not look before walking out in front of a fast
moving buss, as such there's not all that much I or anyone else can
say or do, is there. Your continual evidence excluding or banishment
of the truth doesn't hardly count for all that much, especially of
what's replicated to death simply doesn't match up to that of your
NASA/Apollo koran.

As I'd said before, that any half-assed interactive 3D simulator, such
as Celestia, is more than good enough for having proven my point, and
remember that we don't actually have to prove that each and every
aspect of the NASA/Apollo fiasco was entirely bogus, do we. Just one
silly little EVA or orbital accessible item, such as the matter of
Venus being nowhere within any FOV of those extensive EVA or even via
those orbital unfiltered Kodak moments, will in fact do quite nicely.

Those hocus-pocus fly-by-rocket physics of a 60:1 ratio worth of
rocket/payload that's starting itself off with a nearly 30% inert GLOW
is simply another rusty old nail in that mutually perpetrated cold-war
coffin, and there's lots more of the same to share in public court.

The total lack of having any R&D or of their having easily
accomplished terrestrial proof test demonstrations on behalf of
accomplishing those fly-by-rocket landers (having to make due w/o
powerful momentum reaction wheels) is also an interesting aspect of
questioning those supposed accomplishments of ours, as well as of
those USSR/Russian robotic landers that also had not managed to
demonstrate any of their capability before, during or ever since.
Even as of today, there's an ongoing contest to see if anyone can
actually accomplish the most carefully controlled and therefore of the
most simplistic phase of fly-by-rocket demonstration. (thus far, even
with momentum reaction wheels and of their spendy computers running
flat out, there's no such luck that you'd care to bet your life upon)

To honestly think about it, there's no actual NASA/Apollo film in safe
storage, is there. Such original film was processed and digital
scanned on the fly, because of all the radiation is what gave us or
that of the USSR/Russian alternative no other option. Modern CCDs are
well shielded and fully biased prior to each given exposure in order
to insure those most visible photons get recorded without such images
getting flooded by gamma and Xrays, and otherwise their optics are
filtered in order to remove/exclude the likes if IR and UV, and/or to
extensively moderate against most all else that doesn't need to get
recorded. Another perfectly good example is the MESSENGER flyby of
Earth (in which case I have a cellphone camera with better DR).
-
Brad Guth

Why don't you folks and assorted "MythBusters" merely explain as to
why that MESSENGER flyby of Earth was cut a good 8 DB short of a full
load of having otherwise easily demonstrated its true dynamic range?

Why don't you explain as to why those NASA/Apollo unfiltered
photographic exposures of all that Kodak film was oddly FOV
selectively limited above the horizon, as to such a pathetic dynamic
range of 4 DB or as possibly offering as much as 5 DB for whatever was
in the crystal clear black of space, except of course whenever that
FOV was including Earth didn't seem to matter how terribly **** poor
all other portions of that black sky was otherwise unable to hardly
accommodate 4 DB, because that's what it would have taken to have
nearly but not even entirely excluded the nearby vibrance of a
crescent Venus. Otherwise, of the same camera, same lens and same
film, while their FOV was focused upon the local terrain (looking more
guano island than not) and of various artificial items, like
astronauts or of their equipment as having clearly indicated an
impressive film DR of nearly 10+ DB, if not actually somewhat better
considering how well defined the given image accomplished such
terrific detail from within what should have been the near total
darkness of highly contrasting shade (suggesting they had a combined
Kodak film and lens DR of at least 12+ DB).

Secondly, do explain as to why their raw solar illumination was
essentially recording exactly that of a xenon lamp spectrum, therefore
having offered a very terrestrial looking spectrum worth of color
saturation without hardly if any UV to speak of.

Now that was some special AI kind of Kodak film, as essentially having
that nifty kind of photon artificial intelligence on behalf of each
given FOV, and otherwise selective spectrum sensitivity that was
offering some entirely weird kind of robo dynamic color saturation on
the fly, and of being near thermally indestructible and rad-hard to
boot.

Give us your best interactive 3D simulator perspective, of looking at
whatever should have been easily seen by the human eye, or far better
that of the more spectrum sensitive naked/unfiltered Kodak eye as from
the moon, as given those very same Apollo locations, FOV and of course
using the very same mission dates as going along by each EVA hour by
hour. With just one of their existing supercomputers and fancy as all
get out 3D do-everything simulator, that's all bought and paid for
several times over, is why this effort shouldn't represent any
problem, delay or added expense whatsoever.
-
Brad Guth