Mythbusters: bustin' at the speed of light!

[Reply #40 on:]

Did you see it?
the only thing holding anyone back by this point should be their ego

[Reply #41 on:]

I think mythbusters was paid by the US govt to do that episode and to make stuff up...

Don't for get about the Mole people, PBS and BW!

They also did an episode about it on Bullsh*t. DUN DUN DUN!

[Reply #42 on:]

It's a little to convenient if you ask me espon.

[Reply #43 on:]

What is? That it was done in the U.S.?
That reason alone invalidates all evidence?
Unless you were talking about something else. In which case I apologize and please elaborate.

[Reply #44 on:]

I haven't seen the programme but I never doubted the moon landings were real, had they been faked somebody involved would have talked in the last forty years.

[Reply #45 on:]

No, I mean everything they said on the mythbusters episode was a little to convenient, I still don't buy it.

[Reply #46 on:]

what was convinient? so you'r saying they just faked it? the low gravity jet, the vacum, the simulated photos...
why is it so hard to beleive?
so you're just going to refute every bit of evidence no matter what it is?
then nothing will convince you.

[Reply #47 on:]

Several tv programs have debunked the debunkers.... including Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t.

But it's a conspiracy theory.... and people who believe in it will probably always have excuses for believing what they do.  A wild imagination is a powerful tool for reshaping society.  With the internet, those theories will probably live on even long after their creators have gone... people just really enjoy crazy explanation of things, combine that with mystery and you get something really hard to shake off the human mind.

[Reply #48 on:]

what was convinient? so you'r saying they just faked it? the low gravity jet, the vacum, the simulated photos...

Precisely.

[Reply #49 on:]

god damn!
you're putting speculation over hard evidence!
you're clinging to your conspiricy like a drowning man clings to a peice of drift wood. i think you just won't admit defeat. i"it was too convenient" is the kind of excuse people use when they've lost and refuse to admit it. it's a last resort. its not an actual argument. we all have to admit we were wrong every once and a while. be a man!   
of course it looked easy. it actually happened. it shouldn't have been that hard to bust. and you know what... it wasn't.
how the hell do you fake that shit!
goverment's aren't that desperate and they're not that good at covering stuff up. look at the U.S. now. do you really think an idoit like Bush is that good?
Im done dealing with this tonight.  goodnight

[Reply #50 on:]

I think he's just pressing your buttons.  But I do think there are people and certain groups in the world capable of keeping very elaborate secrets still secret, even after all these years.

Btw, we landed on the moon... no doubt about it and I don't need Mythbusters to point that out to me; also, do they really count as hard science?  I'm pretty sure they don't account for all variables in a lot of their experiments, and they certainly don't have data sets to prove some things conclusively.... they do a pretty good job with it though, and I'd hedge my money on most of their outcomes any day.

[Reply #51 on:]

Espon:

The govt was the desperate, they had to beat the russians in the space race, or at least appear too. What's bush got to do with anything? And all that's stuff easy to fake, sheesh, spend 2 minutes googling and you'll see what i mean.

Winna: exactly, Myth Busters is far from Hard science. Thanks for having my back.

[Reply #52 on:]

I think you're wrong if you're serious about us not having landed on the moon chay... just for the record....

The best argument that it was fake is your first sentence.  The US government did have motive to do such a thing.... but I'm pretty sure they didn't really have the means to fake what being on the moon is actually like.  Also, the discrepencies pointed out by conspiracy theorists can easily be explained in a reasonable manner for the debate that we did actually land on the moon. 

The Bush thing was an example.  As other people have stated, the government isn't very good at keeping secrets... especially ones of the magnitude that we faked landing on the moon... especially since most of those people are NASA... NASA is very leaky.

I don't mind getting your back though chay, and I think "because it's science!" isn't  a very good argument most of the time.  If you can't personally validate and understand the evidence on your own, how is that any better than taking somebody else's word for it?  However, we can't evaluate every scientific study ever, so we take in what seems most reasonable to us... which is what evidence is for, to back up a reasonable argument/hypothesis.   


Chay, your "that's too convenient" was actually a bad tactic, and espon called you out on it.  Would the US government really pay Mythbusters money to prove we landed on the moon?  In doing so, they would validate the fact that we didn't to several more people... which is how leaks get started in the first place.   The US govt doesn't have a good reason to pay off a show to prove we actually landed on the moon anyways (other than to waste taxpayers money).  They've got most of the population thinking we landed on the moon.... it's also not something that really matters anymore anyways, for all intensive purposes, the history books say we landed on the moon.... How many people were the Mythbusters supposed to convince?  I haven't seen the episode in question, and I doubt everybody but me watches Mythbusters...  and as I said earlier... people who believe we didn't land on the moon will probably always believe we didn't land on the moon... regardless if it's true or false.... and they're entitled to that.  It's not like they're going to ruin the USA by pointing out what they believe to be discrepencies in the landing video... are they? 

I'm just saying...

[Reply #53 on:]

Every myth about the moon landings debunked.

[Reply #54 on:]

I think mythbusters was paid by the US govt to do that episode and to make stuff up...

While we were watching it, I asked Kelly, "How much money do you think NASA gave Discovery and MythBusters to paint such a glowing picture?"

Note:  I believe we've been to the moon, but that episode was just way too slick.

[Reply #55 on:]

Was it really that obnoxiously chalante and matter of fact about it?

I'd chalk that up to them being as overbearing and self-absorbed as they are, but I think my the US Government has no reason to pay off a tv show argument still fits.

[Reply #56 on:]

<- Joking

[Reply #57 on:]

<- Had your back the whole time

[Reply #58 on:]

 ^ Joking
<  Posting
 v Quibbling

it's also not something that really matters anymore anyways, for all intensive purposes, the history books say we landed on the moon...

Ah, but what about the not-so-intensive ones?

Or were you refering to everyone who goes camping with Phocoenidae (i.e. "all in tents with porpoises")?

[Reply #59 on:]

Who cares. It was like 39 years ago, let it go.

Why hasn't anyone gone back?

1. America's become fat and lazy and most things like this aren't worth doing twice.

2. Russia's not what it used to be and has better things waste money on, like politicians.

3. And everyone is like, meh, we got real problems that can't be fixed by the moon.

And last but not least whats really gonna happen if the moon landing really happened/didn't happen?

Most likely, not much. At least I would not care. I'd change the channel.

[Reply #60 on:]

They're building the next ship to get them to the moon now. 10 years, the moon again another 10 mars.

[Reply #61 on:]

you're clinging to your conspiricy like a drowning man clings to a peice of drift wood.

Well, wouldn't you?
Poor metaphor, also I agree with DogDoo, wtf cares now, not me.
Just call me when they open Luna Park.

[Reply #62 on:]

bbbbbrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiing

[Reply #63 on:]

And besides, everybody knows that the moon is made out of cheese.  Blue cheese.  I notice that the Mythbusters didn't address that with their precious science.

[Reply #64 on:]

well im sorry i got so pissed off. i'll eventually learn to stop giving a damn.

i don't care what the moonlandings say about the US. we're arogant bastards as it is. i care about what it says about the people who worked to do it.

and Chay were you joking or what? im confused
 
sorry i didn't see this other thread. wasn't thinking.

[Reply #65 on:]

I was joking. You started a thread that pretty much said "This happened and you can't say that it didn't!". Where the hell did you expect the thread to go? Doesn't leave much room for discussion now does it?

[Reply #66 on:]

well you succeeded in agitating me. which as it turns aout was a lot easier than it should have been. i don't know what i expected. mabye i was on an ego trip expecting theorists to come up and admit it was real. mabyei just wanted to start a debate for those who were left in the conspiricy.

ether way i apologize for acting like a jackass

[Reply #67 on:]

Lol... it's alright, we all have our moments.

Also, after years of arguing with people.. I can say that a single point (or group of points) stated once (or even a couple of times), no matter how reasonable, will probably not change someone's mind.... dependant upon how entrenched they are in that particular idea.  What you do get, however, is the chance to plant new seeds and ideas into a person's mind and let them cultivate it for themselves... Depending how such arguments go, you can also be more reassured in your belief because you're being forced to think about it from different angles.... or if you're the one that's wrong, you get the opportunity to change out the old belief for something better, since you're being forced to think about it.

You made a good point about why conspiracy theories are a problem.  They detract from people's accomplishment, or they paint people in an unfair way, or they detract from the tragedies that befall someone's life.

[Reply #68 on:]

mystbusters eh?







surely looks like a totally scientific show

[Reply #69 on:]

Hey Science can be sexy. Who says it can't?

[Reply #70 on:]

Its weird, I watched a marathon of this last weekend or something and loved it! But now I can't find it on Discovery .

[Reply #71 on:]

Its weird, I watched a marathon of this last weekend or something and loved it! But now I can't find it on Discovery .

Wednesdays @9

[Reply #72 on:]

Dude, I think I'm getting a boner from that picture.

[Reply #73 on:]

Back on topic, I agree with what winna said about the show, it's not good science. They recall their myths sometimes, but their retestings often fuck it up just as bad. I've even seen the occasional copout(not testing stealth fighter paint on cars against radar guns for instance). The problem is the 2 guys running the show:

Jamie - Moderately intelligent, could possibly do well with more attention to detail, but he'd have to know more, a lot more, about science before that could be the case. Even then there's probably better choices.

Adam - Not intelligent, wannabe Johny Knoxville, immature, frequently impulsive during experiments, frequently impulsive while analyzing experiments. Once called using a lack of evidence being "scientific about it"

Neither of them are well versed in science, they're special effects guys. Using special effects guys to conduct scientific experiments is like using a cake baker to construct a building. Sure both the cake and the building have materials and a structure to them, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Reply #74 on:]

Yeah, but that's what gets people watching it. It is the explosions and interesting experiments. If it was any more scientific it would be boring-y. I love science but I love how they come up with their experiments.

[Reply #75 on:]

If it was any more scientific it would be boring-y.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/smash-lab/smash-lab.html

[Reply #76 on:]

Exactly my point they sensationalized science with that show, and you can't do that. When you do, you not only ruin the science, but you draw a crowd which ends up being poorly educated by said sensation.

[Reply #77 on:]

Damn, way to suck the fun out of an entertaining show.

[Reply #78 on:]

I kind of disagree, I think the two hosts are actually pretty intelligent and know what they're talking about.  You're probably mostly right about Adam, he's just ridiculous and that annoying person that tags along for everything.... but he's worth it, that friend you let tag along and do ridiculous things.

And they followed the scientific fairly well with most of their projects... their results weren't super reliable for a number of different reasons, but for the most part, they were pretty on the spot.  Like I said, I wouldn't take their results as the end story, but they did a decent job of getting the first step in.

[Reply #79 on:]

I agree with winna. I love their personalities, and it makes the show great. And they do use science to explain it better, but not really to do the experiments well. As they said themselves, "We're not scientists," so you can't expect too much from them.