5th Hour - MythBusters Bust the Moon Hoax

Watch the Mythbusters video where they attempt to use science to bust the theory of the moon hoax. Reflect on the video and answer ONE of the following questions. In addition to your posted reflection, respond to the postings of TWO of your classmates.

1. Select a piece of the moon hoax theory that you found to be most convincing. How did the Mythbusters attempt to bust this part of the moon hoax theory? Be sure to identify IV, DV, constants, DETAILED procedure, and the conclusion that they were able to draw from their experiment.

2. Discuss the importance of determining the validity of a source in science. Why is it important for us to do our homework and look at both sides of an issue before taking a stance? Why is it so easy to believe things that we see? What is the danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source? After watching both videos, where do you stand in regards to the moon landing? Be sure to support your stance.

Initial Posting: Due Thursday, September 1 at 11:59 pm
Response Postings: Due Sunday, September 4 at 11:59 pm

The evidence that i found most believable during the moon hoax video was when they pointed out that the shadows were pointing in different directions and not parallel. the mythbusters took this and did an awesome job. They attempted to bust this "evidence" by creating a small replica of one of the pictures where the shadows were not parallel. the IV of this experiment was the way the ground was shaped. The DV was the way the shadows faced. Constants were the same setup with objects at the same spots, and one light source. After failing the first time the mythbusters used more sand to direct the light off the sand and the rocks at the same time making the illusion that there were 2 light sources.

It is always important to look at both sides in whatever project or issue you approach because you do not want to seem bias. Of course its easy to believe whatever we see or believe because that is just what humans are use to doing. Especially in America, people feel as though what is the point in doing extra research when it has already been done. The danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source results in more ignorance than what there already was. After seeing the video I do believe that we landed on the moon now that I have seen for myself more research that has been put into the whole situation.

I think they pointed out a lot of good points. Like the flag moving, at first i saw where they were going with it. But as soon as they tried it out, it did the same thing that the people that went to the moon said it did. The boot was a great idea too. They sat up everything just like it, and tried it out and it worked. So now i am really on the edge about if we did or didn't land on the moon. :-/

One thing that the Mythbusters tested about the Constericy Theory was the flag moving(DV) like there was wind. According to the people who didn't believe that NASA went to the moon mentioned that there isnt any air on the moon so therefore the flag shouldn't of been moving. Hence why they thought it was fake. The Mythbusters decided to challenge this. They used a vacuum chamber to simulate the atmosphere(iv) on the moon. They used the same kind of flag post like NASA did when they went to the moon. When the chamber was turned off, the flag moved some but when the chamber was turned on the flag moved anymore. It resembled the original footage from the moon. The Mythbusters were able to conduct an experiment to prove the moon hoax wrong, and seeing this makes me believe anymore that we did land on the moon.

BriannaMoore wrote:It is always important to look at both sides in whatever project or issue you approach because you do not want to seem bias. Of course its easy to believe whatever we see or believe because that is just what humans are use to doing. Especially in America, people feel as though what is the point in doing extra research when it has already been done. The danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source results in more ignorance than what there already was. After seeing the video I do believe that we landed on the moon now that I have seen for myself more research that has been put into the whole situation.

I agree with you on looking at both sides, and believing what you see. I think that if you get both sides, then you get the whole story and the whole situation may be understood better.

Looking at both sides of the issue can affect the issue dramitically. One side of the story could be completely different from the other side. We believe things that we see because we are worried about the truth. If we seen it with both of our eyes, we are more likely to believe it. You cant believe everything someone says, its the "Show Me" State, so you have to show me. Thats where research falls into the equation. You cant really give a confident statement or opinion on something unless you have done your reseach. Just like you can't judge a book by its cover. In regard to the moon landing, I think we did land on the moon. Conspiracy Theory had some good strong theories. On the other hand Myth Busters, dispossed of all the theories.

BriannaMoore wrote:It is always important to look at both sides in whatever project or issue you approach because you do not want to seem bias. Of course its easy to believe whatever we see or believe because that is just what humans are use to doing. Especially in America, people feel as though what is the point in doing extra research when it has already been done. The danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source results in more ignorance than what there already was. After seeing the video I do believe that we landed on the moon now that I have seen for myself more research that has been put into the whole situation.

I agree with you brianna, but you also have to consider that not EVERY human believes what they see. Some people believe in doing more research first

Azia Aldridge wrote:I think they pointed out a lot of good points. Like the flag moving, at first i saw where they were going with it. But as soon as they tried it out, it did the same thing that the people that went to the moon said it did. The boot was a great idea too. They sat up everything just like it, and tried it out and it worked. So now i am really on the edge about if we did or didn't land on the moon. :-/

Azia yes, the movie did have a lot of good points, but you shouldn't be on the edge about if we went to the moon or not because all of the theories Conspiracy Theory had was BUSTED.

Of course to every argument there's two sides of the story, But this side of the argument just so happens is being told by special effect artist. the same kind of special effect artist that would have faked our moon landing in the first place. Everything myth busters replicated was done on earth, just like it was when NASA supposedly did it on the moon. Any one can force feed answers down your throat but very few see past the lies and continue to think for themselves. some evidence myth busters supposedly "busted" was showing that nonparallel shadows could be on the moon even with one light source still. myth busters made a little replica of the picture where the shadows were nonparallel. The IV was the craters and imperfections in their "moon" surface. The DV was what direction the shadow was faced. Two controls are same direction of light source and same amount of light source.for the procedure first they got a big enough light source that could b the sun. secondly they mixed spandex, Portland cement, and bone black or black powder. then they took their first picture with the surface being flat and compared it to their original shot. next they gave their replica some "realistic" imperfections until the shadows just so happened to match up like NASA's stage photos. the conclusion that they were able to draw from their experiment was the myth is busted because its possible for other reasons then more then one light source for nonparallel shadows.

Azia Aldridge wrote:I think they pointed out a lot of good points. Like the flag moving, at first i saw where they were going with it. But as soon as they tried it out, it did the same thing that the people that went to the moon said it did. The boot was a great idea too. They sat up everything just like it, and tried it out and it worked. So now i am really on the edge about if we did or didn't land on the moon. :-/

The moving flag and the boot were both "busted" in NASA's environment, to me its not likely that NASA would any of their secrets out. These myths were tested in NASA's machines, with NASA's kind of money they can make a machine do whatever they want, people only think that's what would happen on the moon because that's what NASA told us, but NASA would not actually know unless they were ever at the moon in the first place.

The most convincing part of the moon hoax theory was the part about the light reflecting off of the astronaut (DV). The myth busters proved this theory wrong by using material with the same albedo as the moon's surface (IV) and set up an exact replica of the situation on the moo to see whether light could reflect off of the surface and brighten the astronaut when he was in the shadow of the lander and the experiment worked, in the picture the man looked bright just as in the original proving the moon hoax theorists wrong. 2 constants may have been, the albedo of the material, and the location of the source of light.

ScubaSteve.Smith wrote:Looking at both sides of the issue can affect the issue dramitically. One side of the story could be completely different from the other side. We believe things that we see because we are worried about the truth. If we seen it with both of our eyes, we are more likely to believe it. You cant believe everything someone says, its the "Show Me" State, so you have to show me. Thats where research falls into the equation. You cant really give a confident statement or opinion on something unless you have done your reseach. Just like you can't judge a book by its cover. In regard to the moon landing, I think we did land on the moon. Conspiracy Theory had some good strong theories. On the other hand Myth Busters, dispossed of all the theories.

Yea myth busters did a amazing job on proving wrong everything i thought was real, i take your side on having to show me before i can believe anything, great suggestion

kurt.ragan wrote:The evidence that i found most believable during the moon hoax video was when they pointed out that the shadows were pointing in different directions and not parallel. the mythbusters took this and did an awesome job. They attempted to bust this "evidence" by creating a small replica of one of the pictures where the shadows were not parallel. the IV of this experiment was the way the ground was shaped. The DV was the way the shadows faced. Constants were the same setup with objects at the same spots, and one light source. After failing the first time the mythbusters used more sand to direct the light off the sand and the rocks at the same time making the illusion that there were 2 light sources.

Yea i thought that the shadow theory was true until myth busters "busted" it, seems like we really can't believe everything we see, learned my lesson

The moon theory I found very convincing was the segment with the non-parallelism of the shadows of the rocks. I figured that there was no possible way for this to have been being that there's only one light source on the moon, but it made me somewhat skeptical.

The Myth Busters set up a replica of the Apollo 11 landing area. They find a light source large enough to represent the lighting of the sun on the moon's surface and cover a large flat surface with spandex, portland cement, and and bone black. Small rocks and a module figure are set in place as proportionate to those on the moon and the light is shone upon them.

After a photo is taken it is clear that the shadows of the rocks and the shadow of the replica are parallel. The Myth Busters then manipulate the tophography of the surface (IV) and re-shoot the photo. The shadows (DV) of the rocks are no longer parallel to that of the replica, which is an example of proof that non-parallelism is in fact possible on the moons surface. However, I still am not completely convinced. The US clearly knew what it was doing. They were not stupid. Research was done. They would do anything in their power to manipulate the way the American people think. So I'll need a bit more "evidence" to be fully convinced.

Admin wrote:Watch the Mythbusters video where they attempt to use science to bust the theory of the moon hoax. Reflect on the video and answer ONE of the following questions. In addition to your posted reflection, respond to the postings of TWO of your classmates.

1. Select a piece of the moon hoax theory that you found to be most convincing. How did the Mythbusters attempt to bust this part of the moon hoax theory? Be sure to identify IV, DV, constants, DETAILED procedure, and the conclusion that they were able to draw from their experiment.

2. Discuss the importance of determining the validity of a source in science. Why is it important for us to do our homework and look at both sides of an issue before taking a stance? Why is it so easy to believe things that we see? What is the danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source? After watching both videos, where do you stand in regards to the moon landing? Be sure to support your stance.

Initial Posting: Due Thursday, September 1 at 11:59 pm
Response Postings: Due Sunday, September 4 at 11:59 pm

The most effective and convincing from the Mythbusters episode was the fact that the moon man (Buzz Aldrin I believe), was deemed to be "invisible" when photographed behind the lunar lander. When the Mythbusters tested that exact thing, it amazed me that the picture was confirmed and proved to be true and the myth against it was busted. It turns out that the Monn's soil is very reflective and that it gives off the reflection of the Sun, thus illuminating the astronaut in the photo. After watching the Mythbusters' episode, i am still skeptical about the "Landing on the Moon" hoax but, this sways my opinion a little bit.

kurt.ragan wrote:The evidence that i found most believable during the moon hoax video was when they pointed out that the shadows were pointing in different directions and not parallel. the mythbusters took this and did an awesome job. They attempted to bust this "evidence" by creating a small replica of one of the pictures where the shadows were not parallel. the IV of this experiment was the way the ground was shaped. The DV was the way the shadows faced. Constants were the same setup with objects at the same spots, and one light source. After failing the first time the mythbusters used more sand to direct the light off the sand and the rocks at the same time making the illusion that there were 2 light sources.

Kurt I totally agree with your opinion. the slight variation of soil and land that the lunar lander was on completely change the direction of the three shadows.

KristinaRider wrote:One thing that the Mythbusters tested about the Constericy Theory was the flag moving(DV) like there was wind. According to the people who didn't believe that NASA went to the moon mentioned that there isnt any air on the moon so therefore the flag shouldn't of been moving. Hence why they thought it was fake. The Mythbusters decided to challenge this. They used a vacuum chamber to simulate the atmosphere(iv) on the moon. They used the same kind of flag post like NASA did when they went to the moon. When the chamber was turned off, the flag moved some but when the chamber was turned on the flag moved anymore. It resembled the original footage from the moon. The Mythbusters were able to conduct an experiment to prove the moon hoax wrong, and seeing this makes me believe anymore that we did land on the moon.

This is a great point Kristina. The chamber completely busted the myth about the flag "waving" on the moon.

in my opinon i believe that it is important to do our research on a issue before taking a stance because what humans see is not always the truth. it just looks like the truth from our poin of view.it seems to be so easy to believe what we see because we are so use to believeing what the eyes can see, but the mind can not. just because you see something does not make it true. only beliving what we can see may cause dangers that you may not think of on the spot. spreading false information may stur up issues that may not ever be resolved. the more that humans believe makes a lie sound like the truth. after watching myth busters i have come to the conclusion that we have landed on the moon and that the people who came up with the conspercy theory had nothing else better to do than stur up unecessary issues, they are only digging theirselves a hole that eventually they won't be able to get out of.

BriannaMoore wrote:It is always important to look at both sides in whatever project or issue you approach because you do not want to seem bias. Of course its easy to believe whatever we see or believe because that is just what humans are use to doing. Especially in America, people feel as though what is the point in doing extra research when it has already been done. The danger in not doing research to ensure the validity of a source results in more ignorance than what there already was. After seeing the video I do believe that we landed on the moon now that I have seen for myself more research that has been put into the whole situation.

i totally agree with you the fact that people feel as if they don't need to do research proves that they have become lazy in researching what they need to know.

ScubaSteve.Smith wrote:

Azia Aldridge wrote:I think they pointed out a lot of good points. Like the flag moving, at first i saw where they were going with it. But as soon as they tried it out, it did the same thing that the people that went to the moon said it did. The boot was a great idea too. They sat up everything just like it, and tried it out and it worked. So now i am really on the edge about if we did or didn't land on the moon. :-/

Azia yes, the movie did have a lot of good points, but you shouldn't be on the edge about if we went to the moon or not because all of the theories Conspiracy Theory had was BUSTED.

your right but the fact that everything that was thrown our way got BUSTED the conspiracy theory has no proof to fuel their lies that they have told.

so.... i thought the flag waving in a vacuum was pretty cool. and it was i strong point. the myth busters used an American flag that was made approximately the same way (constant) as the one used in NASA's moon mission and hooked it up to some poles to keep it from collapsing. They wanted to see if a flag would wave (DV) on the moon if there was no atmosphere (IV) if the pole was turned (constant) the way it was on the moon. when they tested waving the flag in the atmosphere, after turning the pole, the waving died down quickly. When the flag pole was turned in a vacuum, the waving continued, proving that the flag could flap on the moon, not from wind, but from unused momentum from turning the pole.

maryamnewman wrote:The moon theory I found very convincing was the segment with the non-parallelism of the shadows of the rocks. I figured that there was no possible way for this to have been being that there's only one light source on the moon, but it made me somewhat skeptical.

The Myth Busters set up a replica of the Apollo 11 landing area. They find a light source large enough to represent the lighting of the sun on the moon's surface and cover a large flat surface with spandex, portland cement, and and bone black. Small rocks and a module figure are set in place as proportionate to those on the moon and the light is shone upon them.

After a photo is taken it is clear that the shadows of the rocks and the shadow of the replica are parallel. The Myth Busters then manipulate the tophography of the surface (IV) and re-shoot the photo. The shadows (DV) of the rocks are no longer parallel to that of the replica, which is an example of proof that non-parallelism is in fact possible on the moons surface. However, I still am not completely convinced. The US clearly knew what it was doing. They were not stupid. Research was done. They would do anything in their power to manipulate the way the American people think. So I'll need a bit more "evidence" to be fully convinced.

I agree that the US and Nasa would both try to do anything they could to manipulate the way people think because to me, they already do. but on the other hand to me, no matter what "evidence" they showed me, i most likely still wont be convinced or in my opinion brain washed.

The part that I found to be the most convincing was the photos. I feel like those were the things conspiracy theorists were using the most to say "Oh yeah, guess what, we didn't land on the moon. The shadows are different, so it much be on a set". <- Not True. All the Mythbusters did was just duplicate the setting of the photos using only one light; you can't control where the shadows are going to end up. Same thing with the astronaut in the shadow. Same setting, same angle, no flash, same image outcome.

IV- Ground shaping/hills
DV- Where the shadows end up.
Constants- No movement of one light source, Same objects in same position.
They had the objects in the same setting as the original photo, took a photo, shadows were parallel.
After changing the ground under the rocks, exact to the Moon photo, the shadows appeared identical to the photo.
Conclusion: Yes, it is possible to have one light source and have the shadows be aimed in different directions.

serenasomerville wrote:in my opinon i believe that it is important to do our research on a issue before taking a stance because what humans see is not always the truth. it just looks like the truth from our poin of view.it seems to be so easy to believe what we see because we are so use to believeing what the eyes can see, but the mind can not. just because you see something does not make it true. only beliving what we can see may cause dangers that you may not think of on the spot. spreading false information may stur up issues that may not ever be resolved. the more that humans believe makes a lie sound like the truth. after watching myth busters i have come to the conclusion that we have landed on the moon and that the people who came up with the conspercy theory had nothing else better to do than stur up unecessary issues, they are only digging theirselves a hole that eventually they won't be able to get out of.

I completely agree with you on everything. The conspiracy theorists should have done more research before presenting all this "evidence." Its funny how you said they had nothing else better to do. They could have used that time to actually try to prove their theories instead of letting Mythbusters do it for them. And that is a big thing about being human that annoys me. We always believe that our point of view is the right one, and a lot of times, we don't take the time to look at the other side. We only believe what we want to.