Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A note to new users

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your idea. You do not have a right to post here without inconvenient facts compromising your vision. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its articles are required to have a neutral point of view. This does NOT mean that we are supposed to make every idea sound equally plausible - it means that different explanations of events must be treated with equal scrutiny. Simply posting the hoaxers claims would turn the article into its own subject. It would be the same as an article on 'Alice in Wonderland' that did nothing but repost Louis Carroll's original text. that is not what an encyclopedia does.

There is no hoax theory. Search the web, and you will only find endless imagined "flaws in Nasa's evidence" that do not hold up to scrutiny. Despite requests by other editors, the many hoax proponents here have yet to produce any complete narrative of what they think happened. That is a central fact of the article, and is why this article is not titled "hoax theory", but Hoax Accusations. This article is therefore about a belief, and those who advocate it. We question the belief. The article on Jesus questions him too, so that is not unusual. A coherent "story of Jesus" exists, and can be referenced and discussed, but no one has found a similar "story of the hoax" anywhere, so there is nothing to write about here but shooting down hoax claims, and reporting on the tactics of hoax proponents.

Many of the discussions here tend to repeat themselves, which makes "assuming good faith" difficult. (But still we try.) We asked a previous hoax proponent what would satisfy him that a moon landing did occur, and after some difficulty understanding the question he produced a list of items that did, in fact exist, but he refused to acknowledge. Requests for non-nasa evidence have been answered multiple times. Before you start a new subject, please read through the archives to see if the answers to your questions have been posted before.

Thanks. Algr 06:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no hoax theory. Indeed. When I was trying to rewrite the article to meet NPOV and be less cluttered with pointless argument/counter-argument, the biggest single problem was that there is no consistent theory that makes any sense which can be discussed in the article. Even the different accusations from different Apollo-deniers are fundamentally incompatible (e.g. their claims vary from the Apollo astronauts never going into space at all up to them landing on the Moon but the footage being faked). It's incredibly difficult to make a sensible article out of something that makes no sense. Mark Grant 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Two good things to read:

Don't forget Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Mark Grant 17:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly those too. Five percent of Americans believe that the Moon landing was a hoax. Three percent believe that they've been abducted by aliens. I wonder if there is any overlap? Bubba73 (talk), 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stars redux

This Astronomy picture of the day says "No single exposure can easily capture faint stars along with the subtle colors of the Moon." And they show a composite photo showing the surfaace of the Moon and background stars. but it is NASA, so they must be lying. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original website for the photo. Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome photo. I just downloaded it for my wallpaper. It also serves an educational purpose, as it mentions the issues with trying to photograph bright objects (such as the earth, the moon, and rocket scientists) and dim objects (such as stars and hoaxsters) in the same photo (if that was a personal attack on anyone reading this, I'll issue an apology at a later date). Wahkeenah 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, even with Uranus, which is nuch dimmer than the Moon, he had to do two exposures - one for the planet, one for the stars. Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
When he is photographing the Moon or a planet, no stars are visible, except this one of Saturn, 8 of its moons, and a few stars. Even then, Saturn is overexposed in order to bring out its moons. A few of the points of light are stars. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The latest hoaxer lunacy

Broodlinger has created this: Moon Hoax Theory. It is simply this article with anything critical of the hoax removed, and a few new made-up ideas, like the notion that "setting the exposure to a few seconds" IN BROAD DAYLIGHT would somehow produce a usable image with stars and astronauts together. (Has no hoax proponent ever used a camera?) Speedy delete? Or should we go through the regular process? Algr 21:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I had wondered what happened to that character. Among his rants there was actually one key bit of useful information: That he did not "understand" the explanations. Aside from affirming what I have always suspected about hoaxsters, i.e. that they have an inherent lack of understanding of how things actually work, it makes me wonder if there should, in fact, be a separate page that goes into lengthy detail about each issue for those who want to feel enlightened, and on the current page maybe a single-line response to each of the questions, that a 4-year-old child and/or hoax believer could understand. Wahkeenah 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from that talk page meant to differentiate from "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations," which is heavily monitored by NASA officials . Will the NASA officials that are monitoring this page please raise their hands? Bubba73 (talk), 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should seriously consider that Moon Hoax Theory is intended as a joke. For instance This UV photo taken from the moon is of poor quality and seems a token effort to disprove the star theory. This photo taken by Apollo 16 astronauts from the Moon is supposed to disprove that astronauts went to the moon. If today were April Fool's Day, I'd be sure that it was an intentional joke. Bubba73 (talk), 04:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hard to tell if it's an intentional joke. Keep in mind, Ed Wood was sincere about Plan 9 from Outer Space. Wahkeenah 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This raises a dilemma. It should probably be deleted as unencyclopedic and a POV rant, yet it also provides a place for the hoaxsters to go and post their lunacy (kind of like having a compost heap some distance from the house)... and if it's as silly and self-contradictory as you say (it's not on my watch list, so I don't know), maybe it serves to undercut itself.
OK, I went to that page, and I see that another user added a link about the Great Moon Hoax of the 1830s. That's an entertaining bit of reading that nicely complements the absurdity of that new page.
By the way, I have to confess that I am not only a NASA official, I actually operate NASA, from my shack disguised as an ice-fishing hut, here in the Frozen North. This is where we faked all the moon photos. Those hills in the background of the various photos are actually heaps of snow. Wahkeenah 06:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I know you're lying, because Kaysing's book says it was faked near Los Vegas, and Kaysing can't be wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That was our western branch. Oh, and did I forget to tell you? Kaysing was on my payroll. He was my official Misinformation Minister. Wahkeenah 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually at NASA - Langley on . . . ah-hem . . . other business recently . . . perhaps the hoaxster spies saw me there and put two and two together. Note to said hoaxster spies: The answer is actually four. Numskll 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hush. That number is the secret code. It was spoken by Alan Shepard on that one mission, just before he hit that golf ball. He almost gave the game away. Wahkeenah 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was in a parade with Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke. I also went to school with some people who work for NASA and even had some classes with them. But they went to work for NASA after the hoaxes landings. And my sister got some books signed by Apollo 14 astronaut Alan Shepard. Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have independent verification of any of that? >:) Wahkeenah 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you call a common belief with no evidence to back it up? A myth.

A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false. Wiktionary defines it as "A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable." One of the characteristics of some of the well known ones is that they are widely believed, usually on the basis of some dubiouis photos or other 'evidence' that cannot be corroborated by independent third parties. Let's look at some popular ones:

Myth Evidence Independent verification? Status
Loch Ness Monster Image:Lochnessmonster.jpg None Probably false
Bigfoot Image:Smalfut.jpg None Probably false
Sinking of Titanic
Enlarge
 Significant independent evidence True
Project Apollo
Enlarge
 None that hoaxsters understand Quo
Moon Hoax
Enlarge
 Tall tails Squirrely

The moon landing claims have much in common with other myths, in that their proponents insist that negative proof for the fantastic creature or event be provided. Carfiend 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Thanks Numskll 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Another numbskull non sequitur. Carfiend 11:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
See WP:NPA. Numskll 14:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack is that? Carfiend 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at this guy's history. [1] Almost all he ever "contributes" has to do with this article. Based on the guidelines for such (sock puppetry), he looks to be either a sockpuppet, or majorly obsessed. Maybe not quite as blatant a sockpuppet as User Axlalta [2], more along the lines of the near-single-mindedness of User Broodlinger [3] or User Gravitor [4]. Oh, and I almost forget the appropriately titled User No_Username [5] , who existed only long enough to argue against the discussion of Canfield's behavor at [6]. Wahkeenah 11:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, when you're in the wrong, with nothing left, lash out with unsubstantiated accusations. Look at the recent rfc that you and your kangaroo court put together. Not one outsider found any merit in it. If you have more accusations, take them to an rfc. Carfiend 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This set of users, who are quick to fan the flames on other issues, are curiously low-key when it's suggested that they are sockpuppets. Consciousness of guilt, perhaps? Wahkeenah 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or rather letting groundless accusations get answered with a resounding 'no case to answer' when they get sent to RFCs? Your playground name calling doesn't deserve a response. You've got no case when you try logic, so abuse is your only avenue. Gravitor 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Your phraseology is also nearly identical to several other flamers who have come and seemingly gone here. This is my last communique directly to you under your current guise. Wahkeenah 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that when many people make the same complaint about your behavior, that it's possible that it's you, not the rest of the world, who is at fault? Carfiend 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You might be right. Now, of the two of us, which one has been blocked by an administrator? Wahkeenah 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wahkeena, when making controversial reverts, please use an edit summary, and please keep participating in talk. Revert wars serve nobody, consensus should be the goal. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Your whining resulted in my being blocked for restoring your reverts, which you still refuse to explain. No good deed goes unpunished! Explain why you keep reverting uncontroversial facts. Carfiend 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word 'whining' isn't civil, please be kind and rewind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The truth isn't always pretty. Carfiend 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Carfiend, knock it off. You said he was whining, and I asked you to be civil. Instead of accepting that, you respond with 'the truth isn't always pretty'? Review WP:CIVIL and contemplate exactly how inappropriate your original and continued sentiment listed above is. This is not a conspiracy to gang up on you, this is common courtesy, without which this project is doomed to fail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I did explain it, in the section "The most recent reverts". Carfiend's only interest is disruption. It's a game. Wahkeenah 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well keep explaining it, and keep participating. It might be a game, or it might be a user who really doesn't understand or agree with your points. Assume good faith until the building burns down around you and assume that the admins will step in if it becomes clear that you're dealing with a crank. We stress on these things so you don't have to. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You did not explain it. If you did, please cut and paste the explanation here, because I cannot find it. Carfiend 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
READ THE SECTION CALLED "THE MOST RECENT REVERTS". How many times do I have to tell you the same thing? Wahkeenah 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think, with respect, that we all need to assume good faith here. I am tired of the unproductive bickering here. Can we agree on the form of words at the bottom of this, and then get on with improving the article? This isn't doing it for me. --Guinnog 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought we had a methodical approach going in that section, and then this guy came out of his wiki "holding cell" and picked up (fighting) right where he left off. What's a mother to do? Wahkeenah 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How about what you've been asked repeatedly to do, which is explain your persistant reverting on the talk page? Carfiend 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Titanic - it illustrates the point! There is plenty of independent evidence for the existance, sinking, and location of the Titanic. Carfiend 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've been taking a break for a while, but it's good to know that the AstroNots are still up to no good, and still ignoring the elephant in the room! Who disputes the neutrality of this article at the moment? Carfiend 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • And you're still up to your same tactics, of changing without discussion, and accusing us of same. I won't be talking to you directly anymore, unless your approach changes. Wahkeenah 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see the archives on the POV tag. The status has not changed Numskll 14:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are eight pages of archives - who disputes it? Carfiend 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I do, among others. Do your own homework beyond that. "There are eight pages of archives" -- so what? Numskll 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
He's got a point - why won't you answer the question of who disputes it? And why do they, for that matter? Gravitor 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered the question. Please read my two breif response above for that answer. Perhaps you're having difficulty becuase it was not the answer you wanted. Also with regards to why I won't answer Carfiend's questions see the archives. I'm sorry their length is dauntnig to you, but that's the reality of it. Cope with the complexity. Numskll 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Who disputes it, and why? Carfiend 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, I recognize that you don't agree with or accept or seemingly comprehend my reasons for posting the NPOV tag. But those reasons have been stated. Look to more or less every topic on any recent talk page for independant evidence. The neutrality of the article is disputed. That's what the tag says. That makes it appropriate. I'm not required to fix it, though I am trying. Numskll 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to try, the best way you could help is on joining the discussion below about a NPOV consensus version of the article. --Guinnog 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup poll

I put back phraseology to indicate that the Gallup organization itself used the words "overwhelming majority". The hoaxsters don't like that phraseology and they keep taking it out. Maybe it drives a nail in with a sledgehammer, but Gallup should know its own data well enough to make such a comment significant. Wahkeenah 12:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • further, raw statisitcs merit intepretation. The descriptions statisticains apply to the data are carefully thought out. That is why the phrase is important. Numskll 14:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's fine to say that Gallup says they think it is an overwhelming majority, it's not fine to state it as though it is fact, which is what you've been trying to slide by. Carfiend 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The bit as written does attribute the quote to the Gallup organization directly, so if that is your critieria, it's satisfied. Please see WP:AGF on "what you've been trying tot slide by" Numskll 16:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In what sense is 89% _not_ an 'overwhelming majority'? It's this kind of flight from reality that causes many of the problems with this article. 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that Gallup, the pollsters, whose cheif occupation is conducting polls and interpreting polling data states that, for the poll in question, 89% constitutes an 'overwhelming majority.' I've made this point repeatedly. The hoaxsters want it out for obvious reasons, though not wikipedic ones, and they can't address that simple fact or let the quote remain without editorializing. Numskll 18:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The concept is POV. As an atributed quote, it's fine, but it's not a fact, it's a judgement. Gravitor 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The concept should be attributed to gallup in the convention way, devoid of any extra editorializing or redundancy that make its use quesationable.
The sentence is properly attributed. Requiring redundancy in this attribution seems arbitrary and rwad like editorializing . . like there is some unstated reason to doubt gallup's findings. Numskll 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the pertinet section of the wiki style guide that supports this view :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks Numskll 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathological skepticism again

Reviewing the article, it looks like this is not done. Carfiend 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gravitor, the reason you can't see any evidence is that you don't understand what evidence is. You clearly have an emotional interest in believing that the landing never happened, [7] but no justice system on earth ever required anyone to prove a case to the opposing party! Like this discussion, such a trial would never end. In this case, the public is the judge.

Your side has had no difficulty stating its case. You've had web sites, books, this article, and even a show on FOX. The size of the Apollo hoax in popular culture section makes it clear that the general public is well aware that some people doubt the moon landing. Polls show that the public has heard your arguments, and doesn't buy them. The only exception are a few fringe elements who have reasons to hate science, America, rational thought, or whatever. Pulling dishonest tactics like denying the existence of 'verbal assault' or insisting that 'wired' is not a source will only dig you deeper into the hole you have dug for yourself, and make people less likely to listen to you about anything.

I've given the hoaxers plenty of fair chances to convince me of their case, and I have seen nothing but willful ignorance of science, rationalizations, and wild accusations from them, while NASA's version of events is a much better match with my personal experience of how the world works. That's why I believe. Why do your beliefs require grasping at straws about what a 'reference' is? Algr 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more, you dodge the question. "Is there any independent evidence of human landing by NASA?" Your weasley attempts to wriggle out of answering are a pretty sorry spectacle. Admit it, or provide evidence. Gravitor 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to restate what others have already said here. You just choose not to believe what they say. I can't help you with that. Wahkeenah 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You are truly busted. Your "I have evidence, but it's above me to show it to you" is feeble. You have nothing, and you know it. You can continue your pathetic diatribe about how you don't need evidence to continue believing all you like - the truth is out. Gravitor 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have never said that I have evidence of anything. I have read what both sides have had to say, and the hoaxsters have nothing. Wahkeenah 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So you admit that you have no evidence for the landing? That's what I'm asking. Gravitor 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You are going round in circles again. Read this: [8]
You're right, it's an endless loop. Wahkeenah 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no independent verification of the moon landing. That is a fact. Whether it was fake or not remains to be seen. NASA in 2009 will crash land into the moon. Apollo is similar to the Piltdown man in the sense that it does not follow any linear trajectory of technohistory.Noodle boy 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not a fact, it is just one of the credos that the moon hoaxsters tell each other over and over again. And if you were to actually study the history of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo programs with an open mind, you would see that there is a "linear trajectory of technohistory". Wahkeenah 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact. You were asked to provide any evidence of a human landing, and you could not come up with any. Carfiend 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

        • There is plenty of independent evidence: Amateur astronomers around the world could see the Apollo capsule in their telescopes and could NOT see it in earth orbit as the hoaxers claim it was. Moon rocks have been analyzed by thousands of people. They can reflect lasers from mirrors placed on the moon. Nasa has an untarnished reputation for honesty, even when the truth isn't kind, such as the challenger disaster. Compare this to hoaxers who routinely lie about basic science, like how photography or the Van Allen radiation belts work. Compare this to your own recent rant about how an unidentified box must be the rover, even though the rover tracks are visible, and the rover and box are visible together in the previous photo!
OK. Here we go. When you break the silence, your 'evidence' can easily be debunked.
1. Amateur astronomers around the world could see the Apollo capsule in their telescopes and could NOT see it in earth orbit as the hoaxers claim it was. I can find one account of an amateur astronomer who saw an unidentified object where NASA said the capsule should be. No evidence has been presented that anyone looked for it in earth orbit. This is not proof of human landing.
2. Moon rocks have been analyzed by thousands of people. NASA controls all the moon rocks, and no one has anything to compare them to. In adition, this is not proof of human landing.
3. They can reflect lasers from mirrors placed on the moon. This old saw! You know that mirrors on the moon are not proof of human landing!
4. Nasa has an untarnished reputation for honesty, even when the truth isn't kind, such as the challenger disaster. Compare this to hoaxers who routinely lie about basic science, like how photography or the Van Allen radiation belts work. Ah yes, and here's the sad part. When it's shown you're wrong, you resort to name calling and argument from authority.
Project Apollo - Status? Debunked! Carfiend 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Good job. De-bunked! Gravitor 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence, independent or otherwise, of a hoax. You have shown us nothing but Rube Goldberg conspiracy theories for observations that would be inevitable for a real landing. There is not a single observation in the whole article that is not better explained by a real landing.Algr 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You're hiding in the 'you can't disprove a negative' again. Demonstrate there's no Yeti, no Loch Ness Monster - if you can't prove it, absolutely, then we should assume there is. That argument is bogus. There's no evidence for the landing, so we should not assume it happened simply because the evidence against it is inconclusive. Gravitor 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Existing evidence for Nessie and Bigfoot has been comprehensively refuted. There is plenty of unrefuted evidence for the Moon landings. You just don't believe any of it. -- ArglebargleIV 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Put your money where your mouth is. Show me one piece of independent evidence of human moon landing. Gravitor 01:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There's lots in the article, and in pointers from the article. You just don't care to believe it. Fortunately, it's not necessary to convince you of the truth to make a good article. -- ArglebargleIV 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wording his arguments just like Carfiend. Not a sockpuppet, though. Wahkeenah 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of this talk page

...is to #discuss improving this article# not have "same to you with ketchup" matches.

There are people who think that the 1969 landing was a hoax, and present a variety of reasons.

Other people present a variety of different reasons why NASA #dod# land two men on the moon in 1969.

Why don't the moon-landing-disputers incorporate more of space travel in general into their argument? Or even suggest that a drone was sent to the moon to provide the necessary background information etc?

Remember the saying "don't assume malice when stupidity or forgetfullness will suffice" - and this applies as much to NASA as anyone else. Making repeated accusations (whatever the tone) against other Wikipedians (or anyone else for that matter) tends to convince innocent bystanders (whether or not interested or willing to be persuaded) "agin the spouter."

I read somewhere to the effect that the total programming for the Apollo mission could be stored on a modern floppy disk: is this true?

Jackiespeel 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be, if they went, and if all the programming hadn't been 'lost'. Gravitor 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The programming code hasn't been lost. -- ArglebargleIV 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is it then? Gravitor 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Try here, for a start. -- ArglebargleIV 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With Canfield suspended, his possible sockpuppet Gravitor has to take over. As per wiki guidelines someone whose all or nearly all energies are devoted to a single article over weeks at a time, can be at least considered a suspect. Wahkeenah 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Take your unsubstantiated accusations to rfc, where they will be dismissed, as they deserve to be. If you have a complaint, make it in the appropriate forum and stop making slurs here. Gravitor 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to use hoaxster logic. If I accuse these guys of being sockpuppets (which I have not done), then the burden of proof will be on them, to prove the accusations false. Wahkeenah 09:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right. There is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE that you are not a sock puppet. By your standards of proof you can't even prove your own existence! Algr

[edit] Copyedit

I have doena fairly comprehensive copyedit on this page. I have taken out (deleted or commented out) areas that were unsourced, removed the "Challenges and responses" headers (which seemed too liturgical to me), and tried to make sure everything is properly sourced and verifiable (see WP:V). I am keen to improve this article, without making it a POV-pushing one (see WP:NPOV). Any comments? --Guinnog 08:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The most recent reverts

Numskll, instead of instantly reverting any change that anybody makes, why don't you discuss Guinnog's copyedit changes here? -- ArglebargleIV 11:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

...as I requested just above. I also noticed that you used the edit summary "please see talk page" when I can see no evidence that you have discussed your reverts of my changes here. Please do so. Reverting to a poorer version of the article is just rude, will win you no friends here, and is unlikely to lead to the improvement of the article. Thanks. --Guinnog 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid descending to the level of the Carfiend-Gravitor-Axlalta-Broodlinger-No_Username-For_great_justice-Noodle_boy consortium, it might be advisable to take this approach:

  • Propose a change to a single sentence.
  • Discuss the change.
  • Apply it to the article as decided upon.

I know this sounds terribly painstaking and methodical, but painstaking and methodical is just how Mercury-Gemini-Apollo was conducted, and it paid off. Wahkeenah 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wahkeenah, that seems like good advice. I just thought the article was looking a bit in need of a copyedit. Is "Web sites" our house style, for example? --Guinnog 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor tactic with the reverts. I was hasty. I agree that there needs to be copy editing, though was concerned when several of the edits seemed to follow a familar pattern -- I was likely mistaken. In particular though, changes to the wording on the introduction and the removal of the NPOV tag seemed unsatisfactory. I'm not sure what else needs to be said other then looking at the various and lengthy discussions on the talk pages -- we talk through this every other week. Not much has changed. Go read about it. If your sincerely interested in improving the article, I'd be glad to participate in a thorugh going attempt. I advocate looking at wp:ss for direction in that regard. I think approaching in stages, section by section, as Wakeenah suggests, might be the most workable approach.Numskll 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, let's start here. "These claims are widely dismissed as baseless by NASA and interested members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities." back to "Members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented reject the claims as baseless."? The former is POV, the latter is demostrably ttrue, clear and unambiguous. Thoughts? --Guinnog 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've talked through this recently. It excludes NASA and it seems to indicate that the scientific cummunity who have not commented are likely to be hoax proponents, thus my preference for the widely rejected language. Numskll 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Stages? More space program metaphors. Kudos. OK, at the risk of sounding like the Hoaxster Club, what citations do we have to support either of those statements, or are they simply our home-grown summary/conclusion based on the details of the article? As I recall, this opening line has been debated before, due to that same general question. It's a given that NASA would dismiss the hoax story as baseless, so that part is not really informative, although it's certainly verifiable. "Interested members" vs. "Members... who have commented" was a sticking point before. How do we determine for sure who is "interested"? The answer would seem to be, by citing those who have commented. So while I think calling the first one POV is overstating it, the second one is arguably on "safer" ground because it at least implies citations which presumably are elaborated upon in the article or its footnotes. Wahkeenah 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone has not spoken up against the conventional history, then the legal maxim of "silence implies consent" would seem to apply. Logically, though, you can't draw any conclusions about someone who does not speak up, so I don't think it implies that they support the hoax. However, now that you've pointed this possible dilemma out, it's time for Guinnog to weigh in. Wahkeenah 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, some sense from Wahkeenah. If someone has not spoken up, we cannot make assumptions about what they would say. We can only say that most scientists who have spoken up have supported NASAs story. Carfiend 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Except that as soon as you were unblocked, you once again started changing without discussion. You need to stop doing that, unless you are hoping to be permanently blocked. Wahkeenah 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I made well described, factual corrections, that YOU reverted without discussion. You are straining anyones assumptions of good faith. Please explain what objeection you have to the article stating the truth? Oh, right.... Carfiend 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"the mainstream scientific and technical communities" clearly includes NASA. I can't believe we're even debating this! The shorter, clearer, verifiable, NPOV one is better, I would say. --Guinnog 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting to hear from Numskll. He must work for a living, or something. Wahkeenah 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it back to where it was when this discussion started. It is Carfiend who refuses to discuss things and insists on making his own changes. He was blocked yesterday, and appears to have a desire to be blocked again. Wahkeenah 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, given your insistence on reverting without comment, what is it about the factual correction I made that upset you so much? Please explain your objections, per Wikipedia policy. Oh, I forgot. You're not interested in policy unless it supports your POV. Carfiend 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You lie. And I've had it with you. You are simply playing a game with all of us. You are a squirrel that I refuse to feed any more. Wahkeenah 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks won't save you from having to follow policy and explain your reverts. Which parts of my edits do you dispute? It's a reasonable question, and only one answer springs to mind as to why you won't answer it. Carfiend 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We started a discussion this morning and you disrupted it. That's why I reverted. Which I already said. You are either a liar or you can't read. Which is it? Wahkeenah 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks won't save you from having to follow policy and explain your reverts. Which parts of my edits do you dispute? It's a reasonable question. Carfiend 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no response to a reasonable question, just abuse and anger whenever you're called on your disruptive behavior. Carfiend 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implications

"These claims are widely dismissed as baseless by NASA and interested members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented."

Carfiend, This is weasel wording. there are two implications in this sentence that you can not make without references:

1) Everyone supporting NASA is "interested" or in some way tied to NASA.
2) "who have commented" implies that those who have NOT commented might have different things to say. (Implied suppression of decent, as opposed to not wanting to waste time on crackpots.)

You must supply references to these statements if you want language that implies this.

Of course, both of these are plainly false. Russia, China, Europe and Japan all have space programs. Bush less popular then Bin-Laden even in Europe, and his "science" on global warming is the laughing stock of the scientific world. The idea that these same scientists would be afraid to question NASA is ludicrous. If real evidence of a hoax came up, they would have nothing to loose by exposing it. Algr 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the term "interested" was originally intended to mean "interested in the subject", not financially or politically invested in it. That discussion was floated some months back, before the user called Carfiend made himself known under that name. But if it's confusing or ambiguous, then it should be reworded. Wahkeenah 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree on my proposed change then? --Guinnog 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a totally pro NASA version up there. I edited to one that is arguable more neutral. See my comments above for my objections to the version floated here. The sentence should say something like most/many scientists reject the claims out of hand. That's the truth. Find one reputable qualified person that says otherwise. Wakeenah, yeah, I work and started going back to school (Ph.D in hoaxology)so I had to concetrate on some of those detailsNumskll 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So you would go with "Members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented reject the claims as baseless", as I would? --Guinnog 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ixnay of the "who-have-commented" -fay[?]. Are you really asking me or just messing around? I ask because I addressed the 'who have commented' above at YOUR prompting. I'm not trying to be a jerk (probably too late for that) but that is obviously not my preference AND I've expressed that directly to you this morning. Numskll 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternative wording you would be happier with then? "who have commented" (no hyphens) seems NPOV to me. I assure you I am really asking and not just messing around. --Guinnog 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The present version seems OK to me. What about it don't you like? "The hoax claims are generally dismissed as baseless by knowledgable scientists, technicans and engineers." Generaly is weaker than widely. "Knowledable" isn't the precisely right adjective, but i couldn't think of another and it seems to need one. Numskll 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I said at the top what the problem with "who have commented" is. Why did we loose "worldwide"? Are their non-US hoax proponents published? "Orthodox" is a bit strange - applying a religious term to science, but I can live with it. Algr

  • I don't like "Orthodox", as it does carry a religious implication with it. If anything, it's the hoaxsters' conspiracy theory that has a "religious" aspect to it. It's probably also untrue. "Mainstream" or "conventional" might be better. Wahkeenah 09:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be ok with "The hoax claims are generally dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicans and engineers." I got rid of "world-wide" when I added the quotes back to the gallup "overwhelimnig majority" quote. I thought that "world-wide" combined with univerally made it sound as if we all knew that every single scientist everywhere had dismissed it. Numskll 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's go with that then, if we can all live with it. I can. --Guinnog 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, no. What right do you have to speak for people who have not commented? Also, what is your definition of 'mainstream'? Presumably, those who agree with you. It's back to the old problem that you can't let NPOV get in the way of YourPOV. Carfiend 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see that as a useful contribution, Carfield.
So you think it's ok to speak on behalf of people who have not expressed an opinion? Not that it matters, because the current version looks like that particular piece of POV has been expunged. Carfiend 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, what's next? Who likes the "Challenges and responses" headers? I don't, as I think it looks kind of funny. I don't feel that strongly about it though. --Guinnog 15:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it used to read "accusations" or "claims and counter-claims" or some such. That heading is probably redundant, and could just be dropped. Wahkeenah 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Anybody feel strongly that we should keep it? --Guinnog 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The section heading? Of course - what are you proposing we replace it with? Carfiend 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with "Challenges and responses". That's what they are. Algr 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's consider WP:SS as a template for this article

I think the headers are part of a larger problem that those sections have. That problem is bloat. I'd like to see each of the major sections pared down to a paragraph of two which summarize the basis of the tit for tat laundry lists currently in those sections. -- maybe a 'tit' paragraph followed by a 'tat' paragraph for each of the major sections. We could then move all of that carefully compiled content to an ripe-for-expansion article on claims/counterclaims. See WP:SS for more on this idea. The advantage is that we end up with a more reader friendly article that allows readers to get the only the highlights or read in dpeth if they choose. The potential for NPOV bliss might be improved. This is not floated as a way for various POVs on this topic to get there 'own' page. Numskll 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's revisit this issue, shall we? I've separated what seemed to me to be off-topic stuff below. I'd be interested in applicable comments from the community on this topic. Numskll 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks, off-topic tangents, and phatic missives attached to the WP:SS proposal above

I put the heading above between my initial proposal and the responses you see below as I don't think the responses apply to my idea, or were intended to for that matter. They seem to stand on their own. I mean no harm.

I understand why you'd want to remove evidence that does not conform to your POV, but... No. We need to be NPOV. Carfiend 20:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How, exactly, is summarizing the extensive lists on both sides in the article an attempt to "remove evidence that does not conform to your POV"? -- ArglebargleIV 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
By summarize, Numbskull means 'reduce'. It's an attempt to remove evidence from the page, because the answers to them are unconvincing. Carfiend 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's talk through the idea I laid out above. We could approach the sections one at a time to try to make it more manageable. Please try to stay on topic as much as possible. WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINTNumskll 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Another numbskull non sequitur. Carfiend 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd encourage enaged editors to fight the urge to respond to tangental remarks in the talk page. I beleive that these exchanges contribute negatively to the signal to noise ratio. As a reminder the topic is something like, let's try to use WP:SS as a way to make the claims and counter-cliams section more managable. Numskll 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Carfiend, those are not POV or non sequiturs, they are wikipedia policy. If you hold such contempt for them then leave wikipedia. Your statements here show no evidence that you even understand what we are proposing to do. You only further my suspicion that, like FGJ, your only purpose here is to make everyone else angry. Algr
Great. More personal attacks. I don't think anyone except the most determined POV pushers would agree with you, as the recent rfc prooved. Carfiend 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good content, poor display

Hi, I'm a third party who came into this with no opinion on the subject. After reading it, I don't believe their was any conspiracy or large scale hoax. However, one thing I didn't like was that some of the examinations were placed in italics, which gives them an unfair stylistic "authority." You should keep the claims and the italic examinations in the same paragraphs. Aside from that, good job.

  • That's a good point. Maybe a simple indention would suffice. Wahkeenah 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done Wahkeenah - using the talk page isn't so hard, is it? Carfiend 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The Sarcasm Sockpuppet strikes again. Wahkeenah 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How ironic, coming from the Sarcasm Sockpuppet. I don't think I remember the last time you made a productive comment. Carfiend 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes. You've got no evidence for your outlandish claims, and your logic is bancrupt. Bring on the stonewalling and abuse whenever you're cornered. Carfiend 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to be blocked. But I'll let someone else take care of that. Kirk out. Wahkeenah 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Newsflash. Not agreeing with your POV is not something people get blocked for. Abuse, refusing to use the talk page, and general disruption though is though. Wise up, and figure out that there is an NPOV policy here , not a Wahkeenahs Point of View policy. Carfiend 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Newsflash. You have just described yourself to a T. Wahkeenah 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)} by Art LaPella 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup

Well done ScienceApollogist! The truth doesn't have to hurt, does it?! Carfiend 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar/Style

"Widely" deoesn't go well into the following sentence :"The hoax claims are dismissed as baseless, by NASA as well as mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers." unless it's rearranged, possibly as :The hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers, as well as by NASA." -- ArglebargleIV 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Your second version, above, looks good. Do you want to, or shall I? Wahkeenah 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Wahkeenah 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One more time on the neutrality question, in the hope of a civil answer

  1. Who disputes this pages neutrality?
  2. Why?

Carfiend 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you disputed the article's neutrality. -- ArglebargleIV 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No. At least, not to the degree of wanting to tag it at this point. Carfiend 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One answer on why the NPOV tag is valid

Until sunstantial changes are made to the article, please refer on appropriatley directed questions related to the NPOV tag to the text below.

I think the NPOV tag is helpful. The tit-for-tat structure of the article doesn't properly contextualize the hoax as a social phenom and variously gives undue weight to one extreme or the other. Perhaps you can see it this way: the tits and the tats, taken together, result in some bizarre chimera of fact, fiction and fantasy that is sure to (snd seems to be designed to) frustrate, confuse, and mislead the casual reader. I've said as much in various ways a half dozen times on this very talk page and, in fact, on more than one occasion to the very editor who posed the question. I believe the content and tenor of these talk pages, in those rare places that they actually reference the article, bears this out. There you have an answer as to why I think the NPOV tag is valid that is both civil and direct. Let's talk about WP:SS and how it can help us out of this mire. Numskll 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONTINUED: One more time on the neutrality question, in the hope of a civil answer

I don't agree with you about the NPOV tag, though I do agree that there are some problems with the way the article is presently structured. I tend not to like the tit-for-tat approach myself and I would rather it was written more concisely in ordinary prose. You're always going to have the problem on an article like this, as with the Loch Ness Monster, that beyond, as you say, its existence as a social phenomenon, the article is going to largely consist of information that debunks the subject of the article. That isn't a failure of NPOV, but a failure of the subject of the article to demonstrate verifiable evidence of its existence. People who believe in the phenomenon are maybe going to be disappointed in the balance the article takes, but the undue weight bit of the NPOV policy applies here.
Maybe a more productive approach might be to add more verifiable information about the cultural phenomenon that the hoax accusations have become? --Guinnog 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea. Wahkeenah 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a ridiculous idea. You can't abandon NPOV policy in favor of Wahkeenah's Point of View. Carfiend 05:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain why Guinnog thinks the tag isn't "productive" unless they disagree with the validity of what I've said (i.e. you believe the article is NPOV - please enlighten me on my talk page if you think I misunderstand the mechanics of the NPOV tag)but the fact that the tag is intended to alert people that the article needs help seems pretty productive to me. Your response doesn't address the "chimera" problem. Numskll 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you that stylistically the article needs to be cleaned up a bit. Using summary style as you suggest, and using prose sentences rather than the pro-con approach as I suggested might help that, and make the article more readable. I still don't see how any of that amounts to a POV issue. --Guinnog 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained in broad terms why I think it does: "variously gives undue weight to one extreme or the other, or perhaps you can see it this way, the tits and the tats taken together result in some bizarre chimera of fact, fiction and fantasy that is sure to (seems to be designed to) frustrate, confuse, and mislead the casual reader" You seem to be argueing it just isn't POV enough to merit the tag. Is that what you're saying? Numskll 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

further the tag is intended to attract editors and caution readers. I believe thast has value. Numskll 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SS photographs and films lets start her shall we?

There's already an article on topic we could link to by way of the complete treatment of this specific topic. Here is an idea for structure: first paragraph. The hoaxsters think there's a host of strange tinngs about the photographs. Secound paragraph, a treatment of way the "anti-hoaxsters" think the inconsistencies and weirdness are legit. then we link to the other article and , perhaps inlcude all of the references in a well organized "see also" at the end of the article. Numskll 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no. Dismembering the article, and hiding the evidence is dishonest and unhelpful. Carfiend 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Carfiend please attend to WP:NPA and WP:AGF your reply above clearly violates both of them. Also please don't remove sincere commentary related to this behavior from your talk page. I'm attmepting to keep a conduct a productive discussion with engaged editors Numskll 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup, again

We had an npov version, but apparently have to have this discussion again. The important thing is to differentiate between the statistics in the poll, and Gallup's subsequent commentry on them. One can be reported as fact, the other must be attributed as comment. Carfiend 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the poll source. It's important to be accurate. The version I'm flaoting is obviously and directly attributed to it.
Yes. I assume this is Numskull - the trouble is you are wrong. The poll numbers come from the poll, the 'overwhelming majority' comment comes from a Gallup employee talking about the poll some time later. One is the facts of the poll numbers, the other is opinion about what it means. Carfiend 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried something a little different. I said "what Gallup termed an overwhelming majority". That's a slightly different nuance. It leaves no doubt who said it (not that there is any) and it also carries a subtly different meaning, in that it assumes Gallup knows its polling methods well enough to speak authoritatively on interpreting its numbers. Wahkeenah 00:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not to trust Gallup's interpretation is up to the reader, all I am asking for is that we make the factual distinction between what the poll said, and what Gallup says about the poll. Carfiend 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
the poll is a publication of the gallup organization. The bit you read on the site is their ters description of the poll and the results. The quotes indicate what precisely gallup asked, what the responses were, and what the numbers mean. Raw statistics merit interpeetation by experts. Numskll 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to know what you mean, but I think my explanation above explains the difference you still seem to fail to understand. Carfiend 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, your once again in violation of 3RR. Numskll 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the only things that I have reverted are reverts without comment on the talk page. If that's a crime, I guess I'm guilty of wanting people to discuss their edits rather than revert-war. Carfiend 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear enough that Gallup made the statement, with or without the qualifier. Wahkeenah 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to you, but I fail to see why you would oppose making it absolutely clear. Carfiend 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose it. In fact, I changed it to say "Gallup termed an overwhelming majority". It should be clear from that phraseology who made the statement. And Gallup has been in the polling business a long time, so they should be able to interpret their own numbers confidently. And the phraseology does not compel the reader to believe them. Wahkeenah 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose your current version, thank you for discussing and proposing alternatives rather than just reverting. Carfiend 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I noted the reasoning for my edits on the summaries and also above. You seem to be having difficulty understanding my words, again. Numskll 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry, maybe it has something to do with your unorthodox spelling and grammar. I did my best, but could make little of that post above. Perhaps you could try to re-phrase your idea? Thank, Carfiend 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Also the version I floated quoted more directly from the source, something you seem strangely reluctuant to do. In general though, direct quotes are prefereable to paraphrases, especially when those paraphrases introduce a nuance not present in the orignal source. Numskll 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your version is that it confuses two sources. The poll, and comentry on the poll. Carfiend 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a single primary source. Not two. Here, in its entirty is the the free part of it. Note how the version I'm advoacating draws directly from and echoes the meaning precisely without edictorializng or convulated syntax:

"Fox TV special questions moon landing, but public says "no" to conspiracy theory

A new conspiracy-themed television show airing on Fox television asks viewers "Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate deception staged to fool the public?" Considering Gallup polling from 1999, it's unlikely that the public will buy in to such a theory. In the July 1999 poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) do not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing. Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion." Numskll 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very clearly two separate sources. Until you understand that, it's going to be difficult to discuss it with you. Your wording conflates the two sources. Carfiend 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The poll, plus its commentary by the pollsters, apparently do not constitute a rendezvous. Wahkeenah 00:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
True... Carfiend 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New topic

Has it yet been proven that the hoax accusations have no merit? If not, then this article definitely needs at least a little touching up. I am not suggesting that they be given equal credence, but this article does a magnificent job of ignoring the opinions of many people -- both laymen and scientists -- in order to support an obviously biased POV. Smith Jones 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Be more specific. Wahkeenah 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That's true - please feel free to help us make it conform to the NPOV policy! Carfiend 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Smith Jones, while I agree in principal that the article has NPOV issues, you might look over the various requests for pro-center-con independant evidence on the talk pages (yep, there is eight pages of them. Your best bet is to scan them for words like independant evidence and proof) and the burden of proof section in the article itelf. Basically, you seem to be asking to prove a negative. That has not been done (perhaps about anything ever) in an absolute sense. You might as well ask if Santa Claus has been proven to be imaginary. We can debunk the physics behind flying reindeer, point to the cultural forces that formed the santa claus myth, draw back the curtain and show that other actors, parents, are in fact manufacturing evidence of Santa Claus and, finally, even look at the north poll in vain hope of finding evidence of Santa's workshop, but all of that doesn't prove that Santa does not exist. Same with the moon hoax. One way out of this quagmire would be to present positive evidence that a hoax does exist. Such evidence would, by its very nature, blow the debunkers out of the water. This evidence has also not been produced. The proving a negative question set aside however, if you have other things which you think should be included in the article by way of obviating the "magnificent job" you believe this article does "of ignoring the opinions of many people -- both laymen and scientists" by all means present it. Numskll 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny! Yes, you might look at the requests for independant evidence, and notice that none has been presented! The Santa Claus thing is relevant, but you have it the wrong way roudn. NASA has claimed something fantastic, but offered no independent verification. The hoax allegations are most like those emails that go around that say that if Santa existed, his speed would cause him to catch fire - they point out what's ridiculous about the myth. By the way - Santa's workshop is area 51 ! Carfiend 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been proven by any rational standard that the hoax accusations have no merit. The only reason this article even exists is that hoax proponents set themselves up as both prosecutor and judge. You only need to look at Carfiend for an example. We have given him plenty of independent evidence, and he dismisses it out of hand - it seems he will be satisfied with nothing short of people standing on the moon watching Apollo come down! We once asked him what HE would accept as evidence, and he really couldn't come up with any ideas about how to make a moon landing provable - he listed requests for things, and when we showed him that what he wanted already existed, he dismissed it anyway. [9] [10]

When it comes to pro-hoax accusations, his bias is equally absurd. Recently, he found a NASA photo of an unidentified box near the moon lander, decided that the box could only be the rover, and then insisted that this was hoax evidence because there were rover tracks that did not lead to the box. In the previous photo, the box was visible, but you could see the rover tracks leading to ... the real rover! You can't argue with logic like this - it is like trying to talk someone out of their religion.

BTW, :: What 'opinion' has not been expressed in the article? I'm confident that every accusation ever made has been addressed. Algr Algr 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean... there's... NO... Santa Claus??? ); Wahkeenah 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Wahkeenah. We can't prove the Santa thing either way without more moon rocks from the North poll and with Bush fading from power its unlikely we'll ever get [back] there. Seriously though, I'd amend Algr's statement to say that the hoax theories have been debunked by any practically rational standards. Rationality could likely prove that night is day, given erroneous assumptions and, like any tool, it can be misused. Numskll 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Night is day" idea comes from a tactic called "argument by bizarre definition", which is an example of proving an argument irrational. Algr
We are currently having a little trouble with Carfiend and a bizarre definition at List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969. Bubba73 (talk), 19:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's Wikipedia's NPOV policy you're having trouble with. Carfiend 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Alg - I think that you already know this, but feel I have to point it out - your characterisation above of the discussion of evidence for Apollo is grossly inacurate. You did not come up with any independent evidence for a human landing. When I listed the things I would accept, you produced none of them. Saying it does not make it true. Carfiend 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And you've just shown us your "prosecutor and judge" tactic. Obviously YOU won't accept anything as evidence, but anyone who approaches this with an open mind will, which is why you feel the need to deride anything you don't like as POV. Algr 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predominant hoax claims

The current into to this section seems a bit catty. Here is one which says the same thing (more or less) without the vitriol:

A number of different versions of the hoax theory have been advanced. Typically the various claims do not present a complete narrative of how the alleged hoax was perpetrated, but instead focus perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. Several of these theories and their most readily identifiable proponents are described below:

If we can source that Phil Plait statement perhaps we can fold it into this version in a less agressive way.Numskll 23:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked for it, both in is book and on his website, and I couldn't find it. Who put it in there? Bubba73 (talk), 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I like your new proposed version. I wouldn't be surprised if Plait said what he's quoted as saying, but it still amounts to editorializing, which is the one thing that bothers me about this article. Your version is rather more neutral. Wahkeenah 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea who put it there but,the Plait statement seems to follow along with his take on/in the burden of proof section. Numskll 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. Good work. --Guinnog 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But it is not "typically", it is "invariably". At one point we directly solicited complete narratives, and came up empty. No one has ever even IMAGINED how a hoax would work in any detail. Here is one of the articles I was going from: [11] Algr 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem gets to be that if you say "always" or "never", certain users (you know who) will call it POV-pushing or whatever and continue the edit wars over specific words. I don't know if it's true that there there isn't a coherent "theory", i.e. an assertion that "this is what happened" (or didn't happen). Those "theories" are summarized in the article. The fact that they are contradictory is a source of amusement, of course. But I suspect that Kaysing's book (which I have never read) might lay out a theory of some kind. If that's not the kays, er, case, though, then the hoaxsters really do have nothing. Wahkeenah 02:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. What about:

A number of different versions of the hoax theory have been advanced. The various claims do not present a complete narrative of how the alleged hoax was perpetrated, but instead focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. Several of these theories and their most readily identifiable proponents are described below:

(I added a missing 'on' as well) --Guinnog 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically taking out the "typically", which is good even though I admit it's one of my favorite "weasel words". I do wonder, though, whether Kaysing or Sibel or any of those guys actually has presented something that resembles a more fleshed-out theory. The slippery slope there, of course, is that their "theory" likely consists mainly of "connecting the dots" to match their pre-determined notions. However, that would still constitute a "theory", even if it's poppycock. I wonder if anyone who has deigned to read those books could throw a word or two in. Even with that open question, though, I like your version better than what's there now. Wahkeenah 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaysing's book sort of has a theory, but it is very far-fetched. For instance, he has them putting B-1 engines (which apparently exist only in Kaysing's imagination) inside the five F-1 engines of the Saturn V 72 hours before liftoff, while it is on the launch pad in sight of perhaps dozens of reporters from around the world, etc, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's where the concept of paying everyone off would come into the picture: Von Braun slips a few fins to Walter Cronkite and says "You didn't see this". Yeh, that works. The hoax "theories" remind me of the concept of the celestial spheres, and the spheres-within-spheres they had to invent in order to account for the retrograde motions of the planets. Wahkeenah 10:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, given the rest of the article, I think it will be OK to allude to a hoax theory no matter how far fetched . Over coffee I've realized one of the sentences should be amended as " With few exceptions, the various claims do not present a complete narrative of how the alleged hoax may have been perpetrated ... " in keeping with "alleged" and the possibility of at least one semi-coherent narrative. Numskll 11:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a certain irony in someone who appears not to buy into the hoax theory having to be one to provide a semi-coherent narrative, since the hoax believers don't seem to be able or willing to. (That might not be a coincidence.) Wahkeenah 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that the hoax proponents are sticklers for the facts. Because nearly all of the 'facts' originate from NASA, few can be trusted. Pointing out the internal inconsistencies in NASA's account is the best that can be done for sure, because access to the truth is not forthcoming. Carfiend 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting take on things. In my experience hoax proponents tend to be far from sticklers for the facts (no scare quotes needed). Quite the contrary in fact. Do you know a lot of them? --Guinnog 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that attempting to denegrate a group of people gets us closer to the truth. You might want to focus more on the facts, and less on characterisations of groups of people. Carfiend 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I queried your bizarre characterisation of hoax proponents being "sticklers for the facts", which, as I said, utterly fails to accord with my own experience. --Guinnog 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't, of course, speak for your experience, but the point I was making concerned the lack of narratives, which stems from a lack of independent evidence, and the desire not to make assumptions without any evidence about what really happened. The only thing we know for sure, is that NASA lied, and we know that because it's story has inconsistencies and flaws. Carfiend 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I wasn't aware that NASA had been proved to have lied. Please share the verifiable source of this knowledge with us on that one, so we can add it to the article; it will make it a lot easier than just having all these unevidenced crank theories as at present! --Guinnog 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax Theory version is not supported by source

Manned landings, with backup stagings—Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested that, while the landing took place, NASA created a parallel fake landing in case of accidents or failures, although he now believes otherwise.[5]

clavius.org, the source, does not reflect this one very well. It seems as if the idea might have been mauled/skewed/misinterpreted in interim edits. How about (as a courtesy, please read the source (its short) before responding to the content):

Manned landings, with backup stagings— According to Clavius.org Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested as a hypothetical situation that the landings could have taken place but that NASA could have falsified some video and photographs to replace those damaged or lost during the actual mission. Hoax proponent David Percy apparently took O'Leary's hypothetical as a sincere belief. O'Leary has since reasserted the idea as merely hypothetical Numskll 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

or we could delete this one as a red herring. Numskll 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxers are using us

There is a certain irony in someone who appears not to buy into the hoax theory having to be one to provide a semi-coherent narrative

Actually, it occurs to me that Carfiend is effectively using us to do his research for him. He makes up one wild accusation after another and we do the research to shoot it down. If the facts aren't on the internet, or can't be boiled down to a 20 second attention span, then he has found something he can use to win converts. His tracks/lander-isn't-unpacked accusation fits this. He wanted to see how long it would take us to find the adjacent photo where the real lander is visible. Since our side actually WANTS things to make sense, we invent order to the accusations that Carfiend himself isn't capable of.

[edit] Kaysing's theory

This is a summary of Kaysing's theory, from page 64-66 of his book.

launch -72 hours: B-1 rocket engines placed within the F-1 combustion chambers and fuel is switched

launch -1 hour: astronauts shown entering the Apollo capsule

launch -20 minutes: high-speed elevator takes astronauts to an exact duplicate of Apollo capsule

launch: appears normal

launch +23 minutes, mock J-2 second stage and mock J-2 third stage put apollo in orbit. Astronauts are flown to Moon set in Nevada by high-altitude jet. Phantom Apollo communicates to the Deep Space Network

Launch + 2 hours: Apollo is jettisoned into South Polar Sea. The astronauts are in well-equipped underground mockup of capsule, with a few of the shapeliest Los Vegas showgirls

Other than occasional checks with Mission Control, the astronauts are free to wander about, play slot machines, and use the 24-hour buffet at the Dunes.

+72 hours: Moon set is ready

+74 hours: astronauts get in position and fake exciting scenes of the moon landing. The moonwalk is faked 90 miles north of Los Vegas.

The rest is an anti-climax. For simulated landing, astronauts are flown to a small atoll south of Hawaii, they enter the module and are dropped by a C5A just out of sight of the recovery aircraft carrier. Bubba73 (talk), 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. What evidence, if any, does Kaysing provide for this version of events? --Guinnog 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the $64 question. If it's "waving flags", then it's trouble. But at least it resembles a theory, even if it's a fig-newton of Kaysing's imagination. Wahkeenah 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is one coherent theory to acknowledge in the introduction to the theory versions section. I especially like the part where they switch out the engines in three days. Numskll 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually they put the smaller (but imaginary) B-1 engines inside the F-1 engines, according to him. However, close up pictures of the engines don't show a smaller engine within them - the exhaust seems to be coming out from the entire engine bell. Maybe the theory is "coherent", but it seems to be inconsistent with the facts. If the astronauts were in the Dunes, why didn't anyone spot them? Also, it is a pretty big feat to drop the Apollo in the south polar sea, given its orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "coherent" in this case means fleshed-out enough to present a narrative; not necessarily a factual narrative, but a theoretical chronology of events. Ugh. Wahkeenah 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A complete narrative would include a beginning, like where did the B-1 engines come from. Also: How many people are required to: 1) Install the B-1 engines, 2) Build this high speed elevator that leads to an apollo duplicate, 3) Fly the astronauts to the moon set, 4) Build the moon set, 5) Run visual effects like lunar jump timing. (If they were filmed in slow motion, then how did they respond to mission control in real time? You have to FINISH the shot before replaying it slowly.) And finally, what happened to all of these people after it was over?

What do the B-1 engines have do do with anything anyway? No one has questioned NASA's ability to launch an unmanned rocket into lunar orbit, have they? Algr 07:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxers claim the other engines were more reliable but not powerful enough to get to the moon. So they switched them in order to be able to pull off the hoax, rather than risk the engines failing on the launch pad. Beyond that, I think you've set the 'theory' and 'coherent [not complete] narrative' bars too high. This is is a sequence of events with a beginning, a middle and an end that expresses the idea of how the hoax might have occurred -- that meets my pop culture criteria for both terms. What more do you want? Independent evidence? (just teasing . . . )Numskll 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As with all conspiracy theories, the way it works is to invent an alternative conclusion, and then invent an alternative narrative to fit it. Where facts are unknown, substitute "could have beens" and then insert them as if they were fact (leaving out the "could have" part of the statement). Before long the speculation takes on the aura of fact to those who assume (or want to believe) that Kaysing somehow knew what he was talking about. The article has a question-and-answer section. To be totally fair, a question-and-answer session about Kaysing's theory would need to be included. Every statement he makes could have a [FACT] label slapped on it. I think there you have the reason why the hoaxster's don't enter a fleshed out narrative, because they know it would crumble under close scrutiny. So they spend their time distracting the reader with "what about this" in connection with the actual evidence. Wahkeenah 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaysing said that the F-1 engine was too unreliable. It did have problems early on. According to K., B-1 engines were reliable but produced only half the thrust of the F-1 (therefore unable to send Apollo to the Moon). They also used a different fuel from the F-1, but Kaysing has it backwards in his book - the F1 used RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen. As far as I can tell, the B-1 is a figment of K's imagination. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In the timeline of his theory, Kaysing says it has been alleged that there was an argument between one of the astronauts and a NASA official over a showgirl named Peechy Keen, but "this has not been authenticated by our source of information." Does that imply that the rest of it has been authenticated? Bubba73 (talk), 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag?

Does anyone still think this article needs the tag? I'd like to take it down again, as I don't really think the discussion we are having here relates to WP:NPOV. What do you think? --Guinnog 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • At this point it's iffy. But it needs something. Maybe a "cleanup" tag? Wahkeenah 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be more like it I think. --Guinnog 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see my rationale on this very talk page about the NPOV tag. I personally don't believe that much has changed. I see it bas a POV issue because there are scores of weird little constructs that have been twisted to one side or the other and mis-use of sources seems to be common (whether intentional or through drift caused by unwise edits). I am, in my own way, at a pace I can manage, and on a scale the various stakeholders can manage working on what I see as the NPOV issue. If you believe it is more of a clean up issue than I'll agree with that. But not including a "caution" or "fixer-upper" tag on the article itelf (not the talk page) while the article is in anything like its present shape would seem to me to be a diservice to the casual reader. Is there some sort of shelf life on these tags, other than when the issue is fixed? Numskll 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree then that a {{cleanup}} tag would be more appropriate? I agree the article needs attention, I just think the present tag isn't the right one. --Guinnog 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't oppose it or change it if it is replaced, but I'm being as sincere as I can be on my opinion on the NPOV tag and believe that opinion is considered and valid. My sticking point is that the tag (clean up, caution, NPOV) should be seen by the casual reader and alert them that the quality of this article is not up to encyclopedic standards. ; thus it should be on the article itself and not on the talk page. Numskll 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give it a few more hours and if nobody objects I'll change it to a cleanup tag which I think is a better one to use here. --Guinnog 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the banner of the page could say "cleanup" and maybe one or more individual sections could be labeled "POV"? Wahkeenah 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That would make sense as far as the editors are concerned, but too many of those tags in the sections could be an eyesore and, on some level, hamper readability. It's a shame there's not an easy way of representing those headers on the talk page and we could tag them appropraitley there (leaving our warning for readers at the top of the article) -- sort of a running to-do list. That would help us narrow stuff down and to guide progression section by section. Numskll 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of misuse of sources, I wonder if I could get some input on my issue with the Dr. O'Leary's cow . . .er . . . hoax version . . . issue above. Numskll 00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You are very wise to be Leary, Timothy. (Apologies to Joey Forman). I would be concerned that if you delete it, some newbie might add it back. It might be better to report the facts of this red herring, to cover the bases. Wahkeenah 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the "controversial subject" tag is better. I doubt this article can ever be "Clean" as long as the writers have fundamentally different ideas on what they want to do with it. Algr 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely is possible. Don't give up so easily. --ScienceApologist 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

controversial doesn't say anything about the quality of the article though, only that the content is being disputed. I think casual readers should be warned about quality. Numskll 11:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the quality is probably a lot better than most internet articles on the subject, since this one is at least trying to present a fair description. Wahkeenah 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but our yardstick should not be other moon hoax sites, but rather the wikipedic ideal. Numskll 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Long ago (maybe 2 weeks ago), before you-know-who got back into it after taking a hiatus, we started with the concept of trying to isolate specific issues that seemed to be POV violations or at least questionable. I would like to reiterate the thought that those who find POV violations should zero in on the specific offending phraseology, so that they could be dealt with one by one here, and then hopefully the POV tag could be retired with consensus. Wahkeenah 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one offending phraseology is that this is NASA's definition of a Moon landing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Are we a little sarcastic today? Have we been into that Georgia Peach Schnapps a wee bit today? :) Wahkeenah 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I forgot that editors not also over at List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 aren't in on the joke. Over there we recently had a bid discussion over the US versus USSR definition of space rendezvous. Bubba73 (talk), 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] These aren't theories

Please see theory for more. The scientific community is rather rigorous in its use of the term. Since the scientific community is a party involved in this article, please do not call the allegations "theories" lest we confuse the reader. Thanks, ScienceApologist 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this as more about pop culture than science. The hoax proponents idea do meet the popular definition of theory ( this is what may have happened. Think conspiracy theory, not theory of evolution.Numskll 11:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with characterizing them as a "conspiracy theory" or the characters as "hoax theorists", but we should avoid bandying about the term "theory" in isolation especially when other words will do. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've raised this issue before. It was pointed out that "theory" means both "scientific theory" (which is what you're talking about, and what my point was) and "conjecture", which is how it has been used here, and is why the Great Unwashed often say that "Evolution is only a theory". Wahkeenah 12:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Since it is equivocal, let's just use another word, okay? --ScienceApologist 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Story, concept, idea, model, scenario? Wahkeenah 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Any of the above. --ScienceApologist 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If I recall, it was the hoax proponent(s) that objected to "conspiracy theory", as they found it pejorative. I was going to argue that it wasn't. (Watergate is a conspiracy theory that happened to be true.) But the issue settled on it's own. Algr 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There cannot be discussion about the term being pejorative, the conspiracy theory page explicitly says: "The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value".--Pokipsy76 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but there was a lot of heated discussion about it on conspiracy theory (I think it was) about a year ago. I think "consipracy theory" is mild. Things like "Crackpot theory" could be considered pejorative. Believers in a conspiracy theory don't like their theory called a C.T., just like believers in a pseudoscience don't like thier topic called "pseudoscience (a lot of heated discussion of that too). Bubba73 (talk), 13:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the problem has been that the hoax believers constantly delete or rephrase attempts to characterize this subject as a conspiracy theory, on the grounds that the term "conspiracy theory" is an insult and thus a "POV violation". My own POV is that they regard it as an insult simply because it "hits too close to home". Wahkeenah 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As a contributor to the formulation Poki quotes above from Conspiracy theory, I should additionally point out that Watergate was not, ever, a conspiracy theory. It was a tip from a source which was methodically investigated, applying rules of evidence hard won in any serious newsroom, until enough verifiable evidences from enough independent sources stacked up into sufficient evidence to defend the newspaper against litigation. As I recall, when we had those debates last December over the question (whether or not there was an overlap between "conspiracy theory" and methodical investigations of true conspiracies), no-one met my challenge, to cite a single case of a methodical investigator being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. And there were some real nuts in the room at the time ... Anyway, the point is that Conspiracy theory certainly refers to a narrative of dubious validity. If that's pejorative, some things are rightly pejored against. Adhib 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If that tip had led nowhere, Watergate could have died as a story, or it could have become a typical "conspiracy theory". And that's the rub where the moon hoax tale is concerned: there is no insider tip, no actual evidence, just oddities that some have tried to "connect the dots" for. Watergate started slowly and built up to a major political event. The moon hoax stuff started slow and built up too... not much. The problem with it is, there's nowhere to go with it, unless someone in-the-know were to make a startling confession. As I've said many times here, even if it's true that the landings were faked, there's no evidence; and no "oddities" that can't be explained by the conventional story and/or by pointing out how the "oddities" are merely misinterpretations. Wahkeenah 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Sections

per Wahkeenah's suggestion let's list issues we have with the article. Maybe in one master list. It would be good to sign each item (unless it breaks something). Here is me starting that list:

  1. Predominant hoax claims: 1 is not sourced. Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Suggested motives for a hoax: None of these are sourced. 1 is questionable as to whether it should be included at all.Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Public opinions: rambling, nearly illegible, mess.Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Hoax accusations as 'conspiracy theories: the dueling excuses seems to be definitive trait of conpsiracy theories. The items that need cited seem more reflective of debates onnthe talk page than the absent sources.Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. The burden of proof This section seems to have drifted from its source ( and intent) via progressive edits. Content of this whole section, "Critics' comments," could/should be reworked.Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. The scientific method This section seems to have drifted from its source ( and intent) via progressive edits. Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Hoax claims examined condense tit-for-tat down to a couple of paragrpahs per topic. Read back through sources to verfiy that that are fairly represented. Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR This section should either be placed into context of the hoax or traced back to its source and cited directly.

Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's as much as i've time for just now. Will try to return to it a bit later. Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My quick assessment: Predominant hoax claims could be better, but it's fair. Suggested motives for a hoax surely must be enunciated somewhere, such as maybe in Kaysing's book. Hoax accusations as conspiracy theories could be reduced to a single sentence citing the conspiracy theory page, and let the reader decide. The burden of proof and The scientific method are the parts that strike me as editorializing, patronizing, and "thou doth protesteth too much"; I would drop them altogether, or restrict them to what other sources have to say about them (not what we have to say about them). I think Hoax claims examined is one of the most valuable parts of the article, because it is vital to the casual reader to understand that the so-called "anomolies" have a reasonable explanation, while dispassionate enough to allow the readers to judge for themselves whether the explanations make sense; few if any moon hoax pages do that, they are usually slanted one way or another. Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR is another possible overkill except that it addresses an issue raised by conspiracists that somehow if the USSR couldn't do it, neither could we. It could be reduced to a pair of sentences like the other point-counterpoints, with a separate in-depth article... or link to an existing article that might already cover the space race in great depth, and make the comparison sufficiently. Wahkeenah 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that Hoax claims examined is the meat of the article - perhaps it should be moved nearer the top. The burden of proof and The scientific method, should be at the end, and needs to be fixed to show that NASA does indeed have obligations here, (just not to every last kook who won't except basic science about how a camera works.) Algr 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a good thought. We could pre-empt a few of the hoaxsters' complaints by showing more clearly and explicitly (1) independent observations during the Apollo flights and (2) NASA's efforts to recover old data. We're unlikely to win the hoaxsters over. The target audience should be the casual reader who wants to learn more about it without being propagandized or misled from any particular side of this so-called issue. Wahkeenah 22:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One second delay?

"Mission control would hear the astronauts words ONE second after they spoke (one way travel time) and then could respond immediately. The astronauts would similarly hear mission control's words one second after they were spoken, and they too could respond as soon as they'd heard what mission control said - or even before mission control had stopped talking. So any recording would have only a one second delay from the remote side, and no delay at all from the side where the recorder was. A two second delay would occur only if one side was echoing the other's transmissions back to it."

The above logic is flawed (even if the first sentance is true). If recording at point A, it would take 1 second for a message to be relayed to point B, whereupon the response would be uttered, and a further 1 second for the response to be returned and thus recorded at point A, resulting in a cumulative delay of 2 seconds. The converse is also true. The above logic would only work if a single recorder was simultaneously recording both points, with no delay in the information getting to the recorder, which of course is not physically possible (a similar effect would happen if the recording was made exactly half way between the points). If nobody can argue otherwise, I'm going to remove this part. Guinness 14:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a good point. The author got the first part of it right (you omitted the first sentence) and then said a little too much and got it wrong:
    • The round trip light travel time of more than 2 seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. Mission control would hear the astronauts words ONE second after they spoke (one way travel time) and then could respond immediately. The astronauts would similarly hear mission control's words one second after they were spoken, and they too could respond as soon as they'd heard what mission control said - or even before mission control had stopped talking.
  • So far, so good. Then the author seems to have added his own "original research" to the facts, which does not appear to be correct, and which should be removed as being not clearly thought through, due to a long day at the office or whatever:
    • So any recording would have only a one second delay from the remote side, and no delay at all from the side where the recorder was. A two second delay would occur only if one side was echoing the other's transmissions back to it. (not a useful arrangement for communication.)
  • Then the writer gets back on track, to the main point that the hoaxster was complaining about, and this is the actual answer to the question:
    • There may be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity.
  • There is some Eggs Benedict on our faces for not catching the obvious, as you did. Here's the scoop: From whichever side the recording is occurring, there could be an immediate response to an incoming transmission, or 0 seconds delay. But that immediate response would take about 1 second to get to the vicinity of the moon, and even if the astronauts just said "Yo!" there would be 1 more second before that response got back to Houston where the recorder presumably was. 1 + 1 still equals 2. Wahkeenah 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • - Yeah, I was planning to leave the first and last two sentances in, as they are perfectly reasonable (although a slight rephrase may be necessary with the chunk above taken out). Guinness 15:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Some rewording is probably needed, because even though the second sentence is factually correct, it is also sort of a lead-in to the flawed logic. It would probably suffice to say that there would normally be a two-second delay, and explain why that is so, to the casual reader, and then say that it was indeed apparent in the orginal recordings, and was edited out of some documentaries (for obvious reasons of making the documentary flow better for the viewer). The hoaxsters are always reading things into editing. They must enjoy sitting through raw footage. What would it be like if ESPN's highlights programs played the entire game rather than a 15-to-30 second cut of the scoring? For that matter, just try watching someone else's home movies. Wahkeenah 15:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revision:-

The round trip light travel time of more than 2 seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity.

Acutally, I've only chopped out the middle bit, and the above reads ok. Agree? Guinness 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems OK. It leaves out the nuts-and-bolts explanation of why there is a two-second delay, but maybe that would be overkill. Wahkeenah 16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No that whole thing is accurate. Nothing stops mission control from speaking as soon as they hear what the astronauts say, so recordings made at mission control will show no lag at all from them. If the astronaut says something out of the blue - "Hey look at this," mission control will hear it one second later. If mission control asks the astronaut to do something, and the astronaut responds, only then would the delays add and produce a two second delay - but it is natural to pause before responding to a question anyway, so that will just sound like the astronaut was thinking about it before responding.

Digital cell phones can have about a 1/3 second delay, so you can experience what this is like by calling someone who is standing right next to you. You only really notice the delay if you can also hear the original sound. Algr 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You're talking about "stepping on each other", which certainly could have happened. I think the hoaxsters' complaint is that there is "normal" dialogue with no discernible delays at all, hence they are arguing that the transmissions took place from nearby the earth... being either ignorant or deliberating misleading about editing done later so that it plays better. Delays in any kind of electronic transmissions are common, due to the signal being routed through boosters, cable systems, etc. I used to try to watch baseball on TV with the sound down and the radio on... and there was a split-second's delay between the two. It was kind of spooky to hear the crack of the bat and then see the guy swing and hit it. Wahkeenah 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The delay is actually about 1.3 seconds in each direction, depending on the distance to the moon at the time. In many cases you can hear Mission Control say something and then hear it echoed back, which should be about 2.6 seconds later. I don't know of any instance where the delay is less than it should be, unless the delay has been edited out. Bubba73 (talk), 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, at 250,000 miles vs. 186,000 miles per second, it max out at about 1.3 seconds each way, halfway would be about .6-.7 seconds, and so on. My guess would be that some hoaxster was watching a documentary (where only selected bits of the dialogue would be used) and said, "Hey, that should be 2-3 seconds delay!" and it never occurred to them that the difference would be edited to make a better presentation. In contrast, you have the famous "One small step fr'a man, one giant leap for mankind." I see where someone took that and played it through a speech recognition analyzer and declared it to be "one small step for A man" after all. Make of that what you will. Wahkeenah 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we actually have any samples of what the hoaxers say is suspect? It could be editing, or it could be them assuming that the delay has to apply to mission control too. Algr 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any. Perhaps they are expecting a two-second delay from when Mission Control stops talking and the astronauts start talking (as recorded on Earth). But sometimes people start talking before the other person finishes. Bubba73 (talk), 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This does bring up a valid point, though... with all the brouhaha about whether the article is POV or not, we've maybe lost sight of articulating where these various "theories" and "challenges" come from. Someone might have to revisit the various pre-hoax websites and see if any or all of these questions are actually there, and how they are worded. Wahkeenah 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Talk%7EApollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations_Archive_45af.html"