Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Question

Why can a man's boot kick the dust on the moon and it only fall a few inches in front of him? Wouldn't the dirt fly 6 times the distance it would have on Earth? Also if a man can kick the dirt so easily why isn't there even a little bit of dirt on the landing gear? Why if sped up 2x does the video look like a man moving in regular gravity? What about the lunar rover, wouldn't there be a cloud of dust a dirt taking 6x the length of time to fall to the ground? These questions haven't been addressed. Gravity alone would cause matter to behave quite differently on the moon with its 1/6 gravity of Earth.

Think back to your junior high school science class, when they demonstrated how a feather and a marble fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Lightweight objects such as feathers... and dust... are actually suspended in air to a notable degree by the mass of the air. The moon is not quite a vacuum, but it's close. In a vacuum or near-vacuum, you don't get a "cloud" that causes the atmosphere to slow and disperse dust. The dust would fall immediately, both faster and likely at a shorter distance, on the moon than it would on the earth. Ironically, your astute observations about the behavior of the dust lend further support to the credibility of the lunar voyage. Kudos! Wahkeenah 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, consider kicking dust in a space suit. It is more confining than ordinary clothes. Also, consider that if you rip it, you'll probably die, so the astronauts might not have been kicking the dust with their full force. Second, if you speed up the film 2X, it DOESN'T look regular. Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, playing it 2X and trying to make something of it. That's a good one. It vaguely reminds me of a George Carlin line: "The Beatles' latest record, when played backwards at slow speed, says, 'Hey, dummy, you're playing it backwards at slow speed!'" As I recall, they "undercranked" the filmmaking on that first flight, at least, to conserve filmstock. Unfortunately, that unwittingly led to the "waving flag" misinterpretation, and at another speed it looks like Charlie Chaplin. On later trips, they did better with the filming. Obviously, had they known what the Kaysing looneys were going to do, they might have been more self-conscious about the way they did things. Wahkeenah 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
They were runing at around 10 fps due to bandwidth limits on apollo 11 since they used the transmitter on the lander itself for that mission.Geni 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they did not manage to fake the 1/6 gravity when it comes to the distance the dust flew. The driving looks at it does on earth on exactly double speed. There should be dust on the landing gear. And a lot of other detaljs. I mean, you can see the strings, people :) As Stanley Kubric named his last movie: "Eyes wide shut". (Axlalta 11:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC))
You are failing to take into account the issue of vaccume.Geni 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One sided?

Just a thought, but this article seems to be made up of a simplistic accusation followed by a long winded explanation as to why the accusation is incorrect. I would have thought there would be more argument from the conspiracy theorists point of view?

Well, Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) says A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community., and that should apply here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amateur over here)--Matt D 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Transcript from Conspiracy supporting website

I once copied a transcript from a webpage and I didn't record which website it came from (silly me). I can't find the webpage anymore. Does anyone know where this transcript came from and also if there is anything in the official Apollo 11 transcript that has anything close to this in it?

Armstrong & Aldrin: Those are giant things. No, no, no - this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!

Houston (Christopher Craft): What ... what ... what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They're here under the surface.

Houston: What's there? (muffled noise) Emission interrupted; interference control calling 'Apollo 11'.

Armstrong & Aldrin: We saw some visitors. They were here for a while, observing the instruments.

Houston: Repeat your last information!

Armstrong & Aldrin: I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up in the other side of the crater!

Houston: Repeat, repeat!

Armstrong & Aldrin: Let us sound this orbita ... in 625 to 5 ... Automatic relay connected ... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything - what then?

Houston: Have you picked up anything?

Armstrong & Aldrin: I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film

Houston: Control, control here. Are you on your way? What is the uproar with the UFOs over?

Armstrong & Aldrin: They've landed here. There they are and they're watching us.

Houston: The mirrors, the mirrors - have you set them up?

Armstrong & Aldrin: Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those spaceships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out.

DarthVader 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It came from someone's fertile imagination. Wahkeenah 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is listed at this website. It is fake. I recorded the entire Apollo moonwalk, except for about 5 seconds that it took me flip the reels. The entire actual transcript is available and the entire video of the moonwalk is available, and there is nothing remotely like that in any of them. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said, ja? And I'm guessing there was nothing about Mr. Gorsky, either. >:) Wahkeenah 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, answer me one question, though, if you can... right after the famous "one giant leap for mankind", did Armstrong say something about being able to kick up the surface dust easily with his boot, or something along those lines? I don't recall it at all, I just read it someplace once, and whoever wrote about it said it was a much more interesting comment, a more spontaneous and human comment, than the rehearsed sentence he spoke initially. Wahkeenah 04:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The actual Apollo 11 transcript is here, and here is that part (skip down to 109:24:48), 20 seconds after the "one small step", he said "Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles." Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Yes, that's the quote I recall. Armstrong threw the obligatory bone to the headline writers, then began the job of exploration and reporting details. And, of course, one of them took a photo of a footprint, to reinforce the verbal description. As I recall, there were some fears about how thick the dust might be. The LEM had something like footpads, but until the guys actually got there and stepped into it, no one could be sure what its consistency was. Regarding Mr. Gorsky, I'm surprised none of the moonbats has cited that... which apparently came from the fertile mind of Buddy Hackett, or someone like that. Wahkeenah 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The famous photo of a footprint is not the first footprint. Aldrin took it of one of his footprints later. Before Apollo 11, I think four unmanned Surveyor program craft landed there, with footbads, so it wasn't completely unknown. Bubba73 (talk), 05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right on all counts. Unless the Surveyors were faked also. I wonder what the moonbats have to say about that? Here's something I would like for the doubters to ponder, if it's within their meager capability. Their doubt seems to spring in part from the fact that they weren't around during the 50s and 60s and early 70s. It's easier to disbelieve a news event that occurred outside of one's lifetime, because there is no personal frame of reference. Now, they should think of some current news event, to which they have no personal connection, i.e. no verifiability, but do not doubt that it is true. I must then ask them, "How do they know it's true? Well, the answer is common sense tells them so. Wahkeenah 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How about George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) where he claims Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa? Surely that's true, after all, the government said so! 67.40.249.122 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a spurious analogy. Wahkeenah 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to fail to be NPOV. It is far more of a text argumenting in favor of the truth of the moon landings than on the theory of the fake moon landing itself. Hell, an entire section is dedicated to rebutting the fake moon landing's theory, mostly by attacking the weakest arguments. This article needs to be rewritten with NPOV standards and fast.

Also of note, the absence of the flag argument. The strongest argument in favor of the fake moon landing is often that the American flag was waving in the wind on the video, whereas there is no atmosphere on the moon. Another one is that if Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, then who was filming Armstrong when he was walking out of the shuttle? Dali 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no "theory" about the moon landings being faked, just a bunch of questions that have already been answered but the conspiracists won't accept the logical answers. And your specific questions have been asked and answered countless times. The flag was NOT "waving in the wind", it was bouncing around while they planted it in the lunar surface, and once that task was done, the flag became motionless ever after. The video of Armstrong walking out of the lunar module was from a TV camera mounted on the lunar module itself, aimed at the ladder on the side of the lunar module. Wahkeenah 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the video, the flag is waving only when the astronauts are shaking it. Shortly after the astronauts let go of the flag, it stops "waving". Just like quoting out of context, proponents of the hoax hypothesis only show clips of the flag "waving" while the astronauts are moving it. If you look at the entire video (as I have done), which can be purchased at Spaceflight films you can see that shortly after the astronauts let go of it, the flag stops moving. At one point, the Apollo 11 flag is in the scene for more than 30 minutes, and it doesn't move a bit during that time, or any other time - except when the astronauts are handling it.
There was a TV camera mounted on the outside of the lunar module that showed Armstrong. You may have noticed that there are TV cameras in banks and other locations that do not have a person operating them. This is a similar principle. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to explain too much to the moonbats, it will force them to think logically, which could strain their brains. Wahkeenah 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment. If NASA really did go to the moon, why is it going to take us 16 years to do it again? We first did it in 8 years with much lower technology. If we DID go, we have blueprints for the successful Apollo missions. We should be able to build an exact Apollo copy in 2 years. If this worked before, it will work again. There would be no research/development costs, just duplicate the exact rocket/lander that was so successful before. So why is it going to take 16 years when we can do it in two years? Unless of course we never went in the first place, which I, and all my friends believe is the truth. User:195.93.21.69 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because they're going to do it "for real" this time. :-) At that time, there was a crash program to go to the moon. The Saturn rockets were already in development at the time it was decided to go to the moon. The old technology would be considered too dangerous today. The major funding for going back to the moon won't be available until the International Space Station is finished and the Shuttle is retired. Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I'm guessing User:195.93.21.69 and his a-none friends were born during the Disco era. I can't account for their lack of common sense, nor their ignorance of history. But I know that we went because we were in a race with the Soviets, and there was a drastic sense of urgency about it that pushed the envelope as far as it could be pushed. I wish they were old enough to have a clue of the sense of panic that hit this country when Sputnik was launched, and when the Soviets launched a man into space, and so on. JFK issued a challenge, and we met it, because we believed we could. Remember, that challenge was issued before Vietnam, before the rioting, and so on, before so much of our national self-doubt set in, when we believed we as a nation could do anything we set our minds to. Once we won the race to the Moon, all interest in lunar excursions (along with the funding) quickly evaporated, as most Americans thought the money was better spent at home, and on more "practical" uses of space, like the Shuttle program and unmanned interplanetary probes. There was, in fact, no longer any reason to go to the Moon. And there still isn't. The lack of urgency is giving the government plenty of time for a lengthy, expensive project with lots of employment, and we might actually get there again eventually, and then it will be like last time: we'll get there, and say, "OK, now what?" Then we'll remember why we cut the Apollo program short the first time around. Wahkeenah 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, president Kennedy set the goal when he had been in office only about four months - still quite early in his administration. The USSR had: the first satellite, the first living being in space, the first person in space, the first person to orbit, and the first person to be in space for a day, first (unmanned spacecraft to the moon), first to see the back side of the moon, first to another planet (Venus), and probably more. This was all before the US put Alan Shepard on a 15-minute sub-orbital flight. It was clear that the USSR was going to have more "firsts" before we could catch up. JFK was looking for a goal far enough off that we would probably be able to do it first, and he announced that goal shortly after Shepard's flight. Incidentally, the USSR continued to have "firsts": first woman in space, first with two manned spacecraft up at once, first space walk, first spacecraft with more than one person. Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"The old technology would be considered too dangerous today." Despite getting men to the moon and back seven times? Too dangerous?! More dangerous, say, than a shuttle that's killed the same number of people to have 'walked on the moon'?

And if those who express Apollo skepticism are so wrong, why devote so many words to rebutting them? I can smell your cant.

- Multiple AOL Migs (FKA 195.93.21.69).

  • I don't know what that means, but it sounds offensive. Go wash your mouth out. As usual, you and your kind miss the point. Yes, it was dangerous, but it was all they had. And they were on a military mission, and risks were there, willing to be taken. No guts, no glory. And as we all know, there were deaths and the threat of dying from these things. And, indeed, the Shuttle has now become nearly obsolete. It has become a dinosaur, like the the Concorde. And you would have us go back to the Saturn V? Oy! Wahkeenah 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Saturn was very good. Our only series of rockets that have never had a failure: Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V. I think that the most dangerous part of the Apollo missions were the lunar landers, by far.
Columbus sailed across the Atlantic (or did he???) in three small sailing ships without radio, radar, GPS, or a navigation computer, and he didn't even know how far across it was. That would be considered dangerous today. Bubba73 (talk), 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, they faked the Columbian voyages in order to promote the 1893 World's Fair. Actually, we were always here. We imported the Indians in order to promote Westerns. Little Big Horn? Wounded Knee? Never happened. Totally hype. Wahkeenah 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Saturn was very good" - so build a half dozen more of the things and while you're at it, knock some Intel-Pentium-enhanced Landing Modules together and hey presto - the moon in a couple of years. But seriously, thanks for responding - sometimes it can get really lonely on the ward.

AS-11-40-5922 - LM constructed by the "Blue Peter" team AS-15-87-11839HR - photographs on right strut foot? AS-16-114-18439HR - can't find the photos this thing took of the stars

-Migs

Just because they could revive the Saturn V, doesn't mean it's the best way to accomplish whatever it is they are wanting to accomplish. And I can assure you, no one in the government has the least interest in going back to the moon for the purpose of trying to prove anything to the moonbats, who have no facts on their side and no credibility. Wahkeenah 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may just take it back to Dali's initial claim in this section, the NPOV situation in this article is, if anything, too accommodating to those who deny the Apollo landings. According to NPOV Undue weight rules (I recommend we all re-read it, friends) wikipedia is under no duty to find a balance in cases not far from this one, in which the minority opinion is so marginal, regardless of the 'truth' of the issue. To strike such a balance would give unwarranted credence to whichever crank it is out there saying nay to the mainstream's yea.

The problem of 'undue weight' is a serious one for any information source - such as the 'pedia - which aspires to having something authoritative to offer its reader. We do not say "The Earth is a planet, according to majority opinion" in order to accommodate those plucky few who argue that it is not a planet. We do not say, "The Holocaust was probably a historical event ..." (etc). To do so would be to tell the reader: 'We entirely lack editorial judgement - over to you'; at which point, the reader has to pay for a source written by professionals which won't waste his time on idle fancies.

Finally, Dali inadvertently offers further evidence in favour of the text as it stands concerning falsifiability: If you knock down the hoax proponents' argument on the evidence they put forward, they turn to other evidence or carp about the rules. This is not science - it's pool room philosophizing, and while amusing over a few beers, has no place in an encyclopedia. Adhib 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Back to whether the missions to the moon were dangerous or not, three planned missions were canceled: Cancelled Apollo missions. They were cancelled after 90% of the money had been spent and some of the hardware was finished. Why cancel fake missions? One of the reason for the cancellation was that it was thought to be too likely that there would be fatalities (i.e. too dangerous), see Astronautix Apollo 18. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said indeed. And to put it another way, by that time, the benefits were no longer seen as outweighing or justifying the risks. In essence, they had accomplished most everything they were likely to, yes? Wahkeenah 02:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:67.40.249.122's recent changes

The user's recent changes give excessive attention to fringe theories, and use a lot of non-neutral language, seeking to cast the hoax accusations in favorable terms. This seems to be a wholesale re-write. This page has been contentious in the past. I think it would be wiser to make small incremental changes while trying to build concensus here on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really not a re-write. I have corrected some factual errors, added a picture, removed some particularly egregious language. Rather than reverting a bunch of errors back in, please let me know which edits you find objectionable. I find it hard to believe that the procedure for this is that I have to run all my edits past someone who will not speak to me except to abuse me first. Yours, 67.40.249.122 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. The NPOV policy says to not give undue weight to the opinions of a tiny minority. WP policy is also to us reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't think removing factual errors and wild speculation, along with leading and misrepresentative statements is giving undue weight to anyone. Representing the facts is a duty that an encyclopedia has - we don't need to engage in partisan misrepresentation. It undermines our case, and the encyclopedia as a whole. I removed some unsourced material, I'd invite you to take a look at the changes below and tell me which, if any, you disagree with. 67.40.249.122 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Occams' razor

The article as it stood claimed that Occams' razor asks 'is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?' That's simply wrong. Occams' Razor asks which version is simpler. 67.40.249.122 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like you changed a good deal more than you describe. While making an improvement in the presentation of Occam's razor, you recast the description to be more favorable to proponents of the hoax, subtly shading the meanings to make these fringe theories seem more reasonable than they are. How about:
Occam's razor – is one story simpler than the other? Is an elaborate hoax and cover-up involving the collusion and lying of thousands of individuals simpler than the mainstream opinion that NASA's space program sent men to the Moon?
Tom Harrison Talk 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not reitterate the entire edit, I summarised it. As it is written the description is unfair. Where does the figure of thousands come from? Who claimed the conspiracy requires thousands? Why use the term 'mainstream' - it is simply argument by appeal to authority, adding nothing to the case.. Why the use of the word 'elaborate' to describe the hoax, but not the space program? 67.40.249.122 06:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Occam's razor asks for the simplest explanation that explains all of the facts. The hoax theory doesn't explain all of the facts. Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said - I didn't write this, I merely corrected the description of Occams' Razor. I'm not claiming that the rest of the text is innerrant, merely that I corrected an error, and that correction should not be reverted. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Tom - why did you remove the word 'elaborate' from the space program without discussing it? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nasa's rebuttal

The article as it stood said that Nasa had announced the cancellation of a book never mentioned elswhere in the article. I added the fact that they had previously announced it's publication. 67.40.249.122 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In James Oberg I just added an external link to an article by jim on this subject. As far as I know, the book has not been written, and NASA didn't anounce its publication, just that it was planning to be published. Some of this information might be put in this article, but not too much, since it is long. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - my edit was simply to add the fact that NASA announced the book. The article previously only menitoned that they announced that they would cancel it - leaving the reader to wonder when, if at all, they had announced their intention to publish it. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a short note to the James Oberg article - I hope you feel it reflects the facts! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone diagree that we should mention that NASA announced the commissioning of this book before they announced that it would be cancelled? 67.40.249.122 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Wikification of names

The article mentions several people whose names were not wikified. I wikified them. 67.40.249.122 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and "speak for everyone" - I see no opposition to this. Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Great! Progress! 67.40.249.122 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A vast number, or a substantial number

The article claims that a 'vast' number of people would need to be complicit, but does not give a reference for this. I changed it to 'substantial'. The figure 'vast' is not based on any claim I have ever seen. 67.40.249.122 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A flurry of conspiracy theories

The article notes 'the flurry of conspiracy theories that arose during the Vietnam era, in part due to a loss of trust and rise in cynicism in reaction to the Johnson and Nixon administrations'. I added 'partly as a result of the discovery of a flurry of government conspiracies'. The distrust partly arose from the discovery of secret government conspiracies. It did. That's a fact! 67.40.249.122 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads: "Skeptics of the hoax note the flurry of conspiracy theories that arose during the Vietnam era, in part due to a loss of trust and rise in cynicism in reaction to the Johnson and Nixon administrations, partly from the discovery of the Watergate scandal. For a wider treatment, see conspiracy theory."

I feel that it is reasonable to point out that Watergate and others were, in fact, secret government conspiracies to decieve the public. I do not beleive that that lends undue credence to the Moon hoax, but it does place the resiliance of the idea that the government might be lying in some kind of context. 67.40.249.122 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. For one thing, Watergate was never a conspiracy theory - it was known to be a conspiracy from the moment the burglars were caught. Secondly, it was not a widespread conspiracy throughout the government. It wasn't started by the government, it was started by the Committee to Reelect the President. Of course, this type of thing probably did lead to people believing in government conspiracies. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So do you agree that we should mention it as a contributing factor to the climate of distrust of government, or do you want to exclude it altogether? 67.40.249.122 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Copyedit

I replaced this: Where critics accuse hoax proponents of unscientific or unfalsifiable beliefs, hoax proponents have sought to demonstrate that experiments could be designed to test their theory, for example, by making observations of the landing sites. This would require the diversion of astronomical resources to a task of uncertain scientific value. It is also unclear as to why this would be considered convincing evidence when other material items of evidence are not. There is little reason to believe that hoax believers would be convinced by images taken of a landing site. At scope resolutions soon to be available, only outlines of landers might be glimpsed, leaving the possibility that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are robot spoofs; if a revolutionary telescope was in the future able to resolve footprints, etc, its print-outs could easily be dismissed as more NASA 'fakery'.

with this: In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have designed experiments that could be used to test their theory, for example, by making observations of the landing sites. The main reason that these experiments have not been carried out seem to be the the accusations are not taken seriously, and a scepticism that hoax believers would be convinced by further evidence gathered that could also be falsified. It's more factually correct, shorter, and reads better. 67.40.249.122 05:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that it's more factually correct? It contradicts what little I know of current resolving power of scopes, as rehearsed earlier in the talk, here. Pending your cite, I have replaced your 'improvement' with a third version. Adhib 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I am happy with your text - the parts that I objected to were the bits speculating about what hoax proponents might do. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm delighted that you're happy with my text, and thus deem it fit to stand. However, my question here was: where is your cite for the 'improvement' you made? "The main reason .. seem to be" - text you inserted to 'fix' a speculative claim - looks like it was purely speculative (not to mention factually incorrect). Can we now establish some agreement that your edits are not as down-the-middle as you initially represented them to be? Adhib 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal

I removed this "That attempted explanation ironically undercuts much of the conspiracists' premise that a lunar mission was technologically impossible" It's POV and not true. 67.40.249.122 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

I replaced : likely to be dismissed by hoax enthusiasts as artifacts from an unmanned mission. with any pictures of the lander remains are unlikely to provide better evidence for human landing than currently exists.,less POV, and true, without speculating on behavior of a vague group of people. 67.40.249.122 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not dignifying a response

The article says that 'authorities' do not like to comment on baseless conspiracy theories. I added that they don't like to comment on actual conspiracies either. This is true, and less POV. Govts behave similarly to conspiracy theories as to actual conspiracies. 67.40.249.122 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an actual conspiricy, it is a conspiricy theory - pure unfounded speculation. Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My edit demonstrates that the 'authorities' would behave the same towards unfounded speculation as to a genuine conspiracy. It adds no undue credance, merely removes an unfounded implicit claim that because the authorities don't respond to it we know it is a conspiracy theory. Sure we know it is, but not because the authorities deny it. Arguing from logical falacy undermines our credability. 67.40.249.122 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
credibility. First spell it, then claim it. Adhib 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typo - you don't, I presume, argue in favor of arguing from logical falacy? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As I do not know what a falacy might be, you must be presuming correctly. Adhib 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that mentioning that the authorities would be unlikely to comment on a genuine cover-up either is inapropriate? I don't think that this lends any undue credence, while leaving it like this implies that we think that NASA denying it is evidence that it's not true - NASA's response, to be fair, would be the same in either scenario, and so cannot be used as evidence. 67.40.249.122 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, it (whether true or not) it sounds like an editors opinion. WP required verifiability in the form of cites. Ashmoo 07:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spacecraft testing

I replaced "Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous" with "Landing believers explain these deaths by pointing out that spacecraft..." It attributes the comment, which is otherwise unreferenced. 67.40.249.122 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Wikification

Wikified US government as one phrase, rather than two. Someone is unlikely to want to click two links to get 'US' and 'govt' - they want 'US Government'. 67.40.249.122 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume not. Feel free to correct me... 67.40.249.122 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, no opposition. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviets

I replaced :They argue that despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easy for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success." with "They argue that despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success, than to actually go." It's true, and closer to the actual claim made. 67.40.249.122 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So what if it might have been easier to fake it? You're assuming that everybody always does the easy thing. JFK said "We choose to go to the Moon, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " No one said that it was going to be easy to go to the moon - and it wasn't - but we did it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not me who's assuming it, this is in the context of the article having raise Occams' Razor (and then mis-defining it), and claiming that one thing is easy, while the other is hard. I did not write this segment, just copy edited it to make it a little more reasonable. Hoax proponents are not quoted as saying that faking the landing was 'easy' - it undermines our case to claim that they are. They do argue that pretending to go to the moon was easier than going to the moon. I don't need to agree with them to represent what they say without distortion. 67.40.249.122 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
...but it helps. Adhib 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant. I don't think you are arguing that we should misquote hoax proponents to make their case look more flimsy are you? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It becomes relevant if your 'corrections' bend the stick too far the other way. Which, in part, they did. But as below, the filip you gave to the debate has resulted in a stouter article, so this is just some meta-kvetching on my part you're welcome to ignore. Adhib 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sibrel

I replaced "a documentary confronting nine Apollo astronauts with his accusations that the moon landings were not authentic. Includes footage of the verbal assault on Mr. Aldrin and his response." (note that Sibrel is reported as 'assaulting' Aldrin, while Aldrin 'responds', with "a documentary confronting nine Apollo astronauts with his accusations that the moon landings were not authentic. Includes footage of the verbal assault on Mr. Aldrin and his physical assault on Mr. Sibrel" Which makes clear that while Sibrel verbally assaults Aldrin, Aldrin physically assaults Sibrel. I don't see how you can say that is not more npov. 67.40.249.122 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who feels that this somehow misrepresents what happened? 67.40.249.122 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability

Original version read " – are the "proofs" offered for the alternative story constructed with scientifically sound methodology?" I removed the word 'alternative' - both proffered stories must be held to the same criteria for these standards to be meaningful. 67.40.249.122 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

changed 'story' to 'explanation'

The word explanation is more neutral than story, without lending undue credence. 67.40.249.122 06:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gallup polling

The quote from gallup appears to show that 6% is too low to give any credence to, and yet,

"According to a 1999 Gallup poll, about 6% of the population of the U.S. has doubts that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon. "Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals," Gallup said of this, "it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them -- so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread." To place this figure in perspective, in 1997 Gallup found that 10% of the population agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."

Only 4% more beleived in non-theistic evolution. It is npov to compare like with like when describing public belief in theories. 67.40.249.122 06:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A small minority of people will believe anything, no matter how wrong it is. But just because a small percentage of the public belueves something, doesn't mean it is wrong. The people that don't believe in evolution do that for religious reasons, not rational reasons. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The Gallup poll result, and the explanation from Gallup, and the poll showing how many people believe in evolution, tell us nothing about the truth values of those things. Both merely place belief in this in the context of belief in other things. If we're going to show how many people believe one thing, it is helpful to have a comparison of how many people believe in another as a reference point. 67.40.249.122 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You're putting words in their mouth. The poll is about "non-theistic" evolution particurlary. Many people believe believe that god caused evolution. Also, there is evidence to be condidered, for both evolution and the moon landing. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not putting words into anyone's mouth. The poll is about non-theistic evolution, that's very clear. The evidence is considered at length in the article - this section is about public belief - it's helpful to compare belief in this with belief in other things, to get a picture of the kinds of things that have this sort of level of public belief. The claim is made that the number is so low that it can be assumed to result from people saying yes to anything that they are asked - it undermines our case to apply that criteria selectively.

If you think it would help, we could put in the numbers for theistic evolution - off the top of my head they are about 40%, but I'd want to check that, we'd then be saying something like -'the number of people who believe in the moon hoax theory is vastly smaller than those who believe in mainstream theories such as evolution, although it is comparable to the number of people who beleive in non-theistic evolution.' 67.40.249.122 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom - it looks like, after having asked me to discuss this on the talk page, you are returning to reverting without discussion. Could you please explain why you are doing that? Thanks! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Scan coversion?

"The scan coversion for this was done in Sydney."? Surely, it was scan conversion? 67.40.249.122 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool! 67.40.249.122 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Moon's gravity?

Changed "The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity diminished downward pull." to "The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity." The first is unclear, making it sound like the weight of the lander was altered by the propellants, while the moon's gravity affected the 'pull'. 67.40.249.122 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your edit is really any better. The whole thing is to explain why the descent engine was at low thrust. I propose something like:
  • The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. In addition, the Moon's lower gravity means that only 1/6 as much thrust is needed, compared to Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Good - I agree - yours is better! See how easy it is? 67.40.249.122 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The empty LM weighed 14,700kg. There was 10,150 kg of descent stage fuel (which was almost gone) and 2350 kg of ascent stage fuel plus 150kg for the crew. So the weight was down from 22,800kg to about 12,700kg or so. This is about 2,100kg on the moon. The thrust if the descent engine was 4,500kg-force. So it was throttled down to a little less than half thrust at the time of landing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking I think it's better to speak of it's mass falling because of fuel use, it's weight is, of course, different on the moon, but for different reasons. There are two separate processes going on here, firstly that the mass is going down because of fuel use, secondly that whatever the mass was at any given time, it weighed about 1/6 of what it did on earth. 67.40.249.122 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That is what I tried to do above when I proposed making the gravity part a second sentence. The moon's gravity doesn't really matter much in the discussion, except that it means that the thrust would be only a fraction of what would be needed on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Can we chalk this one up as 'solved'? 67.40.249.122 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. In addition, the Moon's lower gravity meant that only 1/6 as much thrust was needed, compared to Earth gravity.
It still seems incomplete to me. The idea is that the thrust is a low lower than you would imagine from our experience on Earth, and that isn't tied in anywhere. Also, there was a small crater - Armstrong mentions it and there is a photo. Bubba73 (talk), 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - so make a suggestion - I don't think we disagree on any point of importance, it's just a question of finding a wording that works. 67.40.249.122 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The first line says that no blast crater is expected. I think that should be "large". Secondly, it needs to mention somehow that what you would expect on the moon is a lot different from what our experiences on Earth would indicate. Third, I think that the engine was cut off shortly after the long poles detected contact, which was a few meters above the surface. This needs to be refactored.

1. No blast crater appeared from the landing.

  • No large crater should be expected, based on the different physical conditions on the moon. Factors that affect the formation of a blast crater are:
    • The force of the downward pointing engines - the Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI (By contrast, the thrust of the first stage of the Saturn V was 459 PSI, per area of the engine bell.) In addition, the Moon's lower gravity meant that only 1/6 as much thrust was needed, compared to Earth gravity.
    • Gas pressure of the exhaust at the point it makes contact with the ground - unlike on earth, where rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches due to the atmospheric pressure (the thin out as the rocket climbs) in a vacuum, exchaust gases rapidly disburse, leaving no pressurised 'plume'. For this reason, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The lunar module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater.
    • Direction of movement of the lander immediately prior to impact - the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".

However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine.

I think that is pretty much OK, but I would like others to look at it. One thing, though, is I don't think it adequately says why the moon's 1/6 gee is important - it means that the amount of thrust would be only 1/6 as much as you might expect from our experience on Earth. I think one of the pro-hoax TV shows shows the Saturn V blasting off, and then say "why didn't the LM engine leave a big crater?" Well, the thrust was about 1,200 times less than the thurst of the Saturn V. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure - feel free to change that text in-line, or on the main page though, I don't think there is anything controversial here, it's just copyediting. 67.40.249.122 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kubrik

Mooved brackets to make the sentence make sense. It used to say: It has been claimed, without any evidence, that in early 1968 (while 2001: A Space Odyssey, which includes scenes taking place on the Moon, was in post-production), NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. In this scenario the launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would have remained in earth orbit while the fake footage was broadcast as "live" from the lunar journey.

Now the brackets contain only that it was in post production. 67.40.249.122 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see your proof. Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That 2001 was in post production in 1968?! 67.40.249.122 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source for the Kubrick claims. "It has been claimed" is not enough, where was it claimed? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I think you misunderstand. I did not add the Kubrik section, I changed the bracketting so that it made sense. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth though, one of the many people who claim this is the Russian Mukhin Yu, who wrote (rough translation) 'Anti-Apollo, or a lunar shady transaction OF THE USA' in 2005 (ISBN: 5-699-08657-9). He claims a conspiracy with the (then) USSR and Kubrik 'directing). 67.40.249.122 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Wood also claims that NASA heavily subsidized Kubrick when he produced 2001, and that 2001 was used to develop the special effects needed to fake a lunar landing and its purpose. Wood claims Kubrick worked on 2001 with the help of NASA experts Fred Ordway and Harry Lange. Please don't ask me to defend this - I don't believe it, I just think we have a responsibility to accurately quote what is claimed. 67.40.249.122 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the 'documentary' Dark Side of the Moon also claims this. 67.40.249.122 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We're supposed to use reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think books by conspiracy theorists are reliable sources for the purposes of discovering what conspiracy theorists claim. We're not saying it happened, we're saying that the authors claimed it. That seems a pretty reliable thing. 67.40.249.122 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree with the change in the position of the brackets that I made? I'm in no way speaking for the rest of the section - I don't care what you do with it! 67.40.249.122 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Earthrise photo

The article mentions that the Flat Earth Society objected to a particular photo. I added that photo. 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I moved the photo to be alongside the toc - it takes up less room, and can be bigger. 67.40.249.122 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the Flat Earth Society's claim that the Earth is flat have to do with the claim that the moon landing was a hoax? Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They claim that the landings were faked, because the photos show a round earth. From their perspective, if we had really gone into space, we would have come back with photos of a flat earth, ergo, the space program must have been faked. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Some flat-earthers claim that the Earth is a flat disc. So it could look round in a photo from space. Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the Flat Earth Society make the claim that the photos showing what looks like a globe proove the moon mission was faked. If you want to source that claim about the disc, I certianly wouldn't oppose putting it in. 67.40.249.122 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat earth society content should be removed. They are defunct and any current research is being done for historical purposes. Inclusion of the flat earth society's views just further discredits the apollo truth movement.

This page is a joke anyways. It is a pro-Apollo web page. No allegation that cannot be debunked will be included on this page. Evidence is that I post up this page http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/ and it keeps getting erased. If you guys are so secure you will have nothing to hide.

  • Such as what? Wahkeenah 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More falsifiability

I re-worded this to: Falsifiability In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments that could be used to test their theory; for example, by making observations of the landing sites. Telescopes currently available lack the resolving power to perform this experiment. At telescope resolutions soon to be available, only outlines of landers might be glimpsed, leaving the possibility that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are the result of robot missions. Many hoax sceptics believe that, even if future telescopes or missions were able to resolve footprints, etc, these results might also be considered 'fakery'.

I think this preserves your intention, and reads better, without the unsourced claim. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Apollo 8

I wikified the first instance of Apollo 8. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this? I feel like we should be able to agree that this should be wikified? 67.40.249.122 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No objection. Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

mechanical remains

I added this explanatory note "The general issue here is that mechanical remains on the moon cannot, strictly, be used as evidence for human landing." to the discussion of reflective mirrors by manned and robot missions - it seemed not to be placed in any real context. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is claiming that the sighting of mechanical remains on the moon would be evidence of human landing, rather than indestinguishable from robot missions? If not, we can quickly reach agreement on this one I think. 67.40.249.122 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

claims

Changed:"In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments they say could be used to test their theory" to read that this could be used to test the theory. I don't think anyone denies that getting a photo of a footprint would be a test of whether the apollo mission went to the moon, do they? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Currently this reads: "In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments they say could be used to test their theory; for example, by making observations of the landing sites. Telescopes currently available lack the resolving power to perform this experiment. At telescope resolutions soon to be available, only outlines of landers might be glimpsed, leaving proponents free to claim that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are the result of robot missions. Many hoax sceptics believe that, even if future telescopes or missions were able to resolve footprints, etc, these results would also be considered 'fakery'."

Does anyone object to it as it stands? 67.40.249.122 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think even better would be: "In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments that could be used to test their theory; for example, by making observations of the landing sites. Unfortunately, neither current nor planned telescopes have the resolving power to perform this experiment, only being able to resolve outlines of landers, leaving proponents free to claim that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are the result of robot missions. Many hoax sceptics believe that, even if future telescopes or missions were able to resolve footprints, etc, these results would also be considered 'fakery'."

The point is that the believers in the hoax haven't presented any experiment or observation that would convince them, as far as I know. I don't think the telescope proposal counts, because telescopes simply aren't anywhere near that powerful. A telescope even half the size of Hubble in orbit around the moon would be powerful enough, but that isn't going to happen. For one thing, something in low orbit around the moon is moving at nearly a mile per second relative to the ground, and anything zooming in that close to the surface would have to do a very fast exposure to keep from being blurred from the motion. Secondly, it probably isn't going to happen because there is no need to study large portions of the Moon's surface in that detail. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How is that different from what's above? 67.40.249.122 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Polite request

I have, as requested, layed out what I beleive is the totality of my edits to this page here, on the talk page. I have done this as a gesture of good faith, and to facilitate those wishing to check their veracity. I beleive I have removed some flagrant pov, corrected factual errors, made the article look better, and corrected spelling errors and typos, while adding relevant information. I would ask, in return, that anyone who disagrees take up their issue first here, before reverting without explanation. Yours, 67.40.249.122 07:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just have one question...do you think there was a government coverup that lied to the world about the lunar landings?--MONGO 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, I don't, but that doesn't mean we should write an article that sounds like propaganda. We should avoid loaded terms, weasle words, wild unsourced speculation and putting words in people's mouths and misrepresenting them, even when we disagree with them. Perhaps especially when we disagree with them. That's not giving anything undue credence, it's just doing duediligence on writing the article. 67.40.249.122 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the NASA official story inaccurate or propaganda? How is it propaganda?--MONGO 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The writing style of the article sounded like propaganda. It used leading and weasel words along with unsourced and vague attributions. I make no representations about the NASA story. 67.40.249.122 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Did this propaganda support the Official NASA details of the event?--MONGO 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to tell, it was pretty badly written, and unclear in many places. Regardless, we should not editorialise needlessly, we say this is a fringe theory, that hardly anyone beleives it, we don't then need to go an make up unsourced claims - it undermines our case. 67.40.249.122 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You said: "We should avoid ... wild unsourced speculation" . It seems to me that the whole hoax allegations are the wild specuation. It is "sourced", but not from reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that's why the title is 'hoax accusations'. I didn't write the article though. The source for the accusations seem to be pretty reliable. Some folks made some accusations, we reference the books and interviews etc where they made them. What's unreliable about that? We're not claiming that they're true. 67.40.249.122 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what is "unreliable" about showing that the claims are wrong? Can you show an instance where the counterarguements are "wild speculation"? Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes - as above - the claim that the hoax would require the complicity of 'thosands of people'. Perhaps, but no source or calculations are given for this. Is this a random authors' guess? Or does it come from someone who has made a reliable estimate? We don't know, because it's not sourced. 67.40.249.122 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just ordered Bad Astronomy, When I get the book, I'll try to give page numbers, if that will make you happy. Bubba73 (talk), 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to put it in if a hoax proponent, or a sceptic who has made some reasoned calculations, can be quoted. I hope you understand my discomfort with just plucking these figures out of the air. 67.40.249.122 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
when you say "skeptic", do you mean a skeptic of the moon landing or a skeptic of the hoax specuations? Bubba73 (talk), 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter - they should both be held to the same criteria. In this case I am reffering to a skeptic of the hoax claims - a landing believer if you like. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you deny that there were thousands of people working on the Apollo project? Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that my views of the Apollo project, or my original research about how many people I think would have had to have been complicit are relevant. I don't think yours are either - we must reference the claim. To entertain this line of argument for a moment though, I think what you're saying is that if X people worked on the project, X must be complicit. It just doesn't follow. Many of the people involved worked on tiny parts - the ones who built the lander, for example, might have built what they thought was a lander, it might even have been designed to work to the best of their knowledge - it might have sat on the launch pad, or even have been launched, without depositing people on the moon. The argument would be that only a relatively small number of people would actually have to have been complicit, the rest would be doing their job, building parts for a space program that looked like it was going to the moon. Please don't ask me to defend this position, I don't believe it, I'm just pointing out why we need to source claims. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
WP guidelines say that we don't have to source common knowledge (i.e. thousands of people worked on Apollo). However, [this], which was already in the references addresses it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So we can attribute a firm number that a particular person claims would be needed - that's fine by me, just let's say where each figure comes from and give a link so people can check how it was derived. As I mention above, the fact that X number of people worked on Apollo does not mean that X were involved. Your reference does not claim that everyone who worked on it would have to be involved. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone advise me if there's a handy system for checking sockpuppet status against a user account (Astronaught) that's been deleted? Adhib 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser -- Tom Harrison Talk 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at this, and now realise the accusation that you're making. Do you consider my cleaning up this article to be vandalism? If so, I would ask you to highlight which edits you have a problem with. I find it hard to find edits I have made that could by any stretch of the imagination be called vandalism. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep your hair on, old fruit. I make no accusation of vandalism here. It was simply that, in the short time I had available for the 'pedia yesterday, I found that in answering your deluge in two small places, on both occasions I found myself referring back to previous debates with a particular hoax-booster - your edits mapped his concerns more closely than coincidence would immediately suggest. Then I realised that there were some funny regularities in the types of spelling mistake you both make. It might simply be that you are both talking sense, and thus have very similar concerns; and that you were both educated in a way that prioritised content over form. But I thought I'd check if there might not be a more intimate relationship between the two contributions. Adhib 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks to whoever protected this page - it's important that folks discuss changes on the talk page, not simply revert without discussion. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Quid pro quo.--MONGO 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that you can accuse me of not discussing in good faith - the only things that I have reverted are reversions without comment on the talk page. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm the Wikipedian who protected the page - it seems that only one single sentence has been added to the article so far despite 20 hours of editing: [1]. I don't plan to get involved with the eidting itself, but I'll promise to check back in a few hours and see how things are going. --HappyCamper 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - can you please check which version you protected though - the picture appears to have vanished, and I don't think anyone opposes it - it just got caught in the crossfire! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"it's important that folks discuss changes on the talk page, not simply revert without discussion" Should we then go back to the version of yesterday, before 67.40.249.122 rewrote the article without visiting the talk page? Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea - I think the important thing is not the protected version, but the proposed edits on the talk page. The version yesterday contains many factual errors that I've listed here - you seem pretty reluctant to engage on most of them - if I can make a suggestion, could you go through the list of edits on the talk page, and let me know which ones you oppose, and why? A couple of your changes in the article (made without discussion) were just plain wrong, so I think discussion is important! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's start with the recent reverts you made without discussion, and we can go from there! 67.40.249.122 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my idea: Why don't we instead start with the page as it was here, and you can explain the changes you want to make. As we achieve consensus for each change, it can be added with everyone's support. Tom Harrison Talk 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my idea. Why don't you stop trying to revert (it's protected now anyway) and discuss the changes that I have already proposed on this page? I don't know why you are not interested in doing that. They are the changes that are in the live version anyway. Rather than re-introduce typos, factual errors and pov, just let me know which ones are offensive, and when we reach concensus, we can put them back. I've already done what you asked, and I'm waiting for a response. Don't worry about it being on the m:The Wrong Version, the changes are on the talk page. 67.40.249.122 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me it would be more useful to start with the last version that enjoyed consensus, and make changes to that version. I can't see why you would object to that. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I sympathise - the version right now is not the one I would prefer either, but I feel that you need to make a gesture of good faith and address which of the changes you object to - I assume that you don't want to put typos and factual errors back in. Please, stop complaining about the m:The Wrong Version, and let's get down to the task of improving the article - all the changes are listed on the talk page. I'm finding it frustrating that you show such little interest in discussing the issues, and such overwhelming interest in the version that's protected. The sooner we figure out which edits you object to, the sooner we will have a version we both agree with. 67.40.249.122 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's go through them in order. For example. First on the list. Do you want to replace the incorrect definition of Occam's Razor? 67.40.249.122 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. There's no point in both of us repeating ourselves. Maybe someone else has some ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, Tom, maybe I'm missing something here, but an admin has protected the page, and asked us to work it out on the talk page. I have listed each edit I made, and asked you to let me know which ones you object to. You stubbornly refuse to do that, instead insisting that we should revert all of them, without explaining why, even when they are obvious corrections of fact. I am finding it hard to believe that you are editing in good faith. 67.40.249.122 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. Still, I think taking a break from the discussion is the best thing I can do now. Tom Harrison Talk 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but sooner or later, if we're going to make progress on this, you're going to have to let us know which edits you don't like. See you later, 67.40.249.122 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's the last we'll see of the reversion crew until it's de-protected

After having used powers I don't have to make sure it's their prefered version that's protected (after the protection is in place) there's no reason for them to explain themselves. I guess it's just a case of might makes right. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! m:The Wrong Version! Protection isn't an endorsement of any certain version. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Katefan0 - please feel free to weigh in, my complaint was not with the version, but with admins changing it to their preffered version after it had been protected. It seemed against the spirit of HappyCamper's attempt to bring them to the discussion table. 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that two other administrators edited the page after I protected it. This does not seem quite right. Well, in the interests of fairness, I will revert back to the version that I protected - and this will be the only edit I'll make in the article. I will come back to this page in a few hours or so, as this seems to be a brewing edit war. I think I'm going to drop a note on WP:AN too, as it has made me feel a bit uncomfortable at the moment to have come across this. --HappyCamper 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That page is one of the funniest pages I've ever read. Thanks for making me feel happier today. :-) DarthVader 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - I hold out hope, but frankly they seem not to be interested in discussing the edits, only in reverting them. After having asked me to list the edits on the talk page, most go unanswered while the reverting goes on. Thanks for your help though! 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to post it, HC, but I was watching this edit warring brewing and had thought myself about protecting the page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. Well, nothing much to say on AN/I - everything seems to be good. Katefan0, have we met before on Wikipedia? Your name sounds so familiar...and the fact that you knew that I'm also known as HC for short...O Wikipedia! Sometimes I just have to wonder!! :-) --HappyCamper 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
67.40.249.122: the sheer number of your edits are hard to keep up with. I was trying to reestablish a base point and I saw your edits as attempts to minimalize the mainstream view of these events. If you can take the points a bit slower, I think most folks will be glad to address your concerns.--MONGO 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's why I listed them on the talk page - I was hoping that people who had issues might list them there, so far, little interest, and little in the way of coherence from people who did respond. Now that it's protected, I'll be certain to be slower (in fact, if anyone had asked, I would have, I didn't realise that was an issue). Why don't you have a look at the edits listed on the talk page, and tell me whether you agree with them or not, and, if not, why not? My frustration so far is that nobody has been able to explain what is wrong with the edits, simply that they want to revert them! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a productive exchange of comments. Everyone seems to be willing to listen to each other. In light of this, I'm going to get rid of the protection, and we'll take it from there? That sounds good I think. --HappyCamper 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dislike long sub-headers

I dislike long sub-headers, for example:

Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program

can be changed to

Deaths of key Apollo personnel

and External links headers could use a good tweaking. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly would not oppose this. 67.40.249.122 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
refactoring - fine - but the list above is no longer 'mine', it contains the items that we agree should be integrated into the article when it is un-protected. If you want to keep it separate, that's fine, but I'm worried about it becoming confusing. 67.40.249.122 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but if there isn't any objections I'll do it tomorrow whether its protected or not. And if other things have been added to the RC header, now I'm the one who is confused :"D. - RoyBoy 800 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm removing the protection now. Just see the comments above? I haven't seen such honest and clear comments on a talk page in a very long time. I'm actually excited to remove page protection now! --HappyCamper 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad cooler heads prevailed - can I take it that we're in agreement that we will continue to discuss these issues on the talk page before making changes on the article? 67.40.249.122 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be nothing wrong with implementing changes which have been agreed upon. - RoyBoy 800 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, naturally - I like what you've done, btw. I didn't mean that no one should touch it, I just meant let's not annoy each other too much ;) 67.40.249.122 05:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For sure, which reminds me I should check on another conspiracy article I've been meaning to wikify, but so far I've been staying away from it given the passion good faith editor is showing to the subject. But he ends up making the Kennedy assassination theories read like an essay or police report. - RoyBoy 800 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The last time I looked in on that (several months ago) it was in pretty good shape. The last time I looked at Roswell UFO incident (two months ago) it was in terrible shape. Bubba73 (talk), 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough ...

For all the nitpicking, User_of_unsettled_identity's intervention - and the resultant fine tuning - has licked this article into pretty good shape. I'm taking a few deep breaths and standing back to admire the piece. Suddenly, it ain't so bad.Adhib 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Transmission Issues #5

Personally, I think that my paragraph (after several edits) is ready to replace the original one. The original was factually incorrect in a couple of areas:

1. The accusation is simply wrong: apart from the first few seconds, in which they decided that the US-sourced feed was poor, the entire Australian broadcast came from PKS and HSK.

2. "Later images of the descent to the surface were normal television signals" - this is wrong, according to my reading. The entire EVA was transmitted from the moon in SSTV.

3. "NASA Facilities" - The Padington facility, if I read it correctly, was an ABC shop, although NASA probably took it over. Importantly, US standard television was sent to US, and the original reads like the the conversion was done in America.

OK to go ahead? Any more experienced wikipaedian like to do it?Robbak 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and be bold. --ScienceApologist 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I love this article

it's the funniest thing I've read all day--IworkforNASA 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Link: Japan fails to launch hi-res...

I don't see any reason for this link to be in the article. It wouldn't make any difference if it was launched because (1) its photo resolution is 30 meters, so it would show at most one pixel, not enough to show anything, (2) even if it did, it wouldn't convince the true-believer syndrome people. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link Japans fails to launch hi-res mapping satellite for moon mission. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Video

Have a look at this video, it'll be a note-worthy addition to the page: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280164630927881599&q=apollo --vex5 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the claim in there about showing the Earth from low orbit through a curcular window can be disproven by comparing the geographical features. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be too difficult finding a cloud ridden piece of land on the entire world's geography, althought you are right about it disproving the original idea. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There looked like there was a piece of land in the photo to me. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Another thing - if they were in low earth orbit, you would see the view of the earth changing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Low Earth Orbit. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, true. Compare that to video taken from low earth orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Also, the circular port was on the order of 10 inches in diameter, and you could get on the order of 8 feet away from it, if that far. If the Apollo was in low earth orbit at, say, 200 miles above the surface, the view would be of about a 20 mile area of the earth. That entire view would pass throuh the porthole in about 4 seconds. But it doesn't. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Link Inclusion

JoshuaZ, to your points, the link you removed is not an advert selling anything; but several linked hoax-believer sites are selling videos. It is not nn (i.e., "non-notable") given the leading source on this topic, Phil Plait, links to the same site with a good recommendation see. While it is a personal site, other links go to sites run by private individuals. The criterion for inclusion should be topicality with original content.

Also, the site appears to be the source of the "fake background" debunking involving analysis of Apollo images mentioned in the wikipedia article and so is properly referenced. The page was also posted shortly after the FOX TV program that made the "fake background" claim back in 2001 see. I can't see any reason why it should be excluded or what problem arises from its inclusion.

Hoax

Does this really belong in Category:Hoaxes? I mean, it hasn't been officially proven it is a hoax. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What hoax has ever been disproven to it's believers? The controversy will maybe be over when all humans are replaced with machines. Algr 08:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Why you can't rebuild Saturn rockets

Concerning the suggestions about rebuilding Saturn, you couldn't build a Saturn class rocket today. The design calls for too many parts that were standard issue in the 1960's, but would be difficult to find or reproduce today. Replacing such items with modern equivalents would alter system interaction in difficult to foresee ways. For example, suppose you need a reel-to reel data recorder. If you try to replace it with flash ram or a hard drive, the data IO or latency might be too fast for other systems to handle. Flash ram might be damaged by voltage fluctuations that the older tech would ignore. And the reduced weight of many such substitutions could throw the rocket off balance.

Of course none of these issues alone are unsolvable, but if you add up thousands of them, you would have to do so much testing and redesign that you would be better off starting with a clean slate. As for the increased time, in the absence of soviet competition, the project is probably expected to be much cheaper, as well as having higher expectations of safety. Algr 08:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV petard

This is just another example of Wikipedia getting hoisted on its own NPOV petard and being manipulated by quacks to lend legitimacy to their views. Treating patently stupid conspiracy theories as if they have legitimacy helps them gain legitimacy. Impressionable people will see these idiots' fables treated seriously and assume there is a good reason.

NPOV is an admirable goal, but the policy should be tempered with a COMMON SENSE clause. "If it walks like a duck..." etc... If a quack is a quack, it's not an NPOV issue to correctly and factually identify him as quack!ElectricJoe 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to err on the side of respect, and let the facts do the talking. One thing we ought to mention early though is that Moon hoax proponents continue to spread even the most easily disproved "evidence" (like no-stars) without caveat years after the flaws have been presented to them. Algr 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ElectricJoe, This issue has been dealt with by wikipedia policy makers already. See the pseudoscience section of WP:NPOV. What we have to do is just report what they believe and note that it is definitely not the mainstream view. Worrying about 'impressionable people' isn't our concern. WP is a reporter of information, not a guardian of truth.
And more generally, I think the 'conspiracy theory' section is written in a far too condescending tone. It is written as if the reader needs to be educated on how to determine the veracity of claims in general. For instance, I think the whole first paragraph that seeks to educate the reader on how to test conspiracy theories should be removed. I think Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Creationism are good examples of how ideas that have been debunked by the mainstread can be handled well.
Ashmoo 07:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Ashmoo. As the Moon Hoax article is now written it is a terrible farce of NPV standards. If the article is about the Moon Hoax then the article should explain the Moon Hoax, and nothing else.
The first time I heard about the Moon Hoax I thought, "Why on Earth would someone think that?" And that is the point of using Wikipedia, to learn what a subject is all about.
The 5 W's: Who, What, When, Where and Why are here and accounted for. Unfortunately so is a lot of other personal beliefs that clutter and confuse the article. This article can be easily and quickly streamlined to an efficent NPV article by removing all the counter claims against the Moon Hoax. This article is, after all, about the Moon Hoax, not whether it is true or not. Readers will need to form their own opinions, not have one handed to them. I plan on removing all the rebutals and streamlining the article to the 5 W's unless someone can explain why all the rebutal clutter is needed.DartFrog 04:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be new here - welcome. There are many Wikipedia articles that present both sides of an issue. Refer to Wikipedia policies, such as Wikipedia:NPOV. In particular, the Pseudoscience section says represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories, and the "Comparison of views in science" section: A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. There are probably other relevant policies too. Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual error regarding Antarctic meteorites

Seeing this makes me realize I really should create an account.

However, the first Antarctic meteorite discovery was made in 1969 by a Japanese team

This is incorrect. The first antarctic meteorite was found by the Australian explorer Douglas Mawson in 1912. See http://www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/collections/specimens.htm, other sources should be easy to find.

The Japanese were the first to do it in a big way:

The Japanese on the other side of the continent were the first to discover in 1967 that meteorites might be concentrated on ice zones swept by katabatic winds and have by now recovered 16,500 of them (from http://www.rosssea.info/meteorites.html)

I'm just quickly doing this from work, and I don't have an account, so I'll leave correcting this in the article to someone more experienced than me.

Falsifiability

The "falsifiability" section has gotten messed up. The first sentence is currently "For a claim to be regarded as scientific, there must be testable means by which it could be determined to be true or false. This criterion is called falsifiability." Falsifiability is not whether something can be proven true or false - it means that if it is false it is possible to prove that it is false. Bubba73 (talk), 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you are removing important information, and I don't see how your version is any less POV than what was there before. Guinnog 15:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please give specific examples. The problem was the previous version gave way too much credit to hoax conspiracy theorists and not enough credit to the points that the conspiracy defies falisifiability and that the lunar reflectors are an excellent counter to the hoaxers' claims. --ScienceApologist 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I reviewed your changes and accept them. I am definitely on your side in this btw, but had to take some time out there as I was enraged by IWorkforNASA's rudeness. Guinnog 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I copyedited this since it is now misleading the other way! For great justice. 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Just beware -- always remember to never say "always" or "never"... or "ALL". Wahkeenah 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the relevance of this section anyway? I mean, this isn't a scientific experiment, it's a conspiracy theory. We don't note that the JFK assasination is not falsifiable - beyond the observation that the experiment to go look for footprints has not been done, what's the point? For great justice. 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to make major changes

I think the article is badly cluttered, violates the NPOV standard and can be improved. This is what I propose:

""The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax is a series of claims alleging that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked by NASA. Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the claim as baseless. According to a 1999 Gallup poll, about 6% of the population of the U.S. has doubts that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon. (Plait 2002:156) "Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals," Gallup said of this, "it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them; so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread."

Introduction The hoax is alternately referred to as "The Moon Landing Hoax", "The Moon Hoax", or "The Apollo Hoax". The different titles do not infer different beliefs, they are simply alternate ways in which theorists refer to the Moon </wiki/Moon> landings of Apollo 11 </wiki/Apollo_11> on July 20 </wiki/July_20>, 1969 </wiki/1969> and subsequent missions.

Although the different hoax accounts do not differentiate themselves with unique titles, they can be broken down into three basic, yet separate, beliefs. Each of the three theories are conspiratorial in nature and each theory holds differing views towards the official United States government’s account of the events. These three common theories are:

1) That N.A.S.A. faked the first moon visit, (the Apollo11 visit), but that all subsequent visits were indeed true and happened as N.A.S.A. claims. This initial fakery was to allow the U.S. beat the U.S.S.R. in the space race to the moon.

2) That none of the N.A.S.A. moon visits ever happened, but were instead staged and pre-filmed on Earth </wiki/Earth>.

3) That the Apollo missions did indeed reach the moon, however, the astronauts encountered either aliens or alien structures. Therefore the actual footage was withheld from public viewing and new, staged footage, was shot to replace the original footage.

� History In 1969 rumors that the Apollo landings were full of trickery began to circulate soon after the Apollo 11 mission. In his book A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar orbit mission in December 1968, such conspiratorial stories were in circulation as rumored facts.

The Flat Earth Society </wiki/Flat_Earth_Society> lodged one of the earliest complaints about the veracity of the Apollo missions. The primary basis of their claim was that various "earthrise" photos from Apollo 8 did not square with their belief that the Earth is flat.. Also playwright Desmond Lowden wrote a play called The News-Benders in 1967 in which all major technological advances since 1945 were shown to have been simulated; the play was televised in January 1968 and showed a Moon landing faked with models.


In 1971 a brief sequence in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever appears to show a Moon landing being simulated.

In 1974 Bill Kaysing was the first to publish such claims as factual in his self-published book with Randy Reid, We Never Went To The Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. Kaysing can be considered the father of the Moon Hoax theories because of his book

In 1978 the idea grew significantly in popularity after the release of the movie Capricorn One , which portrays a NASA attempt to fake a landing on Mars .

In 1992 Ralph Rene wrote “NASA Mooned America”.

In 1999 “Dark Moon: Apollo and The Whistle Blowers” was written by Mary Bennet and David Percy.

In 2001 Fox Entertainment Group aired a program, on FOX channels, called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

Also in 2001 Bart Sibrel created and released the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon”. He also offers DVD‘s entitled “Astronauts Gone Wild”, “Apollo 11 Monkey Business”, and “Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference”.

In 2003 Charles T. Hawkins wrote “How America Faked The Moon Landings” and a subsequent video production of the same name followed in 2004 � Arguments In dealing with the Moon Hoax, whether supporting or attempting to debunk the Moon landings, it is not immediately possible to prove or disprove the theories. Both sides of the debate discuss complex engineering and physics </wiki/Physics>concepts, such as: trigonometry </wiki/Trigonometry>, quantum or statistical mathematics, rocket </wiki/Rocket> propulsion, avionics </wiki/Avionics>, computer engineering </wiki/Computer_engineering>, general engineering as well as geology </wiki/Geology> and a myriad other sciences, that are far beyond the scope of understanding for the majority of individuals, thus rendering any truly scientific debate impossible on the layman's level. But, as noted before, the landings are accepted as factual by nearly all mainstream scientists who have studied the issue.

The Moon Hoax argument, however, does not always rely on scientific argument or theory per-se. Instead, the Moon Hoax argument uses refusal to accept an already existing scientific argument to debunk the Moon landings on the grounds that they are non-falsifiable. The logic used is that no one, outside of the Astronauts, can know for certain if they ever walked on the moon and therefore no one else can possibly prove otherwise. The public, it is argued, is left to simply take the Astronauts ‘ and N.A.S.A.‘s word on the matter.

Another approach used to circumvent a lack of technical knowledge is to appeal to "common sense" logic. This approach to attacking science puts the Moon Hoax theory at a decided advantage. Hoax proponents are free to make rebuttal after rebuttal to the Moon landing's veracity, thus requiring science to go on the defense and answer the rebuttals while bogging the reader down in the difficult language and concepts of advanced science.

An example of the "common sense" approach to shooting down scientific evidence is the fact that Apollo missions 11, 14, and 15 left retroreflectors </wiki/Retroreflector> on the Moon [1] <http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_Experiments_LRRR.html>, which scientists can reflect lasers off of to measure the distance between Earth and the Moon (see Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment </wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment>). These reflectors are often offered as evidence for the landing.

The "common sense" issue with this evidence is that the typical person does not own a laser transmitter nor the other necessary equipment and knowledge to conduct the experiment. Hoax believers also point out that reflectors can be placed by robot missions. The Lunokhod 2 </wiki/Lunokhod_2> mission, for example, left a French-built mirror on the surface of the moon. [2] http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunaye8.htm


Some have thought using a high powered telescope </wiki/Telescope> to view the Apollo landing sites would settle the issue in a simple manner. They reason that one would be able to see if there is indeed any evidence left on the Moon's surface by the astronauts. Unfortunately, telescopes currently available lack the magnification power to perform this experiment; leaving hoax proponents free to demand evidence of actual human foot prints. Many supporters of the Moon landings fear that, even if future telescopes or missions were able to resolve footprints, these results would still be considered 'fakery'.

The larger issue here is that mechanical remains on the moon cannot, strictly, be used as evidence for human landing. They do demonstrate that landings took place, but fail to prove that a human was part of the landing exercise.

Hoax Claims, Issues, and Controversies A brief treatment of some of the arguments is given below. For more detail and discussion, including counter arguments, see the external links. [edit </w/index.php?title=Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations&action=edit&section=5>]

Issues of photographs Believers in the hoax have alleged various issues with photographs apparently taken on the Moon.These include: 1. Photos and video show dozens of seeming anomalies. From the placement of view finder crosshairs on the photos, to horizons that seem to disappear within 20 feet. 2. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart. 3. A lack of stars in photos that show the sky. 4. The appearance of intersecting shadows, overly bright spots on the ground, and objects, such as the Flag of the U.S.A., lighting up in pitch black shadows. 5. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by radiation or melted in the heat. 6. The lack of a blast crater under the Landing Module (LM). 7. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon. 8. On the Moon launch to return to Earth the rocket produced no visible flame and the LM appeared to pop off the moon as if on stings. 9. The computing technology and software of the 1960’s Apollo program seems tremendously insufficient to accomplish such a technical and comprehensive task. 10. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica </wiki/Antarctica>. The rocks could also have been collected by un-manned space craft. 11. N.A.S.A.’s seeming inability to return to the moon, despite the fact that technologies and N.A.S.A. have advanced significantly over the last 38 years. 12. That Russia never made a trip to the moon, despite the fact that they were in a race with the U.S.A. 13. That no country, except the U.S.A., has made a trip to the moon. 14. The belief that the astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to intense radiation from the Van Allen belts </wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt>.

These are just some of the numerous, and more common, claims one will find when seeking to understand the claims that the U.S.A. never placed a man on the moon. For every claim made there seems to be a web site devoted to explaining the anomalies in scientific terms. There are numerous web sites, books, and videos that claim evidence of a hoax and cover up, as well as, ones that discount such claims. Use some of the links at the end of this article to look deeper into the issues.




Deaths of key Apollo personnel In a television program about the hoax theory, </wiki/Fox_Entertainment_Group> listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup. Ted Freeman </wiki/Ted_Freeman> (T-38 </wiki/T-38_Talon> crash, 1964) Elliott See </wiki/Elliott_See> and Charlie Bassett </wiki/Charles_Bassett> (T-38 accident, 1966) Virgil "Gus" Grissom </wiki/Virgil_Grissom> (supposedly an outspoken critic of the Space Program) (Apollo 1 </wiki/Apollo_1> fire, January 1967) Ed White </wiki/Edward_Higgins_White> (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967) Roger Chaffee </wiki/Roger_Chaffee> (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967) Ed Givens </wiki/Edward_Givens> (car accident, 1967) C. C. Williams </wiki/Clifton_Williams> (T-38 accident, October 1967) X-15 </wiki/X-15> pilot Mike Adams </wiki/Michael_J._Adams> (the only X-15 pilot killed in November 1967 during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles). Robert Lawrence </wiki/Robert_Henry_Lawrence%2C_Jr.>, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory </wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory> pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later cancelled) program. NASA worker Thomas Baron </w/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron&action=edit> train crash, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired. Ruled as suicide. Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced James Irwin </wiki/James_Irwin>, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Kaysing about it; however he died of a heart attack </wiki/Heart_attack> in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred. Landing believers explain these deaths by pointing out that spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin </wiki/James_Irwin> had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all bar one of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier. [edit </w/index.php?title=Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations&action=edit&section=14>]

Motives Several motives have been put forward by hoax proponents for the U.S. government </wiki/United_States_government> to fake the Moon landings - some recurrent elements are: Distraction - The U.S. government sought to distract the public from the Vietnam War </wiki/Vietnam_War>. Conspiracy theorists note that lunar activities stopped abruptly, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. Cold War </wiki/Cold_War> Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race </wiki/Space_race> with the USSR </wiki/Soviet_Union>. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. They argue that despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success, than to actually go. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars going to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted. The Soviets, with their own competing moon program </wiki/Soviet_Moonshot> and an intense economic, political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Conspiracy theorist Ralph Rene </wiki/Ralph_Rene> argues that the USSR was bought off with secret shipments of grain. Others argue that the lack of evidence from any Communist bloc </wiki/Communist_bloc> countries constitutes the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet complicity might be thought to implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators, all of uncertain loyalty. [edit </w/index.php?title=Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations&action=edit&section=15>]

Apollo Hoax in Pop culture On an episode of Fox TV's Family Guy </wiki/Family_Guy>, a flashback shows the ending of filming the hoax, with Neil Armstrong walking out of the studio and a pedestrian seeing him. When the pedestrian asks why he is not in space, Neil Armstrong kills him. In season 1 episode 3 of Futurama </wiki/Futurama>, Fry and Leela find the Lunar landing equipment on the moon. They are not the first ones to do so -- a plaque inside the lander reveals that it (either the complete lander or the capsule, as it would have blasted back into space) was (re)placed in its current position by the "Historical Sticklers Society". On an episode of Futurama, when the crew is mysteriously flung back in time to 1949, President Truman </wiki/President_Truman> requests that Zoidberg </wiki/Zoidberg>, an alien, be taken to Area 51 </wiki/Area_51> for study. When informed that Area 51 is the location for the faked moon landing, he orders that NASA be invented and get to work. The Red Hot Chili Peppers </wiki/Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers> song "Californication </wiki/Californication_%28song%29>" features the lyric "Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement." The video game Grand Theft Auto:Vice City </wiki/Vice_City> contains a motion picture studio with a lunar landscape set. A 2006 commercial for Red Bull </wiki/Red_Bull> features astronauts who, after drinking Red Bull, "have wings" and are unable to actually set foot on the moon. They are instructed by Huston to return to Earth so the scene can be shot in a studio instead. Worms 3D, a videogame by UK Software developers Team17, contains a level depicting a movie sound stage replete with moon landscape and a lunar landing module. One level in Midway's remake of the classic arcade shooter, Area 51, takes place on a moon landing set, complete with a cardboard-cutout astronaut and fake LEM. The video for the Rammstein </wiki/Rammstein> song "Amerika </wiki/Amerika_%28Rammstein_song%29>" depicts the band on a movie set wearing NASA suits and a heavy theme of the video is the faking of the moon landing. The book The Loony: a novella of epic proportions (published in April 2005) by Christopher WunderLee tells the story of an astrophysicist's role in assisting NASA in faking the lunar landings. The book details the implications of 'knowing the truth' and the massive coverup. On an episode of Friends </wiki/Friends>, Joey asks Phoebe for a good lie, and she responds, "Okay how about the whole "man landing on the moon"-thing. I mean, you can see the strings people!!!" ""

I think this a start. Give me feed back please. DartFrog 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I am against these changes. The article could be restructured. However, I think many people looking this up on Wikipedia will be trying to understand what the arguements and issues are. If all of the counterarguements are taken out, little information is given to the reader. We shouldn't have another article that gives the counterarguements because that would be a POV fork, which is against Wikipedia policy. Also, Wikipedia policy says that the majority mainstream scientific viewpoint should be given in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about more of a format like this :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Green_Cheese_Model_of_Lunar_Composition. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing only 14 mentions of hoax arguments to show what the idea of the hoax is. I have not explained any of these in detail because the article is not to prove that the landing is a hoax.Only to present the hoax. I have also not presented the scientific counter points beause, again, the article is not to prove that we did go to the moon. The point is to present the hoax. I can add a larger paragraph pointing to mainstream thoughts on the hoax, but, if we were to venture too far from the task of presenting the hoax theory we would surely be leaving the realm of informing readers and instead be engaging in a debate. Arguments that we did go to the Moon have their own forum under Apollo 11, NASA, etc. There we present that we did go to the moon. On the hoax article we report the hoax. Seems simple to me. More thoughts? I don't want this to be difficult. Any one who is adament that the hoax be thoroughly rebuked should edit the Apollo articles to reflect that we did go to the moon.

DartFrog 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the material you are taking out belongs somewhere in WP. Putting it somewhere else is forking, which we shouldn't do. I don't think it makes sense to put the refutations of the hoax allegations in the articles you mentioned, because they would seem to come out of left field. For instance "we went to the moon because the flag isn't actually waving, there are no stars in the photos because... " This is my opinion. Bubba73 (talk),
I wouldn't advise treating it that way either. I would deal with the landings own points if I wanted to show that the landing was real. I would not engage in an endless display of one-up-manship. The flag waving is a simple claim and does not need addressing. If you do address it you open the door for a counter rebutal. We can already see this happening in this article. I don't care if this article leaves people wondering if we went or not. I want people to understand the hoax. They can make up their own minds. (By DartFrog, I believe)
If the article just states that the flag was waving as if it was blowing in the wind and doesn't give the real reason, that it misleading. The pro-conspiracy TV programs show a short clip of the flag waving while the astronauts are putting it up. They don't show it sitting there for 30 minutes doing absolutely nothing after the astronauts leave it (which is actually in the Apollo 11 video). That is basically selective quoting. Also, they show still photographs where it appears to be waving, but you can tell that it is simply wrinkled. It was nylon, not cotton, which is stiffer. Also, the 1/6 gravity on the moon may mean that it is less likely to straighten out. Also, it isn't a standard flag pole - it has a right angle piece at the top from which the flag hangs. To leave this information out would be a mistake, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Another point, should we go into detail as to why one theory is better than the other? Why is it more likly that ailiens were found on the moon as opposed to why NASA faked it all to beat Russia? Ofcourse not. No one is over at the Flat Earth Scociety article explaining geometry and calculus and how the belief is wrong. To introduce counter arguments in an article intended to explain a subject is violating the NPOV criterian.

DartFrog 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The counter arguments are a key part of the phernomermon.Geni 08:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Listing the arguments without stating the counter-arguments is total POV, and simply spreads misinformation. This is at the core of all pseudoscience. Pseudoscience concentrates mainly on finding as many naive converts as possible, getting them to believe something, and then demonizing the opposition that has to clean up the mess. It is about scoring converts, not finding the truth. Real scientific discussions never simply ignore counterarguments - each side adapts and adjusts, finding evidence and realistic mechanisms for how things work until consensus is reached. An unbiased work must cover both sides of any discussion. Algr 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Bubba73's and Algr's concerns are valid. The counter-arguments need to remain in the article to give the reader a balanced and accurate presentation. Tom Harrison Talk 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Common sense?

An edit on March 27, 2006 listed the article saying that common sense are used against the "scientific" evidence for the moon landings. I have doubts as to whether or not "common sense" is the right term. The common sense article says

is what people in common would agree; that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common".

The percentage of people that believe the landings were hoaxed is quite small, so how "common" is that? To me, common sense cuts the other way. The article says that "common sense" tells you that the reflectors (used as evidence of a landing) could have been put there by machines. But I think that common sense tells me that they are evidence for the landing, since no non-manned landings have taken place in those areas (except for Apollo 12, and Apollo 12 didn't leave a reflector). In the reasoning of the article, if we eventually see footprints on the moon, "common sense" would say that they could have been put there by a machine, but my common sense would say that they would be put there by people. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For instance, my common sense tells me something different about the reflectors than what is in the article: If they were going to fake the landings then they would not have even bothered with the reflectors. How convincing would that be to the average person - very few people can shoot a laser beam at the Moon and detect its reflection. So to me, common sense says that they would not even have bothered with the reflectors to use as a proof of a landing. Bubba73 (talk), 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but unsure what to do with it. The entire concept of "common sense" I think refers to easily confused and incorrect assumptions made regarding this issue, under the guise of "common sense". Perhaps we could put a caveat, one man's "common sense" is another's "common folly". But regarding the footsteps, it is a matter of what would be easier. Putting a robot up there to do it is easier, that's the kind of common sense its referring to. - RoyBoy 800 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"... but unsure what to do with it" - me too. As far as it being easier to do it with robots - there is no evidence of that. The only reason to think that robots might have made the footprints is because you can't accept that people made the footprints. And that is going about it backwards. Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole common sense thing reads really weirdly. Can we source this argument from somewhere, or is it just speculation? For great justice. 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

800

RoyBoy, when I added two side-by side photos today, I wanted to make them as large as possoble but still show them side-by-side at 800x600. They are 320 pixels wide. Is that the best size? Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Buzz

The two Buzz photos look identical to me - the caption says he is saluting on one, but he;s not - so I removed one. For great justice. 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the photos. It is clearer in the higher resolution versions that you can get if you click on the photo. The caption for the first one from the source says that Aldrin is saluting. In the higher resolution version of it, you can clearly see two fingers of the glove of his right hand up at his helmet. In the second photo, it is clear that he has turned slightly toward the camera, and facial features of a person facing the camera are visible. If you compare the two photos, it is also clear that they are framed slightly differently. I'm going to restore the photos. Bubba73 (talk), 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you might want to caption them more clearly, with that explanation - at the res they are, they look identical. For great justice. 22:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the thing that looks like his right hand in each frame? For great justice. 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it must be a hose or strap. In the photo where you can see his fingers at the helment visor, you can also see part of his arm at the bottom of the visor. Bubba73 (talk), 23:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
See the front view at Apollo 11. Bubba73 (talk), 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - how would you feel if I cropped these to blow up the relevant bit? I find it quite difficult to see at this res? For great justice. 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this? For great justice. 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that great! The only thing is that you need to state the origin of the photos and copyright information. Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've done that. For great justice. 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:AldrinFlag1a.jpegImage:AldrinFlag2a.jpeg

Laser reflectors

I'm not happy with the paragraph about the laser reflectors. If hoax beleivers think that they weren't carried by manned Apollo missions, then how did they get there? It is true that they can be put there by unmanned missions, but I know of no evidence that there were any such missions that could have put the reflectors there. Bubba73 (talk), 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is simply that the presence of laser reflectors does not proove a manned landing. For great justice. 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I like to stop by now and then, and see what stage this hoax nonsense is in. Surely you must realize that no fact or set of facts is going the change the moonbats' minds. The JFK assassination-conspiracy industry has pretty well run its course, so they had to turn elsewhere for their entertainment. The argument that we might have sent a rocket to the moon (successfully, yet) to plant a laser reflector, just so we could pretend we sent men there, is one of their more desperate notions. Wahkeenah 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, either the reflectors got there on the (A) manned Apollo missions or (B) by robots. And there is no evidence of robot missions to the moon that took the reflectors. If it is either A or B and it is not B then it must be A. Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, it's not at all clear that not having evidence of unmanned missions counts as evidence of manned missions. No being able to proove B does not proove A. I agree with you, but your logic is faulty I'm afraid. For great justice. 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Even things that are scientifically proven aren't absolutely certain. You have to look at the evidence and then draw your conclusion. There is a lot of evidence that the reflectors were left there my Apollo astronauts. There is no evidence that the ones at the claimed Apollo landing sites were left there by robotic missions. People who claim that already have their conclusion, which is not based onevidence. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the evidence is not actually conclusive. The problem is not a simply 'is there more evidence for X or Y?' because the claim being made is that the evidence for X was cleverly faked. This complicates things significantly. For great justice. 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is overwhelming evidence for one and none for the other. Use common sense and Occam's razor. The only reason some people think that the reflectors were put there by robots is because they have already made up their mind that the manned landings didn't happen, regardless of the evidence. It is also "possible" that aliens put the reflectors on the Moon, but I haven't seen any evidence for that. Also, some people claim that the Germans went to the Moon in the early 1940s, even before the V2. It is possible they left the reflectors there (even though lasers hadn't been invented yet), but I don't see any evidence of that either. Bubba73 (talk), 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to tell you - you've made up your mind. That doesn't make the logical claim you're making more compelling though. The issue with complex conspiracy claims is that they can't be treated like lab experiments. Occams's razor doesn't make any sense if you think someone might be trying to cleverly trick you, because they might do something very complex. For great justice. 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Laughable theories are easy to rebut

You want make the hoax rebuttals easy by only mentioning those theories that are just worth a laugh. See Percy's videos an try to rebut that. That's the real work. That's the challenge.--tequendamia 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea here is that everyone who claims there was a Moon hoax belongs to the Flat Earth Society. User:Tequendamia 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, just that the mentality is similar. As far as the ease of rebuttals, this is technically known as "shooting fish in a barrel". :) Wahkeenah 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. THis page is a PRO-APOLLO page. It only presents arguments that are easily to rebutt.

Go this page http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/ and try to rebutt the allegations. They can't this is why some Pro-Apollo Nut keeps removing the link. User:206.148.32.71 23:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no interest in wasting my time promoting hoaxes, but the larger picture of this, of a fringe minority clinging to a belief that runs counter to accepted history and available evidence, is of some interest as a social phenomenon. That's why I voted in favor of keeping it. Meanwhile, if you want to pose a question that has no reasonable explanation, then by all means do it, for the sake of fairness and balance and truthiness. Start small. Post a single question from that link that has no reasonable explanation. Gofer it. Wahkeenah 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see you've posted it. You didn't transfer any of its alleged issues, but assuming the pics are genuine, I think you've answered the question someone had in some other section about how they did testing for the lunar landing. A contraption like that page shows squares with what I would have expected. Kudos for finding it (even if that's not what you had in mind). Wahkeenah 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. The links have been removed again. Seriously this is getting out of control.

  • They might take you more seriously, if you would sign your posts. Put four tilde markers after your comments. Beyond that, you need to take this up with whoever deleted it. In checking that site out, though, it looked the usual circular reasoning, i.e. the premise that "the government is lying" is used to "prove" that "the government is lying". Wahkeenah 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Has anyone considered the queerness of the fact that the flag is blowing as if there were wind, which there isn't on the moon? --195.229.242.54 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that the flag isn't blowing. For instance, look at the video of the flag when the astronauts aren't handling it. And look at the two photos in the article taken a few seconds apart, when the flag doesn't change. Bubba73 (talk), 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ha

you people still crack me up, just keep on fearing the big bad government who has nothing better to do that fake a moon landing--IworkforNASA 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You might soon have to figure out how to fake a Shuttle launch. What has it been, 3 years now since the most recent catastrophe, and only 1 launch since then? Wahkeenah 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

telescopes and satelites

A probe similar to Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in low orbit around the Moon would have enough resolving power to see the lander and some other large things. It wouldn't be enough to see footprints. Such a mission could happen. Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag II

Where's the flagpole's shadow? And the flag's? (are you thick or are you tired...) Anon2 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually - he's right, it's a continuity error, plus, if you look closely on this frame, you can see the wires that Buzz is suspended from coming out of his backpack! For great justice. 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
THE SAND LOOKS WET LIKE BEACH SAND [based on what?] AND THE FLAG DOESN'T CAST A SHADOW [wrong!]
THE SAND LOOKS WET LIKE BEACH SAND [based on what?] AND THE FLAG DOESN'T CAST A SHADOW [wrong!]
You guys are basing your discusion on one photograph, when in reality there was video footage and thousands of photographs. The choice of the photo, demonstrates on which side you stand.--tequendamia 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wires? That's the antenna. But the flagpole's shadows. Can't see 'm. What's the NASA archive number of this one? Anon2 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuity error? What about plain old botched-up photoshop job? Anon2 00:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - there are are camera and lighting cabels all over, and a sound boom in the top of frame! For great justice. 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes: AS11-40-5875 here. It's those damn shadows again. Anon2 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't put all of the photos in this article. Here's a different view (from the LM 16mm movie camera) taken at about the same time, and it shows the flag's shadow. (talk), 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Bubba73, let me repeat: are you thick or are you tired? Or a NASA-shill? Anon2 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Different view of the flag, showing that the flag's shadow is out of the frame of the photo taken by Armstrong from the surface; the sand still looks wet [BASED ON WHAT?], not enough sun light to dry it up?
Different view of the flag, showing that the flag's shadow is out of the frame of the photo taken by Armstrong from the surface; the sand still looks wet [BASED ON WHAT?], not enough sun light to dry it up?

Bubba73

  • Excellent... a film frame taken at the exact moment of the picture in question. It is clear that the flag's shadow, as with Aldrin's upper body, are out of frame to the right in the side shot. Here is a high angle photo of the flag [2] and it reinforces what the film frame indicates, that much of the shadow of the flag's staff would be hidden by the irregular surface. The photos are all consistent with each other. As for the side shot, I'm sure if Armstrong had realized what a big deal a handful of people in Generation X were going to make, he would have taken a wider angle shot to show the flag's shadow. In fact, for all we know, he might have. Critics would need to study ALL the photos from the mission, not just the handful of what NASA regarded as the most photogenic examples, to reach a definitive conclusion. Wahkeenah 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Although, you seem to be invoking secret hidden knowledge, a sure sign of a conspiracy theorist! ;) For great justice. 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, to paraphrase an old line, what should I believe, what the moonbats tell me, or my own eyes? :) Wahkeenah 02:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know - did you see the landings with your own eyes? ;) For great justice. 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Technically, no one did, except the astronauts. Maybe they fooled NASA and filmed all this stuff in a garage in Ohio. Wahkeenah 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe! ;) For great justice. 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And now that I'm looking at the high angle film shot vs. the high angle photo shot taken at a different time, please note that the supposedly "waving" flag is in the exact same posture. The moonbats are hoist by their own petard yet again. :) Wahkeenah 01:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The more you study these photos, the more interesting they get. This one which I cited earlier [3] indicates that most of the staff's shadow would have been hidden on that side view, by a little ridge of dust, except for one little area, where the surface rises as the shadow of the staff is about to meet the shadow of the flag... and on the side view, you can see that little sliver of the staff's shadow near the right edge. Again, the photos are consistent with each other. And, again, look at the flags... they are in identical posture, just as Bubba was discussing earlier. If they were truly "waving", that would not be possible. The only difference in them is slightly different lighting due to the sun angle having shifted slightly. Awesome stuff! Wahkeenah 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The shadows of Buzz Aldrin's legs are barely three pixels tall at some points. How thick would you therefore expect the flagpole's shadow to be? If you look carefully, you can actually see a hint of it on the extreme right side of the photo. (The shadow of the actual flag is off frame.) Also, interesting that some people think they have an intuitive sense of what moon dust ought to look like. Algr 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the soil look wet? Do you think it looks "wet" because it is darker? If so, look at the new link to a video clip Aldrih hopping, mocie camera and use your slider to go from the front to the back (and back and fourth) and look to the left, "behind" the flag. You can see that as dust is kicked up, the soil looks darker. Bubba73 (talk), 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A useful comparison to odd photos.

If we are to discuss quirks in the nasa photos, it would be appropriate to discuss photography itself - specifically the question of what sort of quirks and unexpected results would you expect to occur by accident in real photos. I notice that hoax supporters have no knowledge of photography, beyond pointing at anything they don't understand as proof of their belief. I recall seeing a news photo of two women at the airport hugging as they greeted each other. (I think one of them was Jacqueline Kennedy - it was 1960's fashions) Because of the angle of the pose, and one woman's head being exactly behind the other, it looked like one smiling head attached to two bodies! You really couldn't tell which body the head was supposed to be on! This is the sort of thing that can happen by pure chance without anyone faking anything. Algr 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lunokhod

This is a minor point, but the article says "Due to a malfuntion on the Lunokhod mission, its mirrors are not as accurately placed as the Apollo mirrors." Reading Lunokhod 2 and elsewhere, it seems that Lunokhod 1 never returned any laser reflections and Lunokhod 2 only returned them for a while and then quit. Lunokhod 2 seems to have suddenly failed and left the mirror in the wrong position. In the picture, the thing on the arm in front (on the left of the photo) looks like a reflector attached to the Lunokhod. Bubba73 (talk), 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make the changes! For great justice. 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No lunokhod 1 return signals in it's manovering phase. Lunokhond 2 is still used[4].Geni 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I had changed it based on info on Wikipedia. It needs to be changed again. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to take pictures

What was the reason behind the speedy deletion of the counterargument to that it would have been necessary to take one picture every 15th second? Should not things that are mentioned also have the reason for rejecting that line of reasoning mentioned? It is trivial to see the error J. White does by looking at his webpage. (He does not take into acocunt that there are two, and not one, astronauts on the surface.)Mossig 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • See below. For Apollo 11, only Armstrong held the camera, which probably actually made the process go faster. Meanwhile, what is the basis for their claim about how often pictures were taken? Maybe during the interval that pictures were taken, it was that fast, and why couldn't it have been anyway? Get your camera out. You can take pictures at least one every 15 seconds, even if you've got heavy gloves on. Wahkeenah 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm probably not being totally clear. The point on Apollo 11 is that, although there were two astronauts, only one was taking pictures (all or most of the time), so while it is true there were two astronauts there, the implication that they were both taking lots of photos is not correct. That's the reason I deleted it. As for the 1 every 15 seconds argument, they don't offer any actual proof of that, they just expect us to take their word for it. Given the moonbats' poor track record on evaluating qualitative evidence, I certainly wouldn't trust their arithmetic. Wahkeenah 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read J. Whites analysis. You have a point regarding Apollo 11, but he attacks all the flights i the same way. And all his calculations have the same errors. See: http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html and compare with my comments below. Mossig 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I only needed to read the first paragraph or two to realize the writer is a moron. I'm going to take your word for it and assume that his calculations are bogus, since he starts with a false assumption. If you want to add your comments back to the article, just keep the Armstrong situation in mind, and also see if there is any info on the minimum time required to take a photo. Then multiply that by the number of photos and you might find that the total minimum time required is far less than the total EVA time. Or maybe not. But I have other things to do today besides chase down these bogus leads by lunatics like that one page. I'm reminded of the assertion that "Oswald could not possibly have fired 4 shots in 6 seconds". Well, they tend forget the added time up front for lining up the first shot. Actually, they don't forget it, they leave it out, because it undermines their theory. "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" Wahkeenah 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On a different note - I think I must have misunderstood you - you're suggesting that Oswald shot JFK?! I don't think even the CIA are claiming that any longer. For great justice. 23:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you know that they shot JFK because he knew that the moon landing was going to be hoaxed?  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't pretend to know which person or persons shot JFK, I'm just saying it's possible that Oswald could have done it, contrary to the usual conspiracy theories. I was also convinced from day 1 that he had a part in it, because of what he said to a reporter who asked him, "Did you kill the President?" He answered, "I have not been accused of that, in fact I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question." It sounded like a rehearsed answer. The first part of that, of course, refers to the fact that he was under arrest for Police Officer Tippitt's murder at that moment. I don't think we'll ever know all the facts of the JFK assassination, for the same reason we'll never know all the facts of the Lincoln conspiracy: most everyone is dead by now. Could JFK have been a Mafia hit? Most certainly it could have been. They certainly had reason enough to. Anyway, it's suppertime. Bye. :) Wahkeenah 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo timing

There are some statements about the time between photos being "implausibly high", without offering any convincing evidence to that effect. However, where Apollo 11 is concerned anyway, virtually all the photos were taken by Armstrong, hence he appears in very few of them. As one user suggested, many were taken in rapid succession (the two similar side views with the flag indicate this) and the timing seems perfectly plausible to me. Armstrong holding the camera all the time presumably made the photo-taking go faster, as there was no trading off, no fumbling with it, just Armstrong clicking away. After they got back to the earth, maybe someone thought, "Gee, it would have been nice to get Neil in a few of the shots. Too late!" As National Geographic pointed out, "The trouble with holding the camera is that you don't get into the picture!" Wahkeenah 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you intended to write "implausable low"? And regarding Apollo 11: If one divides the time of the EVA (151 minutes) by the number of photos (121), and assumes only one camera in operation, one arrives at one picture every 74th second. The only way to arrive at the "one photo every 15th second" is to follow the calculations by J. White, in which he deducts the time spent on other matters, without taking into account that there were two astronauts available to perform these duties. This I think warrants a mention on the main page. Especially as the text now reads as if the "15th second" number is correct, as it does not have a rebuttal. (by Mossig, forgot the curlys here) 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeh, whoever you are, "implausibly low". Whatever. And the core of their argument is that it is not possible to take pictures that frequently, while offering no evidence in support of that assertion. Wahkeenah 18:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
They also took some panaromas - where you take a picture, change the angle slightly to the left or right, take another one, etc. This can be done fairly quickly, which increases the photo count fairly repidly. Bubba73 (talk), 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not question that. Anybody can today make a test with a digital camera (which are most often slower than mechanical ones) and see for themselves how many pictures per minute can be judged reasonable. What I wanted to add was that the main premise on the argument is built upon a fault caclulation by J. White. As a scientist I think this is interesting, and how arguments should be rebuked. But the hasty deletion by somebody who did not even bother to read up on the issue has made me decide that this article will have to live without my input.Mossig 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason I deleted it was the assertion that there were two astronauts, and by implication two of them taking photos, which in the case of Apollo 11 was incorrect and misleading. You don't want to be adding fuel to the moonbats' smoldering. Just be more specific. Wahkeenah 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
J. White's reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. He doesn't know how much time was taken up by the other activities. He is implying that you couldn't take that many phtotos because of other activities. Well, there are eight shots taken while Aldrin came down the ladder, and that took maybe three minutes, during which time Armstrong's only other duty was to watch out for Aldrin coming down the ladder. There are about that many shots of Aldrin carrying and setting up an experiment package, and Armstrong had no other duty then. There are several panoramas taken, where several shots are taken in quick succession. I think on all future landings both astronauts had cameras. It isn't like every 74 seconds the astronaut stops what he is doing to take one photo - they are bunched up, with a longer time in between. Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if you assume White's 15 seconds per photo for the time when they were taking photos, I don't see a problem. The camera was mounted on their spacesuit so if they were looking straight forward, that is where the camera was looking too. Most cameras have continuous focusing, but the cameras they used had a simplified focusing - four focusing "stops": for near, medium distance, far, and infinity (I think it was). I think the f/stops were simplified too, so you wouldn't have to change them very often. So to take a photo, you might have to set the rough distance stop, probably rarely have to set the f/stop, look at what you want to photograh, press the shutter (by squeezing a pistol grip), and then wind the crank to the next frame. Even fifteen seconds seems like plenty of time to do that. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
They did npt have to wind a crank. The film advance was motorized. And the shutter release was a pistol grop, so they didn't have a normal finger-sized shutter release, they only had to squeeze the pistol grip. they thought about these things in advance. Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Not everything. They should have taken Kaysing along. And left him there. Wahkeenah 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I knew you would come up with some real facts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (!) to figure that the astronauts would have done an activity, taken a bunch of photos in quick succession, done another activity, taken a bunch more photos in quick succession, etc. That's especially obvious in Apollo 11 where many of the photos seem to be of just somebody standing there... like on your family vacation. Wahkeenah 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Google videos: What Happened on the Moon?

I was visiting this page April 9 2006. There was two links to the documentary "What Happened on the Moon?" free on Google. Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107&q=moon+duration%3Along Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451&pl=true These movies show the hoax view in an excellent way, and I feel those should still be here. Why was those removed? (Axlalta 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

  • 'cause they was spam. Wahkeenah 18:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
They is farely typical of what causes a lots of peoples to believe in the hoax. Also, in it we learn that the Yuri Gargain flight was also hoaxed. The parallels with the 1927 Fritz Lang film are too strong to ignore! On the other hand, it does show an astronaut taking a set of panorama photos, and it took only a few seconds to take each one. Go figure. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The main proponent of the Moon Hoax are Bill Kaysing, David Percy, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel. Sombody removed the link to the videos under the excuse that these guys are nobodies. The problem in reality is that they do not want to give any credit to well supported theoris. Instead they claim that the Moon Hoax proponents are like the Flat Earth Society. Well, if you ignore the big guys of the Moon hoax, who are you rebutting instead?--tequendamia 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The main proponent? Sounds like they are sockpuppets of each other, which would figure. However, the reason I deleted it in the first place is that there was a red link to David Percy, so I assumed it was a red herring. I see it has since been filled in with the enlightening information that he produced a video claiming the moon landing was a hoax. Yeh, he sounds authoritative. Wahkeenah 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Videos

Here a link to the videos again (Warning, you need a broadband connection)

You cannot rebut a two hrs video with a single photograph. That's ridiculous!--tequendamia 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I've seen enough of these so-called documentaries to realize they are junk. Wahkeenah 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Then at least let people se what you are trying to rebut. If they are junk what are you trying to rebut? They are the main proponents's and their work.--tequendamia 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think links to the videos should be in there, under external links/ hoax allegations. Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Guinnog 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Since that guy fixed that red link, he may as well go ahead and re-post them. A couple more flies in the soup shouldn't make any difference. Wahkeenah 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though the videos are ludicrous, we should have them here as they are a prime example of the sort of reality denial this article deals with. Guinnog 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Denial? How can you deny the fact that NASA copied from the 1929 Fritz Lang film, as one of the video links points out (What Happned on the Moon, part 2)? Consider these facts that apply to both the Apollo program and the 1929 film:

  1. both rockets were assembled upright in a large building
  2. both rockets were rolled out to the launch pad on a transporter
  3. a countdown from 10 seconds was added to the film for dramatic effect - NASA also used this
  4. both rockets had three stages, and dropped a stage as the fuel was used up
  5. the passengers/astronauts were strapped in their seats in both
  6. the film showed a liquid in zero-G, NASA films did this too
  7. both showed an Earthrise

Proof positive that NASA copied the 1929 film, just as the link says. (It is still April 1, isn't it?) Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And Herman Oberth (who worked with von Braun) was technical advisor on the 1929 film. what more proof do you need?  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thy cup of sarcasm runneth over. :) :) :) Wahkeenah 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly we do not have a free link to "Apollo 11 - Monkey Business" where they show footage of NASA using a huge transparency of the Moon and a scale model of the LEM to simulate the moon landing. There is also footage of astronauts removing some whistleblowing footprints with their boots, and etc, etc.--tequendamia 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's too bad. Those "documentaries" and their makers have no credibility, but it is admittedly funny stuff. It's always entertaining to look inside the mind of a looney toon. Wahkeenah 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is really funny indeed.--tequendamia 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Kaysing was head of technical publishing at Rocketdyne at the time the F-1 engine was being developed. (The first stage of the Saturn V used five of these engines.) In What Happened on the Moon, part 2 we get a glimpse of Kaysing's technical expertise. He said that the F-1 was too unreliable to use and that a different engine (I forgot the name) which was more reliable but had lower thrust should have been used. However, critics might point out that (1) they seemed to be reliable enough on the 13 Saturn V flights, and (2) if a lower-thrust engine was used, it might not have gotten off the ground. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but maybe that explains his motivation - he might have been "dissed" by NASA (even though they were right and he was wrong) so he cooked up this hoax to try to get even, or at least to be a thorn in their side (more like a mosquito bite, at worst). His off-kilter take on things at both NASA and in his (possibly purposeful) mis-readings of photos and data, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, reminds me of something Will Rogers said, along the lines of, It's not what folks don't know that's the problem; it's what folks know for sure and which ain't so! Wahkeenah 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that most Moon Hoax rebuttal sites engage in personal attacks and disacreditation of the messangers, rather than the evidence they show. It is the same thing happening here in this discussion.--tequendamia 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
NO, it's that many people who actually know something about rocketry, photography and science have ALREADY discredited their so-called evidence, and now we're just interested in their psychology: What motivates them to make up this stuff? Do they really believe it? Or are they like the guy who promoted putting pants on animals: Just putting a dumb "theory" out there to see who bites? Wahkeenah 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I keep mentioning that guy without giving him proper credit. His name is Alan Abel, and this site goes into some detail about his "Society for the Indecency of Naked Animals". [5] Wahkeenah 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We also have this funny video from YouTube in 34 seconds. This should amuse people on both side of the fence. Maybe a link? http://youtube.com/watch?v=q6yB3fAvCm4&search=moon%20landing%20space%20NASA%20hoax%20joke%20funny (Axlalta 10:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Stars

Most likely an inset publicity photo. Examine the high res version on the nasa site and you will see that the black areas inside the shuttle have JPEG artifacts, but the black of space does not. Also note the pro-quality lighting, very different then the other images on that site. Algr 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Most likely an inset publicity photo. Examine the high res version on the nasa site and you will see that the black areas inside the shuttle have JPEG artifacts, but the black of space does not. Also note the pro-quality lighting, very different then the other images on that site. Algr 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says "To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewers field of view.(Plait 2002:158-60)", although this image seems to disprove the claim. What gives? For great justice. 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. He says that a shuttle astronaut said that you have to turn out the lights in the shuttle to see stars. I assume that those are stars and not particles floating about. If the cockpit were lit up by sunlight, you definitely wouldn't be seeing stars. However, the Earth does appear to be in sunlight. On the other hand, I can't be certain about that since it is not overexposed compared to the cockpit. It might be a relatively long exposure and the Earth is lit by moonlight, but I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 18:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as we, the Enlightened Ones, don't fall into the same trap the moonbats did, by not quite understanding what they were seeing, and guess-working a conclusion about it to connect the dots, without investigating it thoroughly. Wahkeenah 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are other images taken from the cockpit *including that one). It might be taken in a simulator, since no seats are visible. It is possible that it is a composite photo. Another possibility is that it is a digital photo and either the camera was able to compensate for different brightnesses or it was done later. These are just some possibilities, but I don't know what the answer is. (I've written to NASA.)Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
NASA explains the lack of stars in the photographs on Moon on the basis of film exposure and contrast. One of the links given below[6], but hasn't addressed the issue that the astronauts of the Apollo 11 said during the press conference that they didn't see stars. Neil Armstrong couldn't recall if he saw stars, and Buzz Aldrin said he definetelly didn't see any stars at all. Whereas NASA current explanation about the stars is true, it doesn't solve the issue of why 30 years ago they instructed the Apollo 11 crew to say they didn't see stars. -tequendamia 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Who said that they were "instructed" to say they saw no stars? Are you aware that seeing something with your eye and photographing it are not the same thing? Also, your eye has an iris that opens up wide in low light and gets small in bright light. They were out in daylight, so their irises were small, not letting in much light. Some night stare into a bright light for 10 minutes and then step outside and see if you can see any stars.Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If they had known the moonbats were going to make a big deal out of them not seeing stars, maybe they would have lied and said they did see them. But then the moonbats would have argued that you can't see them. There's no hope with some of those characters. Wahkeenah 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tequendamia, of course they would see stars from the moon. They would look into the sky, and if the sun got in their eyes, they would turn around. A possible chapter for the moon hoax could be the statements and behavior of the astronauts after the mission. Not allowing interviews with Armstrong at his home town, and so on. (Axlalta 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

In order to see stars, the astronauts would have to turn from the sun and hold their hands in front of their eyes so as to block the view of the ground, other sunlit objects, and possibly even the Earth in the sky. The design of the suit might have made this impossible. (But standing in the shadow of the lander would have helped.) If it could be done, it would take time for their eyes to adjust to the darkness. Then they would then see exactly the same stars that anyone could see on Earth, except without the twinkle. This is not something that could have happened by accident, they would have had to stop what they were doing for a bit and work at it. My guess is they just had better things to do. Algr 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The moonbats seem to forget that the Apollo 11 guys were on a mission, not a sightseeing trip. They had a lengthy checklist they had to get through as quickly as possible and get out of there. They were only the surface a few hours. Now, in future missions, as confidence in the equipment grew, as the lunar excursion time was lengthened, and the lunar rover was made available, they had a little more discretionary time (as with Alan Shepard and his golf ball experiment), but on the first mission the driving philosophy was "get 'er done!" Wahkeenah 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that one aspect of the "stars" problem (as well as some other things) is our Earth bias. On the Earth, when the sky is black we can see stars (if it isn't overcast) - because it is nighttime then. This bias may cause people to expect stars whenever the sky is black. On the Moon and in space, the sky is black all of the time - day or night. If the Earth had no atmosphere, stars would be visible only at night. In daylight, your eyes adjust to the brightness, making it difficult or impossible to see dim objects. If you are properly exposing a photo a similar thing happens. Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That reminds me of this old one: A couple of characters are planning to send their own rocket into space... on a voyage to the sun. Someone reminds them how bright and hot the sun is. Their answer: "So, we'll go at night!" Wahkeenah 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
At source material we have "Seeing stars in space". David Latchman, B.Sc. Physics, University of the West Indies, says that the astronauts can see the stars if they look away from the sun. That is the hoax view anyway, and the astronauts choosed the wrong answer at the press conference. (Axlalta 11:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC))
So, wait a minute. This is a photo, faked by NASA, and not clearly labeled, that shows stars? I think the issue of confusion around this needs a little more explanation in the article, especially given the different reports by Gagarin and the americans on the visibility. Currently, there is no very convincing explanation of why sometimes people see them, other times they don't, and why NASA chose to fake photos with stars in sometimes... For great justice. 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reason for sometimes seeing stars and sometimes not depends on the conditions - are there bright things in the field of view and are your eyes adapted for the dark. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think NASA likely "chose" to take star photos, or not, most of the time anyway. Sometimes the stars show, and sometimes they don't, depending on the lighting situation at the time. Wahkeenah 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you misread - I said that NASA chose to put fake stars in this composite, and not in others. 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we know that this photo is a composite? I haven't seen that demonstrated anywhere. I wrote to NASA yesterday, but I haven't gotten a reply. Bubba73 (talk), 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone changed the article to say this, so I thought it had been demonstrated. I don't know. I would be pretty disturbed if NASA was releasing doctored photos that were not clearly distinguished from non-doctored ones though. It would affect their credibility significantly. For great justice. 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Algr did that on April 18 - I hadn't noticed it. I speculated that it might be digitally altered, but I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The text with the photo is a little revealing too: "During STS-101 Atlantis will fly as the most updated shuttle ever". The photo is from March 2000, STS 101 flew in May 2000. I thought the seats should have been visible, so the photo must have been taken on the ground, and altered. Perhaps they put stars in there beacause people expect stars! Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Err? Great. Where does that leave us with the rest of the photos? Perhaps they put the non-waving flag in because people don't expect the flag to wave with no wind? For great justice. 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Mystery solved, I do believe. Look at the whole site [7] where the large group of photos is implicitly in chronological order, and you will see that this photo is in the ground-based sequence. It just happens they didn't explain this particular photo very well. Whoever changed the caption to say "publicity photo" was right on. Now, look farther along in the sequence, at some of the EVA stuff on the actual mission (such as this one on page 11 [8]) and... guess what... NO STARS! Are the moonbats going to tell us the shuttle missions have been faked also? I think NOT. Wahkeenah 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is solved too. Thanks Algr. Where does that leave us with the flag photos? In 1969 Photoshop was still an in-house beta.  :-) Seriously, there is no indication that the flag photos are fake. They were taken on 70mm transparency film, so they're like that on the original. Also, there is the triple check - there is also the confirming TV video and the 16mm film taken from the LM window, and I put links to short clips to them on the bottom of the article yesterday. Bubba73 (talk), 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Gargarin made only one orbit around the Earth. How much time did he have for looking out the window? Did he see stars on the daylight side of the Earth or on the night side? (He made only one pass through the night side, for about 40 minutes or so.) Was his cabin dark enough to see stars? Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - these are the kinds of questions that we should find sourced answers to. For great justice. 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
While it is obvious to me that the image out the window of the cockpit is an inset, I agree with For great justice that we need documentation. Thanks for writing them, Bubba73. It is believable that someone would forget to mark an image on a web site as promotional and not authentic, but it is still a mistake that they should fix. Algr 06:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey thanks for researching this! For great justice. 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shuttle exterior pic w/ "stars"

What about this one? [9] For great justice. 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, awesome photo. And please note how few stars actually appear in it. As the article has noted, some photos do show stars, if the brightness and contrast conditions allow it, and it is typically just the brightest stars that can register on camera. Wahkeenah 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I notice that there are as many of these "stars" in front of the shuttle as around it. My old camcorder's CCD has Fixed pattern noise that looks just like stars, so I'd bet it is either that, or some kind of RF interference getting into the image. Of course now we need to document THAT too! Oi! Algr 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Is my face red, or what? I think the explanation could be even simpler: those could be spots from doing a careless job of scanning, as has happened to me sometimes if I forget to dust the surface of the scanner, especially noticeable on the dark parts of the scan, of course. Some of them could be stars, but there's no way to know for sure unless someone spends a week or so pursuing NASA about this. Not that they have much else to do right now. Oi! is right. Wahkeenah 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
However, the bottom line turns out to be, yet again, NO STARS! Consistent with the Apollo missions. I don't hear anyone saying the shuttle flights were faked... although they might say that in the next generation, if the shuttle stays grounded, since (like the current generation of moonbats) they won't have been around when the object in question was actually flying, so they'll feel free to deny that it happened. Wahkeenah
That's possible too, if it is a film image. I'd assumed from the look of it that it was digital. Algr 06:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos' chronological order

Oh Yeah! I recognise the time stamp, and that is Buzz Aldrin, no doubt about that. I recognise his smile.-tequendamia 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This website shows him saluting first. This one does too. And here says (click on "The Journal - Apollo 11", then "Image Gallary", and then "Magazine 40/S"):

AS11-40-5874 (OF300) ( 1211k or 228k ) 110:10:33 Buzz salutes the U.S. Flag. His fingertips are visible on the far side of his faceplate. Note the well-defined footprints in the foreground. Buzz is facing up-Sun. There is a reflection of the Sun in his visor. At the bottom of Buzz's faceplate, note the white 'rim' which is slightly separated from his neckring. This 'rim' is the bottom of his gold visor, which he has pulled down. We can see the LEC straps hanging down inside of the ladder strut. In the foreground, we can see the foot-grabbing loops in the TV cable. The double crater under Neil's LM window is just beyond the LM shadow. AS11-40-5875 (OF300) ( 1205k or 232k )

110:10:33 Buzz and the U.S. flag. Note the well-defined footprints in the foreground. The shadows indicate that Buzz is standing with the Sun directly in front of him. There is a reflection of the Sun in his visor. We can see the LEC straps hanging down inside of the ladder strut. In the foreground, we can see the foot-grabbing loops in the TV cable. The double crater is beyond Buzz and the LM shadow. Journal Contributors Owen Merrick, Brian McInall, and Markus Mehring call attention to the fact that, in the high-resolution version, we can see Buzz peering over at Neil. In 5874 Buzz is facing the flag and saluting; but, by the time Neil takes 5875, Buzz has turned his body slightly - and his head a great deal more - to look over to see if Neil has taken the picture, possibly having lowered his right hand in the interim. Normally, the high reflectivity of the gold visor would keep us from seeing Buzz's face but, as Mehring notes, in this case "his face is directly illuminated by the sunlight from the front and at a right angle to the observer's point of view, so it literally shines through the visor, especially because he's sticking his head forward. At different viewing and illumination angles and with his head deeper inside the helmet and less brightly illuminated, reflections off of the visor that would wash out anything behind it. But in this case we're lucky." Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek has created a two-frame movie consisting of frames 5874 and 5875 which clearly shows Buzz turning his torso slightly between frames, but without moving his feet. Note, in particular, the change in his knee positions. Both the TV record and the 16--mm film show Buzz turning in Neil's direction twice during this interval.

Bubba73 (talk), 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who firstly modified the order, until it get reverted yesterday. Currently, I am also the maintainer of the german version of this article. The photo where Aldrin let his arms hanging down has the number AS-11-40-5874, the second where Aldrin does salute has the number AS-11-40-5875. Maybe you can understand, why the photo with the greater number was shot after the one with the less number? You can also take a look onto the Wikipedia commons images, which I uploaded recently (Image:NASA_AS-11-40-5874.jpg and Image:NASA_AS-11-40-5875.jpg). If this doesn't fit your brains checkout these websites:
Best regards --TH-Foreigner 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The three references I checked earlier (listed at the top) give it the other way around. I listed the text of one above, here is another one:

This link you gave agrees with me, the ones at spaceflight1.nasa.gov agree with you. So the references are three to one. Although all three could be in error, I'm more inclined to believe the link at the first of this paragraph since it seems to have all photos in order.Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Used to parody the hoax claims

The Flat Earth Society is a parody and it is used that way in this article.--tequendamia 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I entered some or all of the info about the Flat Earth Society, some months back, and it was not intended as parody, except in the context of the kind of "thinking" practiced by the moonbats. The Flat Earthers gave all indications of taking their viewpoint seriously, even if no one else did. Wahkeenah 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • However, it might be fair to refer to them in the past tense, since they pretty much evaporated once their leader died, in the 1970s or whenever it was. Even to biblical literalists, anyone who argues for the flat earth would typically be regarded as an ignoramous. Wahkeenah 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It is clear the purpose of of that line is to ridicule and equal all the moon hoax theories to that parody. If no serious references are provided then it should be in a section called parody.--tequendamia 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is the use of pardies the best way you can rebut the hoax claims? Add serious and credible reference otherwise the line will be completelly removed--tequendamia 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Flat Earth Society isn't a parody - it really happened. I remember it from the time. We need to look for a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 21:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I remember it also. That's when I first became aware of those characters. For a reference, look in the article about the Flat Earth Society. It makes the same assertion, and I did not add that, it was done independently, before I entered my comments in the Apollo article. One of its links [10] talks about the shuttle rather than Apollo, but their line of "reasoning" was similar. I have to admit, though, that I always wondered if the Flat Earthers were really on the level (ha!) or if they were cousins to Alan Abel and his hoax Society for the Indecency of Naked Animals. Given that element of doubt, maybe the references to it should be removed after all. Wahkeenah 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to a website about the Flat Earth Society and the Moon, but I'd rather have a paper reference. Martin Garder's "Fads and Fallacies" has a chapter about "flat earthers" in general, but not the Society. And it was before Apollo. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, (ed: William F. Williams) page 114-15 discusses the FES and their belief that the Earth is flat, but it doesn't mention the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What it really boils down to is that I would have to go through my newspaper clippings and see if I have one from 1968 or 1969 or whenever it was that they made their comments... and then still wonder if they really believed it, or if they were just publicity seekers (as I suspect the Kaysings of the world are also). Wahkeenah 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I saved quite a few newspaper clippings and magazines from the time too. I'll try to look, but it won't be easy to find a reference. Well, actually that 1980 Science Digest article serves as a reference. It was 12 years after the fact, but it was before the current generation of hoax proponents. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The external link provided leads to a forum. Don't think is valid as a reference. On the other hand, your read their articles and they really make you laugh, they say that claiming that the earth is round is an attack on Jesus. C;mon.I don't want to remove it. I'd like to see it under in a section for parodies. There are more parodies, like the guys who believe the moon is a hologram.--tequendamia 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that these guys were the first organisation to claim that the moon landings did not happen. All others since are following in their footsteps. This isn't parody; this is who you ally yourself with if you choose these tendentious beliefs. History, not parody. Keep and expand. Guinnog 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the point. If you cannot rebut, then make the whole thing look ridiculous. That's seems to be the debunkers strategy.--tequendamia 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you moved it into the Parody section again. What evidence do you have that the Flat Earthers, as they were in the late 60s, were not sincere in their beliefs? Wahkeenah 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing is ridiculous. Provide some evidence that the Flat Earth Society was intended as a hoax. I think people really believed in it, rather like the whole moon hoax conspiracy thing nowadays, which is why it's such a good comparison. Guinnog 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Flat Earth society hoax accusations? Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at the links provided, they just make you laugh mate. The whole thing is hilarious. Flat Earth? C'mon you are taking them more seriously than you take your own president.--tequendamia 13:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Being a UK citizen I don't have a president, though Mr Blair may not always realise this it seems. I take the (loony) flat earthers exactly as seriously as the (loony) moon hoax believers. Both are more to be pitied than scolded. Guinnog 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Then you just stated your personal POV.--tequendamia 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup. What is yours? Guinnog 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not whether we took the Flat Earthers seriously, it's whether they took themselves seriously. They sounded like they did, but who can say for sure? As I've said before, maybe Kaysing put forth his looney ideas just to see who would be gullible enough to buy into it. For comparison, I know someone who says that all major sporting events are fixed. He acts like he believes it, but I'm not sure if he really believes it, or if he just says that because he knows it will evoke a reaction. Wahkeenah 15:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking in Google for a little bit, it is easy to find references to people who recall the Flat Earthers trying to debunk the Apollo missions, such as this sermon from sometime last year [11]. What I had forgotten was that this complaint by Flat Earthers actually preceded the moon landings. The "earthrise" video and photos from Apollo 8, which circled the moon around Christmastime in 1968, was immediately denounced by the Flat Earthers, on the grounds that since the earth was flat, it had to be a fake; a classic case of (pardon the expression) circular reasoning, akin to the "logic" used by the moonbats nowadays. I saw one site in which it was reported that one of the Apollo astronauts once said during a mission, "Eureka, Houston, the world is round!" in an obvious shot at the Flat Earthers, who had gotten their names in the papers by publicizing their viewpoint. No doubt the press picked up on the Flat Earthers largely because of their entertainment value. Wahkeenah 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The objection of the flat-earthers was essentially the same as of the people who are trying to find fault with the photos today. The photos disagree with what they believe, therefore they must be fake. Bubba73 (talk), 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Wahkeenah 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How to pull your head out of your @$#.

How to pull your head out of your %$&.

There needs to be some major head-from-rear-removal going on here. STOP investing your emotions into what YOU think about the moon. STOP trying to run an agenda. STOP bullying and twisting every nuance in this article because you think you are on a mission to save people from bad science.

This article is an atempt at reporting people, places, and events in a non-biased manner. This is not a forum to promote the moon hoax. This is also not the place to go all McCarthy-istic and see a hoax promotion around every bend. Seriously, you need to wrap your noodle around this simple point: The Moon Hoax exists as an entity, an event if you will, unto its self. True, false, or indifferent; it doesn't matter.The moment the event was "born" and took hold it became a reportable entity. Why don't you stop trying to tear down fair and accurate accounts of the moon hoax and instead work on producing a good article ABOUT THE HOAX????

Example of fair and unbiased: "Jehovah's Witnessess are of a christian denomination that believes Jesus is the son of God the Father, Jehovah." NOT fair and very biased: "Jehovah's Witnessess are a pseudo-christian religion because they don't think Jesus is God like it clearly says He is in the bible. All major religions(like my daddies) think they are a false religeon because they added the word "a" in John 1-1. And the flag in Psalms 102-12 isn't really waving." (Then one would need to add 3-4 times the volume of anti- Witness propaganda for every acurate description of witnesses. All this in an article that is suposed to be about Jehovah's Witnessess.)

The same thing is happening here in the moon hoax article: 1 sentence on the hoax = an entire paragrph on trying to prove the one sentence wrong. Another sentence on what the hoax is = another whole paragragh on how it's wrong.

This is no longer an article on "The Moon Hoax." This is, instead, a private web page by people who seem scared that maybe it was a hoax and they are now hell bent on proving it wasn't. What are they so afraid of??

Should this article promote the moon hoax? No, it shouldn't. Should this article be about how stupid the Hoax is? No, it shouldn't. Should this article be about the Moon Hoax? Uhhhhh, yeah. That's why it's named "THE MOON HOAX". Otherwise it would be something like "How the Moon Hoax is thouroughly and utterly wrong."

You want to hotdog on about all the counter arguments? Pick one of the debunkers, write an article on him, and go hog wild. But don't drone on about how supply side economics is a load of crap in an article that is suposed to be about supply side economics. Don't go on about how Mozart was better than Debusy in an article about Debusy or carry on about how Jews are devious little money grubbing thieves and had it coming when you write about Auschwitz and so on. KEEP THE ARTICLES ON POINT.DartFrog 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, Dennis. The problem is that if you just report the "facts" of what the moonbats question, and leave them unchallenged, then you lend unwarranted credibility to this fringe viewpoint. I'm not scared it was a hoax. If they had any evidence that it was a hoax, I would be interested. They've got nothing. Their alleged documentaries are so riddled with flaws that they actually strengthen the reliability of the historical facts. Every question they ask has been answered, but you can't necessarily answer a one-line question in one line. Some explanation is needed. And if you don't answer their questions carefully, in the article, then the article becomes inherently biased and runs the risk of swaying even more of the ignorant in the direction of this "alternate religion". This is not the same as writing about Mozart being better than Debusy or whatever. Those are opinions about musical quality. It is also not "McCarthyism". McCarthyism was about suppressing political views without discussion. There is plenty of discussion about the moon flights, and the more the better. The moonbats have the right to believe what they want, and we have the right to tell them where their reasoning is flawed. The Apollo program is an established historical event, and the moonbats have provided no evidence to the contrary. To give them a forum without answering their questions with facts, which is what you seem to want, would constitute promoting a viewpoint. Wahkeenah 05:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Great post DartFrog. This page on the moon landing hoax is getting to longwinded because belivers in the official Apollo story have to use 80% of the text to convince readers that Apollo was for real. This could be done in a more fair and rational manner. The start of the article could have a "Disputed" sign. The introduction could say something like "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the hoax-claim as baseless". Then there could be a link to a new page for rebutting the hoax allegation, perhaps "Rebuttal of the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations". Finally this article could start to present the reasons why many people belive the Appollo project was a hoax. That should make a long enough article in itself.

Unfortunately I do not think the Apollo belivers would stand to see such an article without destroying it on the same page, preferably inside or right after each "hoax-claim sentence". The hoax view seems to be to provocative for the Apollo enthusiasts. This is truly a controverial topic. The Apollo project was either mans greatest achivement or mans greatest hoax so far. I guess this is what makes the temperature go up, and I guess this is also a facination of the topic. (Axlalta 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

  • The hoax claim does not deserve equal weight. It has no credibility whatsoever. It's fair to report that it exists, just like it's fair to report on other myths such as the Loch Ness Monster. But to give it credibility, or to relegate the factual explanations to another page, is intellectually dishonest. However, you have inadvertently hit upon the nub of the issue. Hoax proponents cling to this myth because of the reaction it provokes. It's just a mind-game to them. They don't really care about the facts, they just enjoy seeing us get riled. Kind of like kids in junior high school pestering their teacher with the same questions over and over, after they've already been answered. It's only controversial because of anyone having given the time of day to this hypothesis, rather than totally ignoring it which is what we ought to do; except that we have a social conscience about the ever-increasing ignorance of science and history in America. Also, your description of us as "Apollo believers" is likewise dishonest and misleading. The moon voyages are a matter of historical record, and the moonbats have yet to produce one iota of evidence to the contrary. If you think you can cite evidence to the contrary, go ahead and try. But you can't, because there ain't any! Wahkeenah 11:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
(1) WP policy says that we don't have to give equal weight to fringe ideas. (2) To make another article with rebuttals to the hoax theory would be forking, which we're not supposed to do. (3) it is easy to say "there are no stars in the photographs", but it takes a paragraph to explain why that isn't a problem. It isn't sufficient to simply reply "there shouldn't be any stars in the photos". Bubba73 (talk), 22:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points. I was just checking the writeup on Creationism for comparison. There is a lengthy explanation of various world religions' views of the subject, along with a writeup (roughly 1/3 of the article) of science-based challenges. It is safe to say that a much larger percentage of the world believe in Creationism than believe we did not go to the moon. While I strongly disagree with the notion of Creationism, I readily concede that it is by no means a fringe idea; yet there is the rebuttal, right on the same page. Believing we did not go to the moon is more in the realm of believing in Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle... in fact, it is likely that a lot more people believe in those oddities than that we didn't go to the moon; yet their rebuttals are also in those articles. So there's no reason to give any special preference to this fringe "moon hoax" viewpoint. Wahkeenah 23:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
See, this conversation is exactly what's wrong. The article should be nothing more than reporting the moon hoax. That's it. The moon hoax is: Blah, blah, blah. The End.

This should be a 5 paragrahp article, tops. DartFrog 04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV policy says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories". Surely the hoax proponents are in the minority. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the new National Geographic has this editorial comment: "In almost any debate that incorporates science, they [journalists] tend to give equal time to both sides of every argument, which is like giving 5 minutes to those who say the world is round and 5 minutes to those who say it's flat." Wahkeenah 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The article as it is gives far too much space to NASA shills who are still desparately trying to prop up this creaking hoax. There should be a couple of paragraphs tops given over to the fact that NASA and those in the pay of USG science grants still trot out the old lies, the rest should be a debunking of the NASA hoax. 165.254.38.126 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the article gives far too much space to this fringe notion that the moon voyages did not occur. No one is "desparate" at NASA, that's a fantasy on the part of the moonbats. The desparation is on the part of those like yourself who keep pushing the real hoax, the one perpetrated by Kaysing and his crowd, which has been proven over and over again to have no credibility whatsoever. Wahkeenah 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You're funny! Of course NASA's desparate! The whole 'do we publish a book to try to prop it up, or would that make us look too desparate' issue is just the tip of the iceberg! 'Moonbats' is just a cheap ad hominem attack - the last resort of the intellectually bancrupt. Face facts - the landing hoax is becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate. It's ok. You can admit it. 165.254.38.126 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Face facts: There is no evidence that the moon flights did not occur. The idea that NASA is desperate about Apollo is a moonbat fantasy. NASA couldn't care less what the moonbats think, other than the few occasions when they assault people like they did to Buzz Aldrin. The only thing NASA is desparate about is getting the shuttle flying again so they don't get their funding cut. Wahkeenah 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


EXCELLENT POINTS. This page should be removed. Total violation of a neutral point of view. Censorship is rampant. I have put up this link: http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/ many times and it keeps getting deleted for no reason at all. It is a very informative site that has pictures and arguments never before seen. It should be included in hoax allegation links.

Seriously this page is so laughable and it totally proves that PRO-APOLLO Nuts have something to hide. They censor links claiming that is a non-notable link. So what is a notable link if you think all hoax allegations sites are bullshit? This site http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/ makes EXCELLENT points, has evidence that Michael J. Tuttle doctored some Nasa photos in the mid-90's and has explanations how easy it is manipulate photos.

You guys seriously make me laugh. A lot of people that question the authencity of the Apollo record are not ignorant, paranoid, conspiracy theorists. Rather they are people who are smart enough to realize that just by taking a techno-historical perspective, it was unfeasible at that time.

  • Your idea of "neutrality" is to let the absurd claims of the moonbats stand without response. Since you remain a-none, my guess is that you are also the author of that web page you keep posting. I'm not the one deleting it, though. I would prefer it stay, since it helps underscore the moonbats' lunacy. Wahkeenah 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, you are a sad sad man. Since when do links need a response? That site has a page rating of 5/10 on google, which is very good and notable. Also hoax allegation links should include links with original content such as the one I posted. Also, I am not the author of that site.

  • There are plenty of ways to artificially boost Google ratings, in case one is obsesse with the Lemming mentality. But that link doesn't need any response, nor should it be deleted; it's good entertainment, about the fantasy parallel universe the moonbats have constructed for themselves and fully believe in, despite the lack of any evidence. It's kind of like Linus talking about the Great Pumpkin. Wahkeenah 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I accuse you of being the author of that page. And because I've made that conclusion, it must be true. Logic don't enter into it. >:)

LunarAnomalies.com, &c.

Where does one look to when concerning subjects linked to LunarAnomalies.com and how, according to an alternative conspiracy theory, the reason why we stopped going to the Moon was due to the ancient ruins found thereon? This has been frequently propounded by Coast to Coast AM scientific advisor, Richard C. Hoagland, who believes the many of the Apollo astronauts were conditioned not to release their "true" findings and that NASA's theory on how the Moon formed by collision based on misinterpretations on Moon rocks which, according to him, is more analoguous to remains of an atomic-annihilated 10,000 year-olde New York.. Also, according to Ken Klein and John Lear, it seems that the Moon was towed into orbit in order for surface-dwelling life to originate and a lot of this ends up being tied into the Pyramids but that's a different storey..

Anyways, I'm simply curious since this other conspiracy theory deserves an article as some people believe this article itself is merely a cover-up to derail others from focusing on other details.. DrWho42 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • All of a sudden the simple "we didn't go to the moon" argument seems reasoned by comparison. I especially liked that one item, earlier on this page, about how the moon doesn't really exist, it's just a holographic image projected onto the sky. There's some outside-the-box thinking for you. I wonder, when Beethoven wrote his Moonlight Sonata around the turn of the 19th century, if he ever suspected that it was just a hologram he was writing about. Of course, the hologram theory runs counter to the "towed into orbit" theory. Those consipiracists need to get together and get their stories straight, lest they be subjected to ridicule. Wahkeenah 07:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth Tom Harrison Talk 12:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh that's the site that ripped off redzero way back. I've seen hoax proponents claim those kind of sites are part of a NASA dissinformation campain.Geni 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's well known that NASA and its shill like to take the most extreme claims (that serious whistle blowers don't even clam) and then 'debunk' them, to try to make people think that they have answered the acusations. A little research shows how hollow these claims are. It's over. We're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. 165.254.38.126 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have concluded that the 2001 "documentary" was actually made by NASA in order to make your hoax stories look silly. Wahkeenah 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

The US Library of Congress gives this list of references to the flat earth society, which may be useful. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good one, just after Apollo 8: Where are they now? The flat earthers. Newsweek, v. 73, Jan. 13, 1969: 8. port. AP2.N6772, v. 73; About the International Flat Earth Research Society, then based in Dover, England. The portrait is of Samuel Shenton, the society's general secretary. Bubba73 (talk), 03:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Right. That would be a good reference. It was Apollo 8 that triggered their public statements, with its "earthrise" video and photos. They complained about the lack of stars (showing their ignorance of photography) and Kaysing and his kind perpetuated that mistake, although they were wise enough to leave out the part about the earth being flat, as that might have undermined their story just a tad. Wahkeenah 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try to go by the library tomorrow and see if I can get it. I checked my Newsweek for Dec 30, 1968 and Business Week for Jan 4, 1969 and didn't find it in those. Bubba73 (talk), 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could scan it or xerox it and post it here? At least for a day or so, being careful of copyright issues. Wahkeenah 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I went by the library today, and they have it on microfilm. However, the film was on that reel backwards so I couldn't get it today. They said that they would probably have to manually transfer the film to another reel, flip the reel, and transfer it back. I didn't have time to wait, I'll try to go back tomorrow. Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I would have had them copy it anyway, then scan it and flip the picture. However, if it was on backwards just when you needed it, I'm thinking it was another conspiracy. >:) Wahkeenah 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here it is, scanned from a photocopy made from microfilm: Image:Newsweek13Jan1969.JPG. It won't last but a few days before being deleted because of copyright reasons. (Click on it for a larger view.) The FES said that the photos are "a fraud, fake, trick, or deceipt". But read the whole thing. Can we remove the FES from "Parody" now? Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article! --tequendamia 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it is such a large file. I cropped it and told Photoshop to make it the smallest possible file, but it is still about 1/2 megabyte. MAybe the resolution could be reduced. But it should be gone in a week, because of copyright restrictions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. The scary part is, he sounds sane compared to Kaysing's ramblings. Wahkeenah 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The article Flat Earth Society says that Shenton is "a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society". The article says that he is a retired sign painter. I'm going to ask for a citation on that. Bubba73 (talk), 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
He could have been both. Keep in mind that Hitler was supposedly a house painter or some such prior to devoting full time to other hobbies, such as invading Poland. Wahkeenah 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've written the thr RAS asking. I found this link to a chapter of a book Patrick Moore book about this stuff. I added it as an external link at Flat Earth Society, but I'm not sure it needs to be here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably don't want too much FES stuff here, since it infers a connection between them and the Kaysing crowd, which is yet to be demonstrated with certainty. Wahkeenah 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is up for speedy deletion. so if you want a copy, better download it now. (I can email a copy if anyone wants it.) Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like it's gone already. Thankfully I already downloaded it. This is like a poor man's Napster, ja? Wahkeenah 07:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Not really. You are less likely to be blocked from napster for uploading copyvio material. Please don't do it again. User:Geni 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, I hear Newsweek is going to sue wikipedia for posting a grainy clipping from an article from 37 years ago. They're also going after the folks caught tearing the tags off mattresses. Wahkeenah 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

C's on the rocks???

There is no end to the desperate silliness of the moonbats. These are the kind of folks that see images of Satan in random clouds of smoke. I mourn for our public school system, for the kinds of minds it's producing nowadays. Wahkeenah 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Random personal attacks are the last resort of the desparate.
This kind of thing probably isn't covered in schools, but critical thinking should be. I think they are getting these ideas from media - mainly TV and the internet. Probably 90+ percent of the coverage of the issue of the moon landing hoax is pro-hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, critical thinking, that's what's missing. There is a subliminal message in the rocks, now that I think of it: Those who believe there is a "C" there probably got that kind of grade in science class, on a good day. On your other point, the basic problem is that the media don't care who's "right" or "wrong", they thrive on controversy. That's why silly stuff like flat earthers and moon hoax believers get disproportionate coverage. Facts are no fun. They want fights! 03:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Very funny. NASA and shills: 'ho ho - you're stupid' Whistleblowers: 'Oh - your name calling has set me right! I see the power of your logic now!'. The fact is that the 'original' photos showed prop continuity marks on the rock and the ground. Later, new 'original' photos were 'found' that did not have the continuity marks. Hmmm.... Oh yes, and the media is part of a huge conspiracy! Honestly. 165.254.38.126 05:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I made no personal attack. If you took it personally, then the shoe must fit. It's not about being stupid, it's about being illogical. If you're going to assert that a documented historical event did not occur, you've got to have something, and you've got nothing. If we don't fly the shuttle soon, I'm expecting your crowd to also start claiming that the shuttle flights never occurred, either. Wahkeenah 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This was added: Hoax proponents argue that the first photos released do show these marks, and that later releases may have been doctored. Is there any evidence for doctoring of the photos? How do you explain that the rock is shown in both of the photos, but the "C" was only in some copies of one of the photos? Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The section now reads '"NASA asserts that the "C"s are not in the original photographs, just later generation copies of AS16-107-17446 only. (See this link.) Hoax proponents argue that the first photos released do show these marks, and that later releases may have been doctored". "NASA asserts" was added. Dows NASA assert this (I haven't seen a reference). Also above that sentence it states that there are matching "C"s on the ground. I don't see any such "C"s on the ground, even in the one that does have the C on the rock. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You should see how it was worded before. I tried to neutralize it. However, it's likely bogus. Have at it. Wahkeenah 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the "C" enlarged, the top part of it is doubled. It looks like it is a fiber bent back on itself. Bubba73 (talk), 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

relevance of Mars lander in the film?

I don't see the relevance of the following passage to this article "The Lander used in the film was an identical copy to a Apollo Lunar lander. The Lunar lander was designed as a true spacecraft, no aerodynamic design was needed to land on the Moon since the Moon does not have an atmosphere. A lander designed for Mars would have to cope with a substantial atmosphere and would therefore look drastically different than that portrayed in the film". (Also, the atmosphere on Mars is less than 1% that of Earth, so I don't know how aerodynamic it would have to be.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a little more so than it was. I've rewritten and condensed the section. Guinnog 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

video of Apollo 13 explosion

A recent edit asks for a citation that there is a videotape of the Apollo 13 explosion. The closest thing I could find was a photo of a TV screen of a water dump from A13 (before the explosion). I added two external links under "source material". Bubba73 (talk), 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a video of the explosion as I wouldn't expect it to have remained well hidden (especially after interest in the mission in the mid-90s) and then suddenly show up on Wikipedia. I would think such a video would generate a lot of interest. I removed the sentence, especially considering even if it were true, it doesn't contribute significantly to that portion against the hoax view, but it may be worth mentioning the photos you posted links to. - user:rasd

Photo stuff

OK, son, you put back that junk. Now you got some 'splainin' to do:

  • 1. How does someone who "thought they saw a coke bottle" decades ago, which is unverifiable gossip, have any relevance?
  • 2. You need to be more specific about the allegedly "identical" marks on the photos. I can't even see these bloody things.
  • 3. You also need to explain what the relevance of that photograph term is rather than just throwing it out there as if it were true.
  • In short, your entire entry is your own unverifiable opinion, "original research", and should be zapped. Wahkeenah 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi - it's not original research, it's actual hoax accusations from one of the 'leading' hoax proponent sites. One of the repeated criticisms on the talk page is that this article (and pro-landing people in general) don't address the actual claims of hoax proponents.
  • 1. It is an eye-witness report of someone who claims to have observed the hoax.
  • 2. It is claimed on many of the hoax sites that these exist. I make no claim about it myself.
  • 3. Which term? The claim is made that on the 'classic' Aldrin photo, the cross hairs are not in their usual position. Since they are etched on the glass of the camera, that means it has been cropped. But NASA claims it has not been. Demonstrating tampering. So it is claimed.
It's not my unverified opinion, it is verifiably the opinion of the hoax accusers. Take up your issue with them! This page simply reports what they claim. For great justice. 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The presence of an unverifiable claim by one person of what they thought they saw on TV decades ago is silly. Since you posted the assertion of the claim about the photos, you have a responsibility to point out just what the devil you're talking about. And you need to explain what "reticule" is and why it matters. Wahkeenah 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A "retucile" is "A drawstring handbag or purse." Didn't you see it sitting on the two truck?  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree - the presence of individuals who claim to have seen things on the first tape that were later edited out is relevant. I will elaborate on the reticule issue. For great justice. 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see you tried to explain "reticule". I don't even see the bloody thing on that photo. Like the supposedly C-shaped imperfections on those other photos, you need to tell those of us that lack Superman-like vision just what it is we're supposed to be looking at. Wahkeenah 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Done - does that make more sense? For great justice. 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The cross-hairs are visible in all the photos - they were etched onto the glass of the camera - they are clearly visible in the hi-res version linked to from the article - look at Aldrin's hips and knees for some prominent ones. For great justice. 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, posting this stuff is good, because it further undercuts the moonbats' position, illustrating how they constantly try to see stuff no one else can see, kind of like reading the entrails of animals or looking for hidden meanings in Biblical texts if you line them up a certain way. You have one person claiming to have seen something on live TV decades ago. A lot more folks than that have claimed to see the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot in person. How much credibility do those critters have? Wahkeenah 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm? It's good because it makes for a better, more neutral article? Are you really saying you can't see the cross hairs on the photo? For great justice. 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
They need a better, more neutral article about the Flat Earth Society too, to further the credibility of this website. No, I can't see them. Tell me where I should be looking, and why it matters. Wahkeenah 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
See this page [12] - I think I must be using a different word - you must be familiar with the sets of cross hairs on all the moon photos? For great justice. 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. He's making assertions with no basis other than his opinion. Yeh, that nondescript blob looks a lot like a pickup truck. I've said before that the JFK assassination conspiracists turned their attention this way when that industry fizzled, and this kind of stuff reinforces my suspicions. Wahkeenah 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
But back to the reticules - you know what I mean now? For great justice. 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
They're correct in the actual photographs, and that is what matters. Not where they are in cropped versions. Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No, in the 70mm transparencies they are wrong - the transparencies, which NASA never declared as doctored, were in fact doctored. As usual, when pressed, they 'found' earlier ones without the embarrasing details in. This is not the only photo with reticule issues either. There are quite a few, indicating that NASA was pretty casual with the truth when it was releasing them. For great justice. 01:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
They are not wrong on the actual film. Bubba73 (talk), 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends. Since NASAs integrity is in question here, it is hard to know which one is the 'actual' film. We have only their word for it, and only those photos that they released. Given this, the errors on the photos are especially damning. For great justice. 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence either that the photos are in error, nor that NASA's integrity is in question. All you have are unverified claims by the moonbats. Wahkeenah 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you are simply going to repeat that in the face of every anomaly, there's not much point in having the conversation, but a critical look at the evidence shows otherwise. Personal attacks don't become you either. For great justice. 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it's not an anomoly. It's ignorant and/or willfull misinterpretation on the part of the publicity-seekers who write those web pages. They claim the pictures were doctored. Where's the evidence of that, other than their claims, which have no credibility due to their more obvious fairy tales, like about the "waving flag." They've got nothing. Wahkeenah 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya see, the problem is, the very first assertion on that page [13] about the allegedly changing position of the antenna is highly questionable. The photos are taken from different places and angles, and if you actually bother to look at where the legs of the various objects are, there is no ambiguity. When they start out with a false assertion like that, they lose me. It's like that "documentary" from 2001. The first words out of their mouths were about the supposedly "waving" flag. That was totally incorrect, and it meant that everything they said after that was highly suspect. I watched that show, or started to, with some interest. I realized within 5 minutes that it was bogus. They've got nothing. Wahkeenah 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, my calling those unknown conspiracists "moonbats" (which is not even my own terminology) is not a personal attack against any wikipedian. Now, if a wikipedian takes it personally, maybe the shoe fits. Wahkeenah 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I love your logic! "I think that some of what they assert is false, therefore everything they assert is false". Erm? "People who believe this are moonbats - that's not an insult (unless you believe this!". Erm? Hard to know where to start. For great justice. 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, start with this: If they begin their presentation with "evidence" that's blatantly and obviously untrue, then it must be either based on ignorance or lies. Either way, why should I believe anything they have to say about anything after that, even if they might present something that I don't have ready knowledge about? It's all about credibility. They might get something right by accident, but if they can't get the obvious stuff right, why should we trust their more obscure stuff? The burden of proof is on them, and they've got nothing. As far as the term "moonbats", that's a term of affection, like one might use for a pet squirrel. Wahkeenah 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that they 'have nothing', and yet you admit that you are making your decision based on how they begin their presentation. Again, your logic is astounding. For great justice. 02:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
My logic is impeccable. Wahkeenah 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
X=False therefor Y=False? That's your idea of impeccable logic? For great justice. 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And again, you keep evading the question: If they start out with something that's blatantly false, why should I believe anything else they have to say? I have that show on tape someplace; I'll have to find it and pick it apart further, in order to satisfy your own peculiar logic that says that even if someone begins their argument with a lie, they still have credibility. Wahkeenah 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't take a position on whether the thing is false, but I think that if you are interested in editing this article you should evaluate everything. If you're not, then you don't have to. For great justice. 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think they also started yapping about the near-full-earth photos not showing stars. That displayed their total ignorance about photography. So if they know nothing about obvious stuff like the behavior of objects in a vacuum, and the problems of photographing bright objects, then how likely is it that they know anything about anything else? Given the rebuttals to their various arguments, not likely. And posting that stuff about what somebody thought they saw on TV decades ago undermines the moonbats' credibility, so it's fine and dandy. I have more of a problem with assertions of "facts" that a photo is "impossible" (with no explanation of why they think that, nor any research as to how it might be possible) and also that the two C-shaped objects are identical, for which there is no evidence presented. That stuff is not neutral, its POV and should be altered to be neutral. However, you won't let me, because you will keep reverting it because its unprovable assertions match your own POV. Wahkeenah 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't have a POV on this. I am trying to write a neutral article that describes the controversy. You have said time and time again what your POV is, but, as you know, this article is not about that. It's about the facts of what each side claims. For great justice. 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Your actions belie your words. At the very least, you need to say that the conspiracists claim those C-shaped marks are identical, not that they absolutely are identical, since I can't even see the bloody things in the pictures. And while you're at it, explain what the devil a "prop continuity marker" is supposed to be. I would also still like to know why you think that a TV program that starts with two lies still has any credibility. Maybe "logic" is not quite the right word; it's "reasoning". Wahkeenah 04:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can make the changes to show that the theorists claim that. People can look themselves. I'm not surprised you can't see them, since you claim not the be able to see the cross hairs either. A prop continuity marker is where pieces of scenery or props are marked with a letter or number to match up their place on the stage so that they are in the same place in every shot. I think that all of the claims need to be evaluated from a neutral perspective. I don't know why you find that such a difficult idea. For great justice. 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've zoomed in on high-resulution copies of the two photos showing the rock, and I can't see any "C" on the ground either. There is a sort of C shape that is actually on the rock, and that may be what they are talking about. But that is obviously something on the rock, not the ground. The "C" they point to is the hair or fiber that is on some of the copies. As far as using "A" through "Z" for prop markers, it looks to me like there were many more than 26 rocks out there, so they would quickly run out of letters. Also, why would a rock need to be placed in one particular spot? Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There are versions with two 'C's on them out there - the version on this page looks like it has had one of the markers removed. I cannot speculate on what marking system might have been used, numerous possibilities exist, like going to AA, AB for subsequent. Obviously, rocks need to stay in particular spots so that continuity errors don't occur after the actors take a coffee break. For great justice. 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
As has been stated many times, the notion that the Apollo flights did not occur is a "fringe" idea that is no more worthy of "neutrality" than is the idea of the Flat Earth. Wahkeenah 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Both are worthy of being written from a neutral point of view. For great justice. 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You're saying the Flat Earth Society deserves a neutral point of view??? Wahkeenah 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"the version on this page looks like it has had one of the markers removed. " Can I see the evidence that the markers have been removed? Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The existance of versions that show the markers. For great justice. 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, your own POV is betrayed. They are marks on a photo that vaguely look like the letter "C". That is factual. To label them as being hand-made is POV and unprovable. Wahkeenah 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would make sense if I were claiming it, but I am not, I am reporting the claims that others have made. That is NPOV. For great justice. 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant if the "C" is on some copies of the photo. (Emphasis on some and on copy.) What matters is if it is on the original film. You can compare the two photos that show the rock, and it isn't on one of them at all. And it is only on some copies of the other one, and not on the original. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But the question remains, which is the original? NASA produces images that have what looks to some people like prop markings on them. Then, when questioned about it, produce 'orginals' which don't have the markings? Since only NASA has access to all the photos, and since the accusation is that NASA is lying, it is impossible to verifiy which one is the 'real original'. For great justice. 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
To most people, and anyone who knows what they are looking at, it looks like a piece of fiber or hair that was in the equipment when some copies were made. If NASA let you see the original, hoax believers wouldn't believe them anyway. (I read somewhere that qualified people can see the origianals, but I don't remember where I read it.) Bubba73 (talk), 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You're constantly moving the goal posts - every time you claim something that doesn't stand up, you either make ad hominem attacks (hoax believers arn't 'qualified' to see the photos and don't know what to look at). NASA chooses very carefully which photos to releases, and the fact that there are issues with any of them is pretty close to whistleblowing. For great justice. 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
One minor correction I would suggest. The statement "NASA asserts..." should maybe read "NASA supporters say..." or some such, since I don't know if it's verifiable that NASA itself has ever commented on this trivial bit of hair-splitting. Wahkeenah 10:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The goalposts remain the same - come up with some/any evidence of a hoax. You can't assume that NASA is lying and use that to prove that NASA is lying. You have to prove that NASA is lying based on evidence, not on beliefs and assumptions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As my old math professor used to say: (1) you can't use the theorem to prove the theorem; and (2) if you start with invalid assumptions, you are liable to get interesting results. But the moonbats will never stop trying to do those things. It's kind of a hobby for them, an attempt to create an alternate universe. Wahkeenah 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Touché. Certain people are assuming that NASA is lying and using that to prove that NASA is lying! Bubba73 (talk), 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Which is not true, as usual, but even so, is no different from the landing believers, who assume that NASA is telling the truth, and use that to prove that NASA is telling the truth! For great justice. 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We've provided evidence for you that NASA is lying. They have been caught faking photos. If your position is "La-la-la-I'm-not-listing-la-la-la", then there's not much point in discussing it, but unless you want to to claim that the composite shot of the golfing is not a fake, then it's over. For great justice. 15:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't provided ANY evidence that "NASA is lying". You've uncovered ONE mocked-up photo, with no evidence that it was done for any reason other than to make Shepard's book look prettier, nor any evidence that NASA had anything directly to do with it. Wahkeenah 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He was a NASA employee. We don't know who faked the photo, but it was published in a book by NASA employees, perpetrating the hoax. All of the fakes are pretty good, occasionally one can be proven to be faked. That's enough to raise serious question among the rational. For great justice. 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that the photo was faked by NASA, i.e. that NASA relased the photo circa 1970. I haven't seen any evidence that the fake photo existed in public before the book was published. The book was not written by Shepard and Slayon - it was written by Jay Barbree and Howard Benedict, and Slayon and Shepard lent their names to it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A fake photo in a book by fake authors? My goddess, where will it end? Well, that cooks it; that proves the moon flights were a hoax. Ironically, if they had included that spooky TV image in the book, it would have lent new meaning to "ghosting". Wahkeenah 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Their names are right there on the book. Have you read the book? Don't you think it is a bit unusual that Shepard and Slayton are always referred to in the third person? Isn't it somewhat strange that there is nothing unique in the book - something that only an actual astronaut would be able to tell? Also, the Slaton biography Deke! came out about the same time. Wouldn't it be unusual for him to be writing two autobiographies at the same time? BTW, the book was not published by NASA. Bubba73 (talk), 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen the book, and I was just being funny. I had to work today, and it seems like the Edit Jihad has been in full swing in the last 24 hours. I have not looked at the article yet yoday. I shudder to think what kind of shape it's in by now. I wonder if there's any way to state the facts of the case in a non-emotional way. (Notice I did not say neutral, as that's another issue. If it could be kept factual and non-emotional, point-and-counterpoint with minimal labeling or name-calling, that would be the best we could do.) Wahkeenah 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Golf

What's with the assertion that it was "impossible" to play at golf on the moon? The golf thing was well-covered at the time (which I'm guessing was well before yours); Shepard took (possibly smuggled aboard) a couple of specially-made golf balls along with a clubhead-like attachment that he could screw on to some other conventional device. As I recall, he was only able to hold the club with one hand due to the bulky suit. He took a whack at it, and exclaimed, "Miles and miles!" but the TV camera was fixed on him, so we had to take his word for it. Shepard was known as kind of a jokester, and as I recall, NASA wasn't all that happy about this extracurricular activity on their dime, but once he was there with this ersatz golf equipment, what could they do? Wahkeenah 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm researching this. I have the US hardback edition of that book, and I see the photo he is talking about. However, I'm pretty sure that the photo was not taken directly by an astronaut, since it isn't in the 70 mm Hasselblad photos that the astronauts took. The quality looks too good to have been taken by a TV camera, but not good enough for a Hasselblad. I think it was probably taken my an automated movie camera on the surface, but I haven't found a verification of that yet, so I haven't said anything in the article itself. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the Alan Shepard page and my memory of the event was pretty good. What's not clear is whether NASA grounded him (again) after that flight, but he was already something like 46 years old, so that probably would have been about it anyway. Wahkeenah 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Since writing this, I saw your note. Maybe you could play the "napster" game again, and scan and post the photo for 7 days, unless you fear reprisal from the copyright vultures. Wahkeenah 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So, what is it that they are arguing is impossible? That the picture could have been taken? Every time one of those yokels says something is "impossible" what they really mean is "we don't understand how it was done, therefore we don't believe it." Wahkeenah 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The "reasoning" is that the photo shows two astronauts, so who took the photo. The complete video of that flight is available here, but I don't have it. Someone could check it so see if there is an extra astronaut on the moon at that time. I don't remember seeing one at the time (he may have been taking a break to drink a Coke). There shouldn't be any copyright problems with this photo, since it is by NASA, and they are all released to the public. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The quality of the photos and videos improved with each mission, so maybe it's from the motion picture camera, but not having seen it I can't say. I'm intrigued, though. Wahkeenah 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is my scan , click to enlarge. It comes from my copy of the book. Since the astronaut in the left is cut off right at the page divide, it is hard to tell what is going on, but he seems to have a shadow on the right. I don't want to tear this book apart to see how the pages connect - it was personally autographed by the fifth man to walk on the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. And please don't damage your book on our account, for sure. It is an interesting question: Where was the camera? That's a fair question. To jump to the conclusion that it was "impossible" is ludicrous. But that's typical for the moonbats. The picture is useful for another reason, as it shows a similar relative position of the LEM and the antenna for this Apollo 14 flight as on that web page that argues about those objects in Apollo 12. In both cases, the antenna is at a 45 degree angle away from the LEM, and both the near photo and the distant photo on that website are consistent with each other, despite the website's claims to the contrary. The moonbats isolate on specific items as their "evidence", but the more one sees the broader picture, the more their phony arguments get shown up. Wahkeenah 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have the factual details of this photo. I'll write it up tonight. Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A qualified victory for the moonbats. The "impossible" photo is, in fact, a mockup. Please see the transcript at [14] under the section "A Nice Day for a Game of Golf" and specifically the comments at 135:09:26 about how they composed this photo from bits and pieces of various Hasselblad photos, presumably so it would make a nice illustration for Moonshot. The article points out that the only actual photographic record of the golf shots was the TV coverage, which squares with what I remember. I can see why they pulled it from the reprint of the book. I'm guessing the primordial moonbats were all over that one, or at least the editor was once he found out it was a montage. The writeup doesn't say who cooked up the idea of the mockup. It could have been one of Shepard's little jokes. Unfortunately, this kind of tomfoolery triggers the moonbats' "told ya so" dance. However, it does point out that something that looks illogical probably is... like my first reaction to this photo... and like my general reaction to most of the moonbats' arguments. Wahkeenah 07:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Shucky-darn, you're way ahead of me. I overlooked your explanation and now I've entered redundant info in the article. I'll try to mock it up a little better. :) Wahkeenah 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote it up and put it in the article, but I didn't mention here that I had done it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. I found a site that was most interesting, maybe already mentioned somewhere here, "Who mourns for Apollo?", which made mincemeat of the 2001 hoax "documentary", and showed the mockup photo in question, and put forth the idea that the real coverup was about finding ancient artifacts on the moon. I have to say that theory is probably a fantasy, but to my mind it has more credibility than the notion that we didn't go there in the first place. I was amused that the author says NASA is quite happy with having the moonbats around, because it diverts attention from the "real" conspiracy. In short, the author thinks the moonbats are both dupes and dopes. Wahkeenah 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) "A qualified victory for the moonbats" - certainly a fake photo, if that is what you mean. But did NASA fake it? But here is an Apollo 16 photo with stars. And here is something interesting. Go to fun pix. Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a fake photo. The only problem with it was that they should have indicated somewhere in the book that this was artwork rather than a true photo, since that was not clear... although I had my suspicions, as it seemed to show an oversized golf ball sailing off into the distance. Tinkering with photos is nothing new. I recall seeing a baseball game-action photo from the late 1800s, a beautiful picture by standards of that day, except that someone had pained in a baseball that looked the size of a grapefruit. Anyway, the initial ambiguity of the "Moon Shots" photo contrasts with the poster that NASA produced showing Jupiter and its various satellites kind of randomly scattered, and it was made clear (for the benefit of the double-digit IQ's in the audience) that the photo was a montage. Similarly, in the early days of MTV they used some stuff from Apollo 11 implying that they had planted an MTV flag on the moon, which only a true moron would have thought was somehow real. I also understand about the cross-hairs now: they were intended for exact lineups of panoramic shots. Seems simple enough. That "Who Mourns for Apollo?" site made that clear to me, as I was uncertain of that aspect of the whole deal before. Meanwhile, I'm intrigued by the idea that our astronauts might have found evidence of an ancient civilization (maybe a Krell outpost?) on the moon. It reminds me of a couple of years ago when we had a rover on Mars that was running into some technical difficulties, and someone mocked up a photo indicating that the last transmission from it showed Marvin the Martian studying this intruder into his domain. Wahkeenah 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There are no "Photo Credits" in the Moon shot book. Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Nor "Blames", presumably. :) This is perhaps NASA's equivalent to "Here's another clue for you all: The walrus is Paul." Wahkeenah 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
So, evidence that NASA faked at least one photo. Given that, why should we believe that the rest are real? Your 'true believer syndrome' behavior is wonderful! "Oh, it's from a 'hidden' video camera! Oh wait, it's fake, but it doesn't matter! It doesn't affect our view of any of the other photos - we still believe!" For great justice. 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that there is any evidence as to who, specifically, did this bit of artwork. I have said over and over again, the masses have the right to ask any question of NASA they want to. If something doesn't have the ring of truth (like that illustration did for me), then it should be challenged. Where the moonbats go wrong is when they reject a reasonable explanation on the pre-judged assumption that NASA is conducting a vast conspiracy. Wahkeenah 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, where is the "equal time" for the "theory" that the real conspiracy is that NASA was hiding evidence of ancient extraterrestrial civilizations on the moon, and is using the moonbats as dupes in that process? Sound farfetched? It sounds less farfetched than the notion that we didn't go to the moon. Wahkeenah 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So, let me just get this right, after I pick myself up off the floor from laughing. Even after what you admit is definative proof that NASA and/or its shills (the astronots) faked visual evidence of a moon landing in their publicity material, you still maintain that there's nothing to see here?! Every time evidence of fakery is presented, it is to be interpreted as 'art', even though it was presented as fact at the time? I don't see how you can continue to ask to be taken seriously. For great justice. 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence that it was NASA that faked that photo. From all of the discussion, it appears that it was faked by the publishers of the Moon Shot book. There is some discussion about it here.
[Readers should note that, while the golf-shot picture in Al's book Moonshot bears some resemblance to the TV images, it is actually a composite made up of pieces of various Hasselblad images. The only actual record of the golf shot is the TV coverage. Al and Ed had already put their Hasselblads into the ETB at about 135:06:06.]
[Not long after I bought a copy of Moonshot, Andrew Chaikin and I had a long telephone conversation about the composite and worked out - at least in general terms - how it was put together. Journal Contributor David Harland tells us that the 1994 hardback UK edition published by Virgin Books contains the composite, while Brian Lawrence tells us that the 1995 edition does not.]
[In the composite, the LM and LM shadow come from a left/right reversal of AS14-66 9276. Note the LRRR which is sitting in the footpad of the ladder strut. In reality, the LR-Cubed was deployed at the ALSEP site during the first EVA. Both of the astronaut images in the composite come from a pan Al took at the beginning of EVA-1 shortly before 114:53:34. The image of "Al" is actually a left/right reversal of Ed's image from AS14-66- 9240. In the real photograph, Ed is doing a TV pan. In the composite, the TV camera has been removed and the golf club has been added. The image of "Ed" in the composite is taken from another frame in Al's earlier pan, AS14-66- 9241. And, once again, the TV had been removed from a left-right reversal of the original images. Similarly, the image of the U.S. flag has been taken from AS14-66- 9232- or one of the other tourist pictures Al and Ed took during the flag deployment. I have not yet identified the precise images from which the MET and the S-Band were taken; but, the MET image is very similar to the one in AS14-67- 9361, which Al took at the ALSEP site at the end of the ALSEP deployment. Finally, the ball and the shadows of the S-Band legs - like the golf club - appear to have been drawn in.] Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So you are trying to claim that it is ok for the 'astronots' to lie, and that they don't represent NASA? Come on - the accusation is that the conspiracy involved NASA (Alan Shepard and Donald Slayton were NASA employees when the hoax was perpetrated) and others. They are shills for NASA, and their actions reflect how steeped the whole enterprise is in lies. For great justice. 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I begin to see what your argument is... that this amateurishly faked illustration is the "tip of the iceberg". That argument could hold water... if there were an iceberg. So far, there isn't. There's less to this than to the Bermuda Triangle, which ain't much. If the moonbats ever come up with anything better than this, let me know. Wahkeenah 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep - you're getting it at last! It's not likely that NASA released a lot of photos that look fake - they're obviously pretty good at it. The theory only predicts that a few obvious fakes and mistakes will get through quality control. Of course, independent investigators can't see all of the pictures, only the ones NASA chooses. Of course there's an iceberg - wasn't it the captain of the Titanic who said that there wasn't one? You're in good company! For great justice. 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the actual shot, a videocapture from the event in question. Now, put aside your conspiratorial mindset for just a second, and ask yourself why a publisher in 1975 might have had any reason to think this image was somehow of inferior quality for publishing in a book, and might have commissioned something that was thought to be more visually interesting. Wahkeenah 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty blurry, like UFO or Loch Ness monster photos - generally, blurry ones are easier to fake because you don't have to get details right. But what does this blurry photo prove? Nothing. The theory predicts that many photos will be good enough fakes to fool people, only a few mistakes or 'whistle blowers' will get through. You only have to catch NASA with their hand in the till once to demonstrate that they are dishonest, and hiding something. For great justice. 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It proves, or at least demonstrates, that the editors thought the best real image they had was inadequate for a book, and they asked someone (and you haven't determined who) to construct a mockup, effectively an "artist's conception", except they failed to label it properly. Following up on your statement that one "lie" proves the whole thing is a lie, that contradicts your premise that multiple lies in the 2001 documentary does not prove the moonbats are liars. Wahkeenah 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It proves that they manufactured at least some of the 'evidence' for the landing. And if they manufactured some, what is the evidence that they didn't fake it all? In fact, why would they need to fake it if they had been to the moon? They wouldn't! For great justice. 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't proven who mocked up that photo, nor why it matters. Wahkeenah 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't spelled out the criteria for what you would accept as evidence of the hoax. I don't know who faked the photo, but it was either NASA, or the astronauts, or someone who worked for them. It doesn't really matter exactly who. By the way - thanks for voting to keep this! For great justice. 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to read farther down the page; I think I answered it. And it does matter who mocked up the photo, and why. Wahkeenah 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Stars in Apollo 15 photos

Under "Issues of photographs and film", item #3, there are stars in two Apollo 15 photographs. I put in links to these photos (low and high resolution). Can anyone identify which Constellation these stars are in? Bubba73 (talk), 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are those really stars? They look more like scratches to me. Why would stars be streaked when the ground is clear?Algr 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't be too sure about that. They might be continuity markers, or some other object put there by NASA to confuse everyone. >:) Wahkeenah 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Or 'fake stars' like in the shuttle mock up. For great justice. 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, publishers of NASA photos should make it clear when they have edited the photos for presentation. Their failure to do so sends red herrings in the direction of the moonbats. News magazines do this also. Recall the infamous O.J. Simpson mug shot? One of the two mass-media news magazines had the real photo on the cover, the other had a "darkened" one, for which they caught a lot of heat for sending a subliminal racist message. Anyone who publishes a photo should have a disclaimer indicating it has been edited for whatever reason. But there is no law requiring that, unless they do it for actually fraudulent purposes... which I assume the moonbats have never succeeded in doing, nor would they likely try because they would lose overall. Wahkeenah 17:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Except they are using faked 'evidence' for a moon landing fraudulently. NASA Shills: "Yes, ok. NASA faked and 'edited' the 'evidence' for the landings, but that doesn't proove that NASA never went to the moon!" ??? Given that the only 'evidence' presented for the landings comes from NASA, it would be strange if they didn't pick the best fakes they could make. The fact that even some of them have been proven faked is a damning indictment. For great justice. 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
All it proves is that when they really try to fake an image, they're not very good at it. Most of the images are real, some might be edited (like taking out the crosshairs so the photos "look better"). That's a widespread and sometimes questionable journalistic practice. Maybe you've seen the famous photo of Ty Cobb sliding into third base. I always thought it looked kind of strange, until I saw the uncropped version in a book about Charles Conlon's photos. In that case, it's just baseball. There's no harm in editing stuff, but journalists should respect their audience enough to let them know. Obviously, in 1975 it never occurred to whoever put that mockup together (and where does it say NASA themselves did it?) that the moonbats would use it to try to make their case. As I said before, that picture looked suspicious to me. But looking suspicious and being suspicious are not the same thing. Once the explanation was there, it made sense. Wahkeenah 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The whole 'landing' looks suspicious, and NASA/their astro-not shills duplicity means none of their 'evidence' can be taken at face value. Therefore, there is no evidence that is worth the paper it's written on that the landings happened. For great justice. 00:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing suspicious about their landings, and there is no evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. It was a well-documented historic event and no one can prove otherwise. Wahkeenah 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So you keep saying, but your claim rests on the fact that we must trust NASA and their employees / shills (who have been accused of lying, and have been found guilty of faking evidence) and no verification can be done by any independent third party. It is NOT like any other historical event, in that it is not open to examination and verification by third parties. For great justice. 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a better analogy is the Holocaust, but any historical event can be questioned by those who (1) did not live through it and (2) have an agenda for not wanting to accept it. I do not inherently trust NASA or any other organization. Keep in mind, these are the guys whose bureaucratic practices have led to several disasters and near-disasters. But I do trust my sense of reason and logic, and nothing I've seen so far has led me to believe that the historical record is anything other than what it is. Nor do I buy into the more-believable notion that there was evidence of ancient astronauts on the moon. But like the "moon-flights-were-a-humbug" hypothesis, it's worth a look. The evidence for the moon flights has been given a lot of looks, and the moonbats have failed to make their case. If the best you could do for citing faked "evidence" is that ill-advised mockup in the Shepard book, you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a courtroom. And, by the way, where's your evidence that NASA themselves produced that bit of 5th grade artwork? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, I don't know. Show me. Wahkeenah 01:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not like the holocaust at all - there are thousands of first hand account, masses of physical evidence that can be interrogated by third parties, hundreds of historians have access to the evidence. The analogy would be if the only documentation we had for the holocaust was from a few hundred US army people, and they controled all access to the evidence, and some of it could be proved to have been faked. For great justice. 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Witnesses and photos prove nothing. It's all a vast anti-Nazi conspiracy. Eventually all the Holocaust survivors will be dead, and then the Holocaust Hoax Believers will be in their element. Wahkeenah 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the evidence is there for all to study, and is not created entirely by one party. For great justice. 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that for sure? Wahkeenah 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Independent, sceptical historians examine the evidence themselves. The mark of a scientifically or historically valid theory is that it is open to independent scrutiny and does not depend solely on trusting a government agency that has been shown to fake evidence. The documentary, eye witness, archeological, etc evidence, that they have access to. Nobody claims to have carried out the second world war entirely in-house, and produce all the evidence themselves. That is what is being claimed with the 'moon landings'. There is so much independently verifiable evidence for the second world war and the holocaust when compared to the moon landings, the comparison is ridiculous and offensive. For the sake of good taste I would advise you not to push this odious analogy any further. For great justice. 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You're threatening me now? Oh, I'm shaking in my red-white-and-blue shirt. (That's a reference to a funny U.S. TV ad - I'm guessing you're British). The analogy I'm making is that once it is "safe", the conspiracists on any subject will go at it full steam, as they did once the Apollo mission was over. General Eisenhower reportedly took pains to try to document the Holocaust, specifically on the grounds that someday there would be those who would deny it. If NASA had thought there was any serious possibility that the facts of their mission would be seriously challenged, maybe they would have done a better job of "proving" it. I'm as suspicious of the government as anyone, but I don't question the Apollo mission because it has the ring of truth to it, reinforced by the fact that every bit of "evidence" to the contrary has been proven wanting. In any case, the allegedly large percentage of the populace who find Apollo suspicious probably also find algebra suspicious, so it's irrelevant. Wahkeenah 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this a national pride issue for you? I'd never looked at it that way - I guess that could explain some of your attachment to the idea! No, I'm not threatening you, just advising you that likening one of the worst slaughters of the last century, which was independently witnessed by millons of direct participants from four continents and documented by hundreds of thousands of independent people and organizations to a single government department perpetrating a fraud in which they make / control all the evidence, is in bad taste, at the very least, and actually weakens your argument. The fact is that there is no way to independently verify the moon landings. NASA's claims do not stand up to rigorous historical method, which is there precisely to prevent this kind of hoax. NASA's 'evidence' doesn't stand up to proper analysis. Those are the facts. For great justice. 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not national pride. If NASA pulled off the most incredible hoax in the history of the universe, I'd like to know about it. But there is no evidence of it. Your fundamental flaw is that you start with the premise that NASA lied, and then try to construct an alternate universe that supports that premise. But it doesn't work. Every challenge you pose to the historic record has a reasonable explanation. Maybe I should ask, what evidence would you accept that the flights did occur? I think I already know the answer to that one, though. Wahkeenah 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I start with evidence that NASA lied. There is no historical record. There is only the NASA created one. I would accept any third party presented proof. For example, a non-NASA affiliated examination (either by landing or by telescope) of the 'landing site'. For great justice. 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence that NASA lied about the moon flights having occurred, and the historical record is plentiful, you just don't want to accept it. Wahkeenah 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You realize that the fact there is no historical record from an unbiased source is not evidence that NASA lied? Just to show how silly that so-called evidence is: suppose Joe thinks of a number between 1 and 10. When asked what number he's thinking of, he replies "1". No one else has any evidence this is true. Does this suggest that Joe was lying? Of course not.
Similarly, lack of collaborating evidence for the moon landing is not evidence they were faked — especially since no one besides NASA has had the ability to check the landing site. Phiwum 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. But, the fact that there is no historical record from a third party, paired with evidence that NASA faked visual evidence, indicates strongly that they are hiding something. If Joe has been shown to lie in the past, I would suspect him. For great justice. 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Pretty damn mild evidence in this case. There is one photo which apparently has been formed from a composite (if I understand correctly) for cutesy effect. Perhaps in your view, everything NASA says is now a lie unless there is independent verification. Well, fine by me. It is not my job to convince you otherwise and that is not the purpose of this talk page either. Phiwum 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right - there is only absolute proof that they lied a little bit, and, if you squint a little, you can carry on believing that the lie doesn't run any deeper. Far be it from me to shake your beliefs. For great justice. 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no proof that NASA lied about anything. There's plenty of proof that the hoax claimers are either liars or ignorant. Wahkeenah 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious groups

We should have a section on the views of religous groups and leaders:

Satsvarupa dasa Goswami "Although many believe man first reached the moon in July, 1969, we have information from a very reliable source, the Sanskrit Vedic scriptures, that the astronauts never actually went to the moon. The manned moon landing was a colossal hoax." (07-06-05)[15]
Sanskrit scriptures??? What year were they written? Wahkeenah 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't know, should be pretty easy to find out though. For great justice. 23:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a joke, and whoever posted it did not sign his name, but this is only the talk page. Technically, the moonbats themselves qualify as a religious group, since they have faith that recorded history did not happen. Kind of like those who deny evolution, only on much shakier ground. Wahkeenah 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the article. It says that "The Vedas state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther from the earth than the sun." This is the reason why astronauts couldn't have made it to the moon. I think we can add this to the nutcases, rather than the somewhat more legitimate hoax accusations. We certainly can test the distance to the moon, and have done so.--Thalia42 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted it, although, in fact, it is the shills and astro-nots who are religious about this - even in the face of evidence that NASA shills faked visual evidence of the 'landing' they cling to their beliefs. It's nothing like evolution - evolution is a scientific theory that generates predictions that have been tested by independent observers. The moon landing hoax does not - the claim that the landings took place have been constructed in a way that is entirely untestable by independent sceptics. For great justice. 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no "claim" that the landings took place. The Apollo program was a duly recorded series of historical events. The "claim" is only that these events did not occur, but there is no evidence that they did not occur. You are equating acceptance of the historical record as a "religion". You should always be skeptical of the historical record. But when you still question an observation after having been presented a reasonable explanation of it, that constitutes religious fanaticism. Wahkeenah 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary - the only 'claim' that the landings took place are by an agency that has been caught faking evidence for its claims. There is NO independent historical record. For great justice. 01:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
NASA has never "claimed" that the landings took place. And where's your proof that NASA themselves did that artwork? Wahkeenah 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It was published in a book written by people who were NASA employees at the time the hoax was perpetrated, and were key to the hoax. If they don't represent NASA now, they certainly did then. Now you're saying that even NASA doesn't claim the landings took place? I think they do! For great justice. 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that the news media reported what the events were; no one had to "claim" anything. The "claims" are all from the skeptics side, and so far their mountain of "evidence" is the size of small anthill. Find me some real evidence, and I'll be interested. Wahkeenah 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The media reported only what they were shown. It was the height of the cold war, and disent was not encouraged. All of the 'evidence' for the 'landings' was literally manufactured by NASA. There is evidence that you admit to that they faked visual 'evidence' of the landing. What more could you possibly want? Obviously they are going to choose only the best faked photos to release, so to prove that all of them are fake is going to be impossible. They have many, many experts, making the best fakes they can. The fact that any can be shown to be fakes is enough. Seriously. What evidence would you accept? In reality, you are not prepared to accept any evidence of your religion being faked. Every time new evidence is produced you find some other hole to hide in to preserve your crumbing worldview. That is the mark of a true believer. For great justice. 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So far you've got one badly-done photo mockup that was produced for a book illustration (and nowhere else that I know of) because the TV images were deemed unacceptable. Let me know when you find anything else. The only thing "crumbling" is the moonbats' fantasies, because everything they bring up has a reasonable explanation. Seriously. How could this alleged conspiracy be better controlled than the many secrets about the Vietnam War, and Watergate, and all that other stuff? Seriously. If you bother to study the history of our space program, you will see a logical flow and continuity to it all. Unless you think we didn't really put landers on Mars in 1976, and that the Shuttles don't exist, and that the people who supposedly died in them are in a witness protection program. Wahkeenah 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, that reminds me... you're saying I should reject the record of the Apollo missions based on one obviously mocked-up photo. Yet you're also saying I should accept the conspiracists arguments, despite their entirely mocked-up 2001 "documentary"... that just because they made a few mistakes (ha!), that doesn't negate their whole theory. Pray tell me, where is the logic in that? As I said, I started watching the show with some interest. When they started going on about the "waving flag", I said "You've got to be kidding! This is their so-called 'evidence'???" And when they started talking about the photos, it was clear they had never actually either seen or taken a nighttime photo and thus had no credibility talking about it. I concluded the producers were either morons or liars... or both. Anybody who watched that "documentary" and believed what they were seeing should go back to their high school and sue them for fraud, for having allegedly provided an education. Wahkeenah 08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, wait, I've got it... that moon hoax "documentary" was produced by NASA, because they knew it would be so full of holes that it would invite further ridicule of the moonbats. And it fits with the current conspiracy, because Fox News has also successfully convinced the American public of the merits of the Iraq war. So it's clear that Fox is in bed with the government. Oh, those folks are clever. Don't you wish you were that clever? >:) Wahkeenah 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You dodged the question with a blustering rant. What evidence would you accept? For great justice. 14:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What it would take is proof that the flights did not occur. And you don't have it. Wahkeenah 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask again. What evidence would you accept? I know that the flights are a matter of faith for you, but, specifically, what sort of evidence would convince you? For great justice. 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of "faith", it's a matter of "acceptance" that the historical record is reasonably accurate unless proven otherwise, which you have not done. I would be very interested to see proof that it didn't happen. There ain't any. Wahkeenah 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet again, you dodge the question. What evidence would you accept? Of course, the reason that you don't want to specifcy, is that you will cling to your belief in the face of any evidence. I have specified what would convince me - I challenge you again to do the same. For great justice. 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The question doesn't make much sense. There are lots of scenarios I could imagine that would change my opinion on the moon landings. Say, discovering a studio in which the landings were filmed (with suitable evidence, say, unedited films). Or if dozens of participants in the conspiracy came forward with credible stories of their involvement (including evidence). The best evidence would be if a lunar orbiter was capable of taking photos of the landing site and there was no evidence of landing there. This is a list of possible evidence that would do it. But that last element would be the most compelling. Phiwum 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you think the question doesn't make sense - I'm trying to get W to frame a hypothesis for his faith - to think sceptically about his beliefs. So, the proof requirements are: 1. Evidence that the place claimed as the landing site is empty. 2. The remains of a NASA studio. 3. Unedited video of the hoax being film. 4. Confessions. That's progress, but, you see, none of the defenders are calling for imaging or return trips to verify, NASA would have been very foolish not to have destroyed the sets / original video, and, in any event, will claim that they are training materials, and, when Buzz Aldrin is asked to swear that it was not a conspiracy or confess, and will not swear, the astronots cheer him! They are not really interesting in evidence that shakes their beliefs. For great justice. 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
My last comment on this utterly off-topic digression (talk pages aren't for debates like this). *Of course* "defenders" aren't calling for return trips in order to refute what they regard as a fringe theory. A return trip is remarkably expensive and would prove nothing to the theorists anyway. After all, if NASA can send a return trip, then they can also send a trip to plant fake evidence. And no space agency (NASA or otherwise) is motivated to spend the money necessary to verify the previous moon landings. It really is not an issue.
As far as the other comments go: If NASA is stupid enough to get crosshairs wrong on faked moon landing shots, then they're stupid enough to leave behind more compelling evidence than that. Getting the crosshairs wrong seems to betray real carelessness.
As I've said, this is my last word in the debate. Talk pages are supposed to be about article quality, not editor beliefs. Phiwum 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right - the evidence is inconclusive, and no-one is about to do the experiment that would be needed to settle the issue. For great justice. 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The press managed to uncover a lot of truths about the Vietnam War and Watergate and the Mafia and all manner of stuff, yet the bureaucrats at NASA managed to keep this from them? Gimme a break. That other writer, though, has pretty well covered it. The most conclusive would be to somehow find that the supposed landing sites had nothing there. A deathbed confession by one of the astronauts would be interesting, though less convincing, since the Van Allen Belts might have fried his brain. I don't want my tax dollars spent to prove something that is already widely known to be true. If there's a different reason to go back to the moon (like if they figure out that there's oil there or something), that would be OK. I do take mild issue with the complaint of the one user. I think we are using the talk page to discuss article quality and content. Better here than on the page itself. Wahkeenah 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So you would question a confession, and you don't want to verify the site? You've set it up so that it's not falsifiable. You're a true believer! There's only one experiment that would prove it for you, and you would oppose doing it! For great justice. 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I said a deathbed confession would be less convincing, not that it would be non-credible. And I would very much like for us to be able to go back to the moon, if there was a reason to, and not just to prove something that most of us are already confident in. We've got better things to spend our tax dollars on than moon trips, unless there is a practical reason to go, like for mining or some such, and a cost-effective method. Wahkeenah 23:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you source this opinion?

"despite the many errors of fact and presentation in the program" if not, I think it is just your POV, and should go. For great justice. 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • My source is the writeup on "Who mourns for Apollo?" which goes into great detail about how they got it wrong, much of which I knew before I read it. How should I handle that? Wahkeenah 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
We should quote that website as claiming that the program was in error. For great justice. 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. We report, you decide, as Foxy News likes to say. Wahkeenah 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Great - the current version looks good! For great justice. 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone feel like cutting this list down?

  • What's stopping you from doing it? Wahkeenah 17:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing, I'll take a crack, just wanting to solicit opinions ;) For great justice. 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Gopher it. Wahkeenah 00:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'd prefer it if it wasn't 'cut down'? Exactly why? Shouldn't it be comprehensive? --24.18.227.207 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Probably because it's overkill. How many satires of this premise do we really need in the article? However, this is not a hot-button issue for me. You may debate it with Mr. Justice. Wahkeenah 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I, too, think it's overkill. I mean, the article is long as it is, and there are hundred of pop-culture refs. Pretty soon it should be broken out as a separate article if you really want to keep them all. On the other hand, if you really want them all I'm not that bothered. For great justice. 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I almost made the same suggestion, a separate article. But I'm not married to it either way. Meanwhile, I think someone else has already started the work. Wahkeenah 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I can see if it is getting too long, I'm sure there are numerous examples. However, I find it to be one of the most interesting aspects of the article - how certain notions have leaked into popular culture. It's a testament to our "conspiracy culture". Perhaps it would be good to turn it into its own article, or if it is to be paired down, someone should create subheadings for TV, cinema, literature, video games, and music, and ensure that each one has prominent examples. Right now it's heavy on music videos and examples are randomly listed.--24.18.227.207 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be bold! For great justice. 18:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Boldly go where no editor has gone before. Wahkeenah 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims and counter claims

Bubba - I changed 'rebuttals' to counter claims, because, in the case of the faked photo from moon-shot, there is no 'rebuttal' - the landing believers admit that it was faked. In addition, landing believers do not follow scientific skepticism methodology. Their claims are not independently verifiability and falsifiabile, and they accept claims on faith or rely on unfalsifiable claims. For great justice. 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus dude. Just because you can repeat back the exact critique that applies to your own contributions, doesn't lend it any credence. - Reaverdrop 23:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm? Abuse is your response? I should not have expected more. For great justice. 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Claims and responses would be the best way to put it. Wahkeenah 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. For great justice. 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Landing believer community" is a blatant NPOV violation.

The most blatant violation I have ever seen of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 to pseudoscientific views. "Landing believer community" suggests parity with a non-landing believer community. No one on Earth outside of "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theorists would ever refer to a "landing believer community". For Wikipedia to use that wording would be to make it an instrument of conspiracy theorists. I've tried to think of some way to say this that sounds nicer and more civil, but there is no other way to say this. If you want to promote the idea that the Apollo missions were a hoax, get a blog. They're free. Stop trying to co-opt Wikipedia to give equal validity to fringe pseudoscience. - Reaverdrop 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying 'some people' is not good, because we should be specifying who. Landing believer community is fine, because it refers, without judgement, to the community of people who believe that the landings took place. This site is for neutrally stating the facts and opinions of each party. Not pushing your POV. Even the pro NASA shills agree that about 10% of the US population doubt NASA went to the moon. For great justice. 23:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Landing believer community" is funny terminology. It's like making New York and Mayberry the same size. Wahkeenah 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Then what's the preffered term? For great justice. 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no landing believer community. That community is...well...the entire world except for the very few who believe it to be a hoax. You are slanting the article to make it appear that those who believe it was a hoax are the larger group whereas those who don't believe it was a hoax are some small faction of the world. Nonsense. IrishGuy 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Even the landing believers say that 10% of the US population have doubts that the landings happened. For great justice. 01:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To put it in perspective, believers in Creationism far outnumber Apollo hoax believers, probably exceeding 50 percent, yet Creationism is largely ignored by science, which shows how important those public opinion polls are. It's also worth pointing out that as poor as Bush's ratings have been reported to be, the pools show he's 3 times as credible as the moon landing hoax story. Wahkeenah 01:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And your point is? The fact is that this is not a fringe belief, and the community of people who propound the idea that NASA landed on the moon need to be called something. For great justice. 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You are seriously arguing that you need a special term for 90% of the world? (your stats, by the way). IrishGuy 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Not mine, the landing believers'. For great justice. 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And you have some special stats that show a higher number of believers of nonsense? IrishGuy 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What?For great justice. 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
10 percent "having doubts" does not mean they embrace the tales of the moonbats. And it is a fringe belief, although those who believe it continually delude themselves into thinking it's something more. Wahkeenah 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
10% is a minority, but not a 'fringe'. For great justice. 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I resent being called a "landing believer". I'm a believer in science, observable facts, logic and reason. Prove the landings didn't happen, and I'll be on your side. Wahkeenah 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny! None of your claims follow scientific concepts about independent verification - you take NASAs statements as articles of faith, without any replicability or verification! For great justice. 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The moon flights were widely reported across many media, and it is logical to accept conventional recorded history until it is disproven. Show me the proof. I'll wait. Wahkeenah 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Popular play on tv is no reason to throw out scientific method (except for the true landing beleivers), but the point is, what do you call the (much smaller) community of people who advocate for the NASA landings (bad astronomy etc)? For great justice. 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Look. There is a small group of people who are active in advocating for the landings. They are not 90% of the world. They run websites like bad astronomy. What should we call them? For great justice. 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The only reason anyone feels the need to "advocate" for the landings is to answer the baseless and phony charges leveled by the moonbats. Fortunately, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Wahkeenah 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But what should we call them?!? For great justice. 02:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the terms "hoax proponents" and "hoax skeptics" in the article. I fall into the latter group. "NASA supporters" could work, but they don't pay me anything, and never have. On the contrary, they spent my tax money "to put some clown on the moon", as Tom Lehrer said. So I'm not a NASA "supporter" or "believer", like it was a religion (as it is with the moonbats). Show me the evidence that the landings did not occur, and I'll be on your side. But there ain't any. Wahkeenah 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
While not getting pulled in by your abusive comments, I agree with "hoax proponents", and "hoax skeptics" is also ok, but monopolising those terms is not NPOV. The hoax proponents are highly 'skeptical' of the landing claims (in the scientific sense, as well as the ordinary sense), and the "hoax skeptics" are not simply skeptical, they have a set of beliefs that they are advocating. I would add "landing advocates (or proponents)", and "landing skeptics" respectively, for those who advocate the NASA explanation, and are skeptical of it. For great justice. 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a "NASA supporter" either. I look at the evidence and THEN draw a conclusion. As Isaac Asimov said see here

Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death? No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no. One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe """in anything?" "Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

Bubba73 (talk), 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You're full of the rhetoric of evidence and science, but a core principle is that independent observers should be able to check and verify. You can't do that with the landing claims. It's 'Trust NASA. There's no evidence the Government would lie to us' all the way! There's no real committment to observing (there's nothing you can observe!), measurement (what are you measuring?!), I won't even talk about your 'reasoning', and again, NO EVIDENCE that isn't produced by NASA. Your only response is 'But we can trust the government! There's no evidence that we can't!' For great justice. 03:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's put it another way: the best evidence we have indicates that the Apollo program is what it says it was. You don't have any evidence to the contrary, you have questions, all of which have been explained, and you don't accept the explanations because they run counter to your own core belief that NASA faked it. It's an endless circle. The "conspiracy theory" is a fabrication by publicity seekers. It is the moonbats who have a "set of beliefs" that they keep promoting despite the lack of any evidence in their support. Wahkeenah 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's stop deflecting the question for a moment. A core principle is that independent observers should be able to check and verify. You can't do that with the landing claims. It's 'Trust NASA. There's no evidence the Government would lie to us' all the way! There's no real committment to observing (there's nothing you can observe!), measurement (what are you measuring?!), I won't even talk about your 'reasoning', and again, NO EVIDENCE that isn't produced by NASA. Your only response is 'But we can trust the government! There's no evidence that we can't!' You have no response to that except "you're as bad though". For great justice. 03:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The conspiracists conveniently waited until the Apollo program was cancelled, so that it was not possible to do any independent verification. Again I say, the only evidence we have is that Apollo was for real. The conspiracists' core belief is that NASA made it up, despite the lack of any evidence to that effect. Don't be lecturing me about my logic. Wahkeenah 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So you admit that, unlike science, it is not possible to independently verify the moon landing claims. There you go. You've admitted that belief in the landing is a statement of faith. Not at all like real science or history. For great justice. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't claim to know if it's possible or not. I just claim that it's highly suspicious that the moonbats really kicked into gear on this after the fact, when they knew it was "safe" to level these accusations, because we weren't going back. Meanwhile, as I keep asking, where is the evidence to the contrary? If you've got some, show it to me! Wahkeenah 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? It's easy to verify because firstly you have the patterns of transmissions back to Earth, which did not go straight to Nasa. Secondly you have evidence left on the moon which can be seen by other spacecraft and telescopes. Get yourself a powerful enough telescope, point it where they landed and look for the flag. Skittle 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no telescopes with that power, and the transmissions could have come from orbital satellites. Next? For great justice. 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I mention these photos?

An Apollo 16 photo with stars: here

Either this photo is real (and therefore proves that the landing was fake) or the photo is fake and proves that the landing is fake! ;-) Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny! We all need to lighten up a bit! Thanks! For great justice. 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You all have reached the conclusion that either we went to the moon or we didn't. That should settle it. Wahkeenah 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Every one of the last edits

Was problematic. I have reverted wholesale because of the problematic nature of the edits. If the person who made the edits wants to, I will discuss each edit one-by-one, but the previous version was not NPOV. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead - your edits were pretty extreme, I NPOVed it a bit - why don't you suggest yor edits here? For great justice. 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Because I was being bold, and the article was horrible on those points. Let's start with the point you find problematic. Why don't you list them here: --ScienceApologist 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggest them here -I don't have the time or inclination to give you an NPOV tutorial. For great justice. 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The edits are easily seen in the history page, and I don't know which ones you have issues with. So please list what your major problems are. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mostly your unsourced POV pushing. For great justice. 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you. I wait eagerly for your response. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm? no. You started out reverting and pov pushing. Explain yourself. For great justice. 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were the one who started rewriting the prose on this page. Please read the archives before making declarations. --ScienceApologist 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced items

If you suspect that an item is unsourced, please place the citation requested tag next to the offending point. Don't just delete. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just source it before you put it in, then there's no problem. I'm not going to leave vague slurs without any sources in the article. For great justice. 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's an unacceptable misapplication of policy. The assumption is that points can be sourced, not that they must be sourced or they are removed. If you want particular things sourced, please indicate what they are, do not remove them. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Look - you can't expect someone on a page about Greeks to leave a comment like 'many people think Greeks smell', stand, and tag it for sourcing. For great justice. 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no statement in this article equivalent to this. You haven't listed any problems. --ScienceApologist 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You have no given a reason for insisting on your pov. You made a large number of reverts, and, if you want them to stay, you should give your reasoning. For great justice. 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You have wholesale reverted without explanation removing things like wikilinks and grammar corrections in the process. This is very poor form. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true. Richard Hoagland has denigrated and ridiculed hoax proponents. We source this at the bottom.
Yes, but putting some abuse by this guy in the first paragraph is not appropriate.
Why not? --ScienceApologist 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Because "most in the mainstream scientific establishment consider his theories to be pseudoscience without any peer review" - random insults by people nobody takes seriously do not belong anywhere in the article, let alone in the opening paragraph. For great justice. 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a random insult. He's pretty well known on the Art Bell radio ciricuit for example. Claiming that no one takes Hoagland seriously is ridiculous. No one takes moonbats seriously either, but we still report on them. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You deleted this factual comment on the validity of mirror data "These reflectors are often offered as evidence for the landing, although reflectors can also be placed by robot missions (for example the Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 missions), so the presence of mirrors cannot be used as absolute proof of human landing."
The problem with this is that neither of the Lunokhod missions produced reflectors that work.
Yes, they did, and in any event, they prove that un-manned missions can place reflectors. See above for extensive discussion of this point.
I reworded the point. It's dumb to claim that Lunkhold 1/2 proved "anything" since the missions were failures. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
They still work, the missions were not a failure. They prove, if proof were needed, that robot missions are perfectly feasable. The Mars Rover also proves this, but the Lunokhod missions were to the moon, so are more relevant. For great justice. 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
They don't work. The only lunar ranging that can be done is with Apollo reflectors. We need to be explicit about this. The straw man that "Robotic missions can't do what humans can" is not the point being made by the paragraph -- so arguing against it claiming that robotic missions do occur is irrelevant. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You put in this unsourced claim about what "historians" think: "Historians point out that the hoax arguments conveniently accelerated after the Apollo program was cancelled, thus assuring there would be no new trips to the moon to undercut their hypothesis."
I changed this slightly.

Thanks for doing a point-by-point analysis. It is appreciated. --ScienceApologist 15:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) That's a start. You can see my problems with what you are doing. On a controversial page, sourcing opinions is a great way to reduce tension and keep the article honest. For great justice. 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have reverted a whole lot of formatting changes and re-arranging - I'm going to go back to the old version, and try to work in some of what you're talking about. For great justice. 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. Work from the new version and try to incorporate phrasing that satisfies you, if you please. --ScienceApologist 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "as something akin to a publicity stunt." Who claims that?For great justice. 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, that's the whole point of the rivalry with the Russians as the basis for the hoax. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Acording to who? This is your pet idea I guess? For great justice. 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the article on publicity stunt? Anyway, the issue is moot because it's explained in better fashion now anyway. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you still in favor of any of these changes? I included the ones about the Knight Ridder survey, which were good. For great justice. 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the edits I made, of course! --ScienceApologist 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Even when they're shown to be wrong?! For great justice. 16:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But you haven't shown that! --ScienceApologist 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What do we know about Brian O'Leary?

A suggestion

Science apologist - let's calm down, you're new to this page, and there is a lot of NPOVing and work on getting statements sourced that people have spent a lot of time getting right. People are happy to look at changes you want to make, but unhappy with large scale reverting and pov pushing. Why don't you list some of the things you're unhappy with? For great justice. 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:For great justice, you need to read the archives. I'm not "new" to this page at all. I will list some points:
  1. This page should never act as though it is unclear whether the moon landings happened. There are always ways to rewrite it to satisfy.
You mean 'this page should always reflect my pov'?
No, I meant exactly what I said, and you need to assume good faith. --ScienceApologist 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So why do you want this page to only reflect your POV rather than a neutral treatment of the issue? For great justice. 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The page is supposed to be neutral. I am trying my best, but simply reverting my work is not an assumption of good faith on your part. --ScienceApologist 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Any appeal to "landing believers" or "hoax deniers" must be eschewed.
Why? There is no need to breach WP's NPOV policy - we should present the opinions and facts, and source them, not make an editorial decision about whose side we are on. For great justice. 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Because this is a neologism. It is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So what term to you suggest for the advocates like 'bad astronomy'? For great justice. 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about Phil Plait, talk about Phil Plait. But there is no concerted community of "hoax deniers". --ScienceApologist 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Weasly appeals to vague "historians" or others need to be qualified or removed. This also applies to "hoax believers". Either name the source or remove the group.
I agree that vague claims about 'historians' need to be qualified or removed, that's what I did, where a specific claim is undisputedly made though, there is room for using the terms 'hoax skeptics' or 'hoax proponents', for example, "Hoax skeptics reject the idea that the landings were faked" seems fine to me, but "historians ridicule the hoax proponents" is more problematic. For great justice. 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--ScienceApologist 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the term "hoax skeptic" is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen come across these pages. It's like using the term "Flat Earth skeptic". It's wording that does not belong in this encyclopedia per the standards of neutral writing and policies on neologisms. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. You resort to abuse ill-conceals your lack of cogent argument. For great justice. 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
At least now we don't use the neologism. --ScienceApologist 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I try not to use a neologism, since I don't even know what it means. It's a new word to me. Wahkeenah 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to be taken seriously?

"the derisive neologism "moonbat" has been applied to such believers in some corners of the internet)." This typifies the type of snide, unsourced smear you seem intent on applying to this article. It's not helpful. Please stop it. For great justice. 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a term of affection, like you might give to a pet squirrel. Wahkeenah 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's also a fact. We need to let people know these things. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a label, a subjective judgment about character and intelligence and/or education level. However, please note that I have now equated them to squirrels. I apologize to any actual squirrels that might be offended. Wahkeenah 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

Can everyone please calm down on this article. Yes this is an article representing a certain POV, but the article must still be treated as representing it in a NPOV. ScienceApologist I must say that looking through your recent edits to the page you do seem intent on portraying those who believe it was a hoax as a small group of nutters who are most definitely wrong, and you make edits to that effect. Unfortunately I feel on this you are pushing your own beliefs on this. The topic needs treating more delicately that this especially when you consider that the number of people who believe it was a hoax isn't a small number of people hiding in the corner somewhere but the number is extremely high for conspiracy theories. It is well known that a sizable portion of the population believes there was some kind of coverup or conspiracy regarding the landings and you making edits specifically deriding that portion is not NPOV making. Both parties please leave it as it is for now and go away and calm down. Ben W Bell 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, it is estimated that the majority of people there believe the moon landings were faked. Hence probably why they want to send LUNAR-A up there.

Thanks for the advice - I'm going to lay off this article for a while and come back to it in a few days. For great justice. 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, and I suspect that the majority of the Japanese also think World War II was the fault of the USA. What the majority of the Great Unwashed in a foreign country thinks about Apollo is of absolutely no relevance. Wahkeenah 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why must you always use insulting language and strawmen Wahkeenah? I totally understand that you do not agree with the views discussed on this page but you should still remain polite and keep an open mind. 74.56.207.132 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool your jets, son. Sarcasm fits here. Opinion polls on matters of science and history are silly. Wahkeenah 05:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course. I was just reading this page out of curiosity and noticed the amount of replies that were borderline insulting. You may not view it as such but I still think discussing without trying to make the "other side" look stupid is a mark of intelligence. 74.56.207.132 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

telescopes

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but could a powerful enough telescope allow you to see the remains of the LEM? Would that settle this issue once and for all?

Probably not an earth-based telescope, due to atmospheric distortion. An orbiting telescope (like Hubble) with sufficient magnification might be able to do it, but I think Hubble itself is "far-sighted" to focus on distant planets and galaxies, so Hubble itself wouldn't work. Maybe some of our incredible spy satellites might work, but keep in mind the moon is way much farther away, and the LEM may just be too small. (Had NASA anticipated the moonbat issue, maybe they could have unfurled a large U.S. Flag visible by telescope, or at least a "Kilroy Was Here" banner.) Besides those technical issues, the lunar surveyors of the 1960s mapped the surface thoroughly, prior to the Apollo missions, so there is no particular reason to spend the money aiming a telescope at the moon to re-survey it, and certainly not to "prove" that the Apollo missions really happened. We have more important stuff to spend our tax dollars on, like preserving endangered species, such as the wolverine, and the public school system. (I'll let Bubba correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points). Wahkeenah 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
current telescopes are not powerful enough. The Clemtine mission that orbited the moon and took photos detected something at the place where Apollo 15 landed, but you can't tell for sure what it is. See this and this. Bubba73 (talk), 03:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've really been out of the loop lately. My tax dollars are going back to the moon after all. So, is that SELENE mission on target? Not that it would matter much, since I'm sure the moonbats already have their stories written, about any apparent surface remnants being fake, ready to post them at a moment's notice. Wahkeenah

Moon rocks

I rewrote the section on moon rocks to make it more clear what the points are: 1) moon rocks were brought back from Apollo, 2) moonbats claim that WvB went to Antarctica to get moon rocks, 3) There are moon rocks in Antartica but not nearly enough. Let's at least accurately report the points. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I changed the wording of conspiracy theory. By definition, this is a conspiracy theory. Even hoax advocates admit to that. Qualification is unnecessary since there is no one who claims that this isn't a conspiracy theory. The point about falsifiability is also a plain fact -- and the issues surrounding the placement of the Lunokhold reflectors are now adequately dealt with in the last sentence rather than the rather obtuse prose that was in place before. --ScienceApologist 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Californication

Hi. I think the line 'space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement' is NOT an obvious reference to the supposed moon landing hoax, but to the Star Trek series, which called space "the final frontier" in its intro and was, likely, shot in a "Hollywood basement", meaning it was a second-class production or something like it. --DrMilton 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


No Testing of the Lunar Lander

The most damning bit of evidence that the landings were faked is missing from this article. That is the notable absence of any unmanned moon missions or verified tests of the lunar lander. The risk of stranding astronauts on the moon, on live television, would have had dramatic PR implications. And yet the lunar lander never completed an unmanned landing and liftoff?

Wiki's own apollo page says that Apollo 10 tested the lunar lander to within 10 kilometers of the surface. Other sites say "orbit and return." From an engineering and risk-management standpoint, either scenario is patently unacceptable as the precursor to a manned mission. Broodlinger 02:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, there was major risk attached to these flights. That's why military men were used instead of civilians. If you study the progress of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, you will see that everything was done step-by-step, methodically. Mercury tested orbital basics and physical reactions to space travel, first sub-orbitally and then with progressively more and more orbits. Generally, each flight was longer than the previous. Rendezvous and docking were practiced during Gemini. Apollo 8 tested the ability to get to and orbit the moon (which had already been done using unmanned craft); Apollo 9 tested separation, rendezvous and docking, in earth orbit; Apollo 10 did the same thing except in lunar orbit (with near-disastrous consequences); and finally Apollo 11 successfully landing and re-launching of the LEM. And the successive Apollo flights built on the knowledge of the previous ones. Meanwhile, there had also been plenty of testing of these vehicles on earth, using whatever methods they could get their hands on in the 1960s. Try not to judge the approach of the 60s by standards of the ultra-cautious, introspective stance of the 21st century. That was a "can-do" time, and people were willing to take the risks; high-risk, high-gain. One consequence of the aftermath of the Vietnam War was perpetual hand-wringing on the part of the USA, on any kind of enterprise. Such was not the case in the 60s. But that was before your time, so it's hard for you to relate to. Read the book, The Right Stuff, and you'll get some insight. Wahkeenah 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I develop software, and I cannot write software that works perfectly, I would want the engineers to prove the equipment and software works! They could start by putting animals into Earth orbit. When they figured that out they could send an unmanned rocket into moon orbit. When they got that working, they could send an unmanned rocket to land on the moon, and then the lunar lander would fly back to the earth. However, while NASA did practice putting animals and people into Earth orbit, they skipped the testing of the lunar landing and return to Earth!24.7.34.99 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Not true. Apollo 9 tested the descent and re-ascent and docking of the lunar module in earth orbit. And they did a lot of ground-based testing of the maneuvering of the LEM, probably using gantries like that one article you posted. But as you well know, eventually you have to run the program in production. Maybe they could have tested this stuff with chimps, but those critters just aren't that good with slide rules. Wahkeenah 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Did they test the landing? Noodle boy 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more news flash. The landing, at least the first one, was not on live TV. It was being covered on radio, where "The Eagle has landed" was heard. The TV coverage came a few hours later, when Armstrong and then Aldrin went down the steps after having activated the camera and done all manner of checklist items. The video you've seen of the descent was film footage, not television. And by the way, the craft had various thrusters on it for maneuvering, not just the main one underneath. In fact, Armstrong had to make a last-second maneuver slightly to one side, because he was about to land on the edge of a crater, which could have been disastrous. Also, as I recall, engine cutoff was at about 10 feet above ground. The struts were designed to absorb that shock, and keep in mind the acceleration is only 1/6 what it is on the earth, so it was roughly equivalent to falling only a foot or two. Bubba or someone else with more info can fill in here as they see fit. Wahkeenah 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

The article survived AfD on 5/21/06 here. The result was Speedy Keep due to overwhelming consensus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I wonder how "Speedy Keep" is different from just plain "Keep", for something that's already there. How do you not do something at normal speed vs. quick speed? Wahkeenah 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Normally it takes a week or more to arrive at a decision and for the notice to be removed from the article page by an admin. In this case, it took only a few days. --ScienceApologist 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I see. It's still funny, though: "Don't do anything, and be quick about it!" Wahkeenah 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle Boy discussions

Moved to User Talk:Noodle boy


Claims vs. challenges, rebuttals vs. responses

I had previously changed the "rebuttals" to the more neutral-sounding "responses". It occurs to me that "claims" should be neutralized also, and I'm thinking "challenges" is better. I will go ahead and do that in one shot, so if y'all don't like it, you can revert in one shot. I could also have said "issues", but that's already in the heading. Wahkeenah 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC) In so doing, I discovered that the word "claim" appears many times in the text. That term carries an automatic built-in bias, no matter which side it's applied to (and it's applied to both). "Argue" or "point out" or something along those lines would be better (I don't want to overuse "challenge"). I'm not ready to change all of those yet, though. Wahkeenah 10:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article for several days. Yes, it said "claims and rebuttals" for a long time. Then someone changed it to "claims and counter-claims". I changed it back to "rebuttal" because (if you look at the definition of "claim"), only the hoax proponents are making a claim. The other side isn't making a claim or counter-claim. I, too, thought about changing it to "rebuttal", but I didn't because that might not be neutral enough.
On another note: I think that article talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. I think there has been (1) too much discussion of the merits or lack of merits of the hoax claim on the talk page. Sometimes I see that there have been dozens of edits to the talk page. That should be in some other forum. (2) I think there has been too much arguing and bickering. Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A voice of reason enters the fray. Maybe this page should be archived and started with a clean slate. I think the article is fairly neutral, but I have a hunch that will never be agreed upon. The conspiracists don't want the rebuttals there, they want their claims to stand alone, unchallenged. Wahkeenah 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Much of the debate on this current talk page has to do with the conspiracists assertions that the article is too "pro-NASA". By that, I think they mean that if they count the number of words, there are more words supporting NASA than refuting it. However, as you have vainly tried to point out, seemingly simple questions require lengthy explanations, which the "cons" won't accept in any case. Wahkeenah 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

flat earth picture

please don't mock people for their faith--Petral 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with revert: Simply stating a belief is not mocking it. Check the reference. Algr 05:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the semi-legitimate debate over whether Apollo was true or false, or whether evolution is true or false, etc., there are methods (even ignoring all photos taken from space) to absolutely demonstrate that the earth is essentially spherical, not flat. I'm guessing that Petral's just being funny. Wahkeenah 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The flat earth pictures doesn't belong there because these people don't even exist anymore. Please take that off. It's obvious what kind of psychological inference you want the reader to make. This is totally biased. Put up a picture that ralph rene, bill kaysing or Persey thinks is fake. I'm going to delete that right now. That picture and commentary totally violates NPOV.
Just because someone doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean that we cannot include discussion of them in an encyclopedia. After all, that's what history is all about. What is actually an NPOV violation is claiming that the only true believers are the people you list and marginalizing those historical Flat Earthers who had their own anti-scientific perspective. --ScienceApologist 02:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Coincidence, please explain

Moved to User Talk:Noodle boy

Irrelevant talk

Noodleboy, at this point, I'm going to have to say that your rambling has gone on long enough. If you want to discuss the article you may, but bringing up unrelated points is not going to be tolerated any longer. I'm removing all of this discussion to your talkpage. I encourage other users to follow WP:NOT and remove any future distracting points NoodleBoy raises to his talkpage. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL at your insecurity. You are truly unbelievable. Seriously grow a thicker skin and stop censoring relevant points. This is a hoax allegations page, remember and this is evidence of a hoax. Also we are in the discussion page. You are just afraid people will swing by and see this discussion because I have so thoroughly owned you all that you used the last resort of deleting this whole discussion. LMFAO @ your lack of self confidence in your beliefs.Noodle boy 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is the talk/discussion page for Apollo moon landing hoax accusations not Apollo 13 or NASA hoaxes. -th1rt3en 02:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Careful, User:Noodle boy, we have both a civility and a no personal attacks policy. You're getting dangerously close to violating them. Talkpages are not for general discussion, they are for discussion about the article not the general subject. Wikipedia is not a chatroom nor a message board. If you want to debate, there are plenty of other places you can go to do this. --ScienceApologist 02:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. You moved all my posts because they are threatening to your position. I have never seen such censorship. I would post my hoax allegations on the main page but they would be deleted quickly by nasa sychophants such as yourself. These actions just make me believe that much more that the Nasa missions were faked. You guys are not open about discussing the issues, you guys consistently delete valid and cogent hoax allegations links and now finally you have deleted my posts from this page. This is unbelievable.Noodle boy 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are serious about wanting to write prose for the article, please present that as such. Copying and pasting, and not framing your discussion with regards to the article itself is not what the talkpage is for. Proposing items for inclusion is fine, but none of the sections that were moved to your talkpage seemed to indicate you were interested in anything of the sort. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)