Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Other archives

Archive 1 | /Archive 2 | /Archive 3 | /Archive 4 | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8 | /Archive 9 | /Archive 10

Note: due to page renaming, some of these archives point to different talk pages.

Unmentioned theory

There is one theory not mentioned in this page: that the astronauts did land on the moon but that at least some of the photos are fake (since at that time they didn't want to reveal to the Sovietics potentially important images and give away information to the USSR). This theory was developed in a documentary on the French-German channel ARTE a few years ago, so I don't have any web links but I assume this must be somewhere on the web. This explains why the "C" are shown on the rocks (photographs would have been reconstructed in studios), and some other inconstancies. I hope this theory could be included with proper references. I am not saying anything on this page is biased (or at least not voluntarily) but it is a common and easy tactic to dismiss claims by exaggerating opponent theories and it sometimes *look* like it is the case here, as a large part of the writers are American. Herve661

• Look in the archives (if you're sufficiently bored) and you'll see there was lengthy discussion of the "C on the rock" stuff. There also used to be a mention of the idea that the only "hoax" was in censoring some photos to avoid revealing that there were moon men there or some such. If that was taken out of the article, it was probably because no one could find a reference to such a theory other than hearsay. Wahkeenah 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

William Brian (in the article) claims that the landing too place, but the photos and video were doctored. Also "Bennett and Percy have always stated that man may well have travelled to the Moon in 1969 but maintain that the Apollo imagery is not the true and accurate portrayal of such an event." [1] 129.44.172.8 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should simply be assuming that anything on U-Tube must be copyright violation. In particular, the moon walk videos are works created by NASA, and therefore not copyrightable. Also, at least some of the hoax accusers' videos may be uploaded by the authors in order to spread their message - I'm sure they will tell you that they are not simply in this for the money. Algr 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Manned hours in space

"Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR" At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US. ... Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight. By the time of Apollo 11, the US's lead was much wider than that (see List of human spaceflights, 1960s.)

I don't understand. It seems like these two points contradict each other.Ghost.scream 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoax believers made the claim that the USSR had more manned hours in space than the US, but the fact is that the US had much more up to Apollo 11 the first Apollo mission, and the gap was even wider at the time of the Apollo 11 mission. Bubba73 (talk), 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oxygen isotopes

I am almost positive that the first half of this sentence is wrong

"Chemical analysis of the rocks confirms a different oxygen isotopic composition and a surprising lack of volatile elements."

The similarity of lunar and terrestrial oxygen isotopes are used as constrains on the giant impact hypothesis for the Moon's origin. I don't think that they are distinguishably different. Oxygen isostopic compostions for asteroidal meteorites and Mars, in contrast, are clearly different. Lunokhod 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization problems

"The Moon", when refering to our moon, should be capitalized. In contrast, "lunar" is never capitalized. This article seems to use "the moon" very often. Lunokhod 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

When I was in school it was "the moon" or just "Moon", not "the Moon". Same for "the earth" vs. "Earth". Do you see the difference? God only knows how they're teaching it in the modern schools, though. Wahkeenah 23:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed those problems. But I left caps in Lunar Module but not lunar lander. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oy, what a pedantic can of worms this could be. But you're right that Lunar Module is capitalized, because it's the vehicle's official name, whereas lunar lander is merely descriptive. Wahkeenah 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Celestial bodies Art LaPella 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That policy is a subtle change from what I was taught, and I would argue that it's incorrect. Our satellite is named "Moon" when used standalone, but it's called "the moon", as in "THE moon", as in the "most important" moon, as distinguished from those other planet's moons. However, it's not worth making a big deal over. Wahkeenah 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from the standpoint of a lunar scientist, I can say that this convenction has evolved with time. Most scientific articles written during the Apollo era say "the moon", whereas almost all today say "the Moon". Nevertheless, many non lunar scientists, particularly astronomers, still use "the moon". My take on this is that the scientific community only had one moon to work with until voyager visited the outer solar system, and then people began to distinguish among these by capitalizing our moon. A similar thing happened with using the prefix "seleno-" as opposed to "geo-". When there was only one body being investigated scientifically, it made sense to talk of "selenography". But as soon as you have to start appending different prefixes to every solar system body, it became clear that this practice was ridiculous.

Moreover, it should be noted that "lunar" is never captipalized (as it is not derived from a proper noun), whereas "Martian" is! I hate these kind of discussions, but these issues come up so often that I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Lunokhod 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor is "solar", but they come from Luna and Sol, right? However, we don't normally call the moon "Luna", but we do call Mars "Mars". Wahkeenah 11:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article was nominated for Good Article review and I took a few minutes to review it. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that the article needs substantial work before it will meet Wikipedia's Good Article standards. Just a few of the problems:

• Significantly underreferenced. I started adding {{fact}} tags, but gave up about 1/3 of the way into the article.
• Many of the references provided are of dubious quality. I followed a couple of the links and wasn't impressed with the neutrality of the source or how applicable the source was to the statement being referenced. Example: in the what-is-now the current version, citation #4 doesn't even begin to explain that paragraph. (citation numbers may change as revisions are made to this article, so be sure to click the link I provided to version 89392342 so you know what I'm talking about).
• Citations need to be cleaned up, preferrably with the {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc. templates. Merely listing a URL isn't helpful.
• The article is significantly biased. This isn't an easy topic to addressed in a non-judmental manner, and I noticed when I came over to this talk page that it's been discussed at length above. I won't re-hash the issues, but as a first-time viewer of this article, it is my opinion that the article needs some significant neutrality work. Resist the urge to call the hoax proponents a bunch of crackpots. The article's title is "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations". The article should list the accusations in an appropriate context, and list the responses from experts who dispute the accusations. Leave it at that, don't paint the people with those theories as a bunch of loonies.
• There are many short one-sentence paragraphs. Expand them or combine them.
• Article stability issues. My {{fact}} tagging of the article was reverted before I even finished writing this GA review.

Final note: I did tag the article with the {{neutrality}} banner before viewing this talk page and seeing that there has been a heated discussion in the recent past about its applicability, but as I mentioned, I put it there because I think it is appropriate, not because I'm trying to re-hash an old edit war. Neil916 (Talk) 06:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies for a fast revert. We had one user this past summer that slapped a "fact" tag on everything he didn't agree with, and I thought for a hot minute that he had come back to haunt us. The issue of "bias" has been raised over and over, yet the complainants never can quite explain specifically what they think is biased... unless it adds up to leaving out the reasonable explanations for the questions they raise. At least you're not advocating that. But you need to be more specific. It is very difficult to find a cool-and-calm internet source on this subject. (Of course, it's placid waters compared to Evolution, but let's don't get into that.) Wahkeenah 06:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll take a stab at it (and I won't even go near the evolution article, BTW). Like I mentioned, this isn't the easiest type of article to remain neutral on because most of the people writing here probably don't believe the hoax theories. However, the thing to keep in mind is that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a magazine article or a personal web page. Like Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, Ma'am.". Say what was said and who said it. Don't tell the reader what to think, and don't paint any of the parties you describe as more credible than others, even if you think they are. Definitely avoid POV words like "Tom Harris claimed that the moon is really green cheese". Some of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be useful, but I'm sure you're all familiar with that page by now. But here's how I'd structure the article if I was trying to do it from scratch:

  • • Introduction
      • Write this last, it should summarize the major points of the artice only, without introducing content that isn't described elsewhere. Use Wikipedia:Lead section as a guideline.
    • History of hoax theories
      • Tell who said what, and when. Tell about polls describing trends in public opinion. Don't get into great detail in this section about the specific arguments, but make statements like "In 1972, University of Squashed Armadillo professor Dr. John Doe wrote an editorial in the New York Times disputing the authenticity of the burn marks on the lander's ladder. In 1982, Peter Smith published The facts about the Moon, a bestselling book that brought up many of the same claims, but also raising the issue of the lack of paint chips found on the astronauts' shoes". The point of the section is to establish that it's not a case of one or two publicity seekers raising theories in order to get their fifteen minutes of fame, but that there have been many books, papers, and so on written over the years raising this issue, those books sell well, and that gallup polls show that x% of the American population have doubts about the authenticity of NASA's depiction of the moon landings. Resist the urge to discuss a claim and then listing a counterclaim. List counter-hoax publications and papers in this same section, but in their own subsection. Avoid using language that gives them more credibility, but you don't need to sidestep the fact that many of the readers will probably find a press release by the top scientists at NASA more credible than a self-published book by a previously unpublished author. Just make sure to let the reader reach their own conclusions, don't steer them in any specific direction.
    • Specific theories
      • Provide a reasonable level of detail about specific claims of evidence. Say who said it, and their credentials. Give a summary of the argument. Do not rebut the claims here. This section needs to be well-referenced, and not to websites with "conspiracy theory" anywhere in the title; preferrably to the original work.
    • Rebuttals to the hoax theories
      • Once again, it is necessary to be very specific and relate who said what with a high level of citations, and provide the person's credentials. Don't make statements like this, taken from the current version of the article:

        3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high. Not true. There are many, many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.

      Instead, it needs to be more like this (facts obviously made up):

      • 3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high. In an article in National Geographic, Dr. Martin James, NASA's chief historian, raised the fact that over 10,000 photographs were taken on the missions, of which only 25 were widely distributed in the mass media. "Many of the others were pretty bad," he said, "and others were even better, but just weren't of a subject matter that would appeal to the general public."^[ref] The photographic equipment used on the missions was specifically designed to account for the low light and had an exceptionally high focal length^[ref].

    • References
    • External links
      • Far fewer than the article currently contains. It is not necessary to provide a directory to every website describing moon landing hoax theories. Review the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links for more information.

I was going to comment on this nomination, but it was failed before I got around to it. Much of what I would have said has already been mentioned, but I will comment on the reference situation. At the moment almost all of your citations are of websites, yet the article lists some books that are relevant. It would help the article look more credible if it also cited books, as well as giving more detail about the websites cited so that a reader can easily determine whether they're credible sources or not. MLilburne 09:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also a stylistic point: italics really shouldn't be used in quotations. MLilburne 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A few observations:

1. I argued against too much use of the word "claim", and took a lot of them out in favor of "say" or whatever, because "claim" implies "they say that, but I know it's not true". Maybe some of them have creeped back in. I'm not sure I dislike "claims" any worse than "accusations", but we have to call the article something, and the title was a compromise solution.
2. The long list of external links was piled on by those trying to cite one side or the other. Someone could take a day off from work and weed out the ones that essentially say the same stuff as some others.
3. As with the many internet sites, it's important to keep in mind that the "many" sources actually fed off just a few sources, like Kaysing and Sibrel, then mushroomed as each writer put his own spin on it. It's a lot like the JFK theories that way. The problem with going with the mushroom cloud is that many of them start with false premises, i.e. the assumption that Kaysing and Sibrel knew what he was talking about, which is demonstrably false in many cases. It's better to stick with a few original sources rather than their derivatives.
4. There was, at one time, a lengthy response to each challenge, as you seem to be recommending. It was shortened at the request of others. If you go back in the history a few months, you'll see that. Meanwhile, there is, or was, a longer article that went into more detail, taken from this one. In summary, we tried that already, and no one liked it.
5. I fully agree that each question deserves to be heard, and it also deserves to be answered, because if you leave it unchallenged, it misleads the casual reader into thinking that there is no reasonable answer. Providing "NASA's answer" does not compel the reader to believe the answer we consider reasonable, but it at least gives them a chance to consider it.
6. Many of the places you attached "fact" actually had references immediately above. If you've got a problem with the formatting, then fix the formatting. Putting a "fact" tag is misleading.

Wahkeenah 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm not a fan of the article's title. The word "accusation" implies a claim without basis or supporting facts. While scrolling down the talk page, I noticed a discussion about the title, but didn't read it over so I don't know the history. I don't have much of a better title, so I didn't bring it up. But perhaps even "Apollo Moon Landing hoax claims" would be more neutral. My two cents.
2. Wikipedia isn't Google. Link to one or two sites that are a directory of hoax theories and leave it at that.
3. Agreed.
4. I don't believe I'm recommending that at all. In my example, I listed a concise, short paragraph addressing a concern. You don't have to list every single person who opposed a claim, just summarize the consensus argument against the claim, using direct quotes from one person, or specific scientific concepts as an example.
5. Agreed.
6. I started adding the {{fact}} tags because in the past when editors have raised the "insufficiently referenced" argument, the response is invariably, "What do you mean? Give me examples of bad referencing". I stopped where I did becuase I felt that I'd given enough examples. Where there was a paragraph that had a reference at one point and I tagged a later statement in the same paragraph, it was usually because I had gone to the cited reference and felt that it didn't support the subsequent statement. But I could have been mistaken. Same thing for the neutrality tags I added.

Neil916 (Talk) 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

#1 - the title was debated a lot and changed a few times. It wound up back to this.

#6 - I reverted back to that version because it helps show where work is needed. Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I defer to your good judgment on this matter (as well as Chairboy, who dinged me for having rolled them back.) Wahkeenah 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a few short comments. I'm guilty of italicizing inside quotes. I didn't know better, and I thought it made it stand out better. I'm surprised that this was nominated as a good article. It is the product of a lot of edit wars. Finally the bad editors left (or had RfCs about them), and I think that the good editors were exhausted at that point and didn't have the energy to continue working on the article.

One thing about references for arguments against the hoax theories is that there is very little in print. There was a book commissioned, to be written by James Oberg, but it was canceled. A couple of years ago he said that he would write it anyway, but I haven't heard anything else about it. I doubt it will come out, but it might. Other than that, the only book I know of is a chapter in Plaitt's Bad Astronomy. I think there are a couple of articles in print, but there isn't much countering the hoax accusations. That leaves mostly websites to critically examine the hoax accusations.

Actually it is getting close to four years since he said that, see this. Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From above: "you don't need to sidestep the fact that many of the readers will probably find a press release by the top scientists at NASA more credible than a self-published book by a previously unpublished author." On the other hand, believers in the hoax are just the opposite. If it is a statement from NASA, it must be wrong, in their opinion.

I hope editors will look at the suggestions made above and improve the article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely NPOV article heavily biased in favor of NASA!

How can the article say things like "A picture of Buzz Aldrin on the MOONS surface" when NASA can't even prove it ever landed a man on the moon? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and none of theirs can be verified. It could just as well have been filmed in a film studio, it would certainly have been a lot easier. Surely the word alleged should be included whenever making such bold statements proclaiming that man actually landed on the moon? Such far fetched claims are both unproven and highly doubtful. Also, near the start it seems the article takes great delight in listing a few extremists who support the hoax theory in an attempt to smear all hoax theory proponents as crackpots. YourPTR! 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please, the burdon of proof is squarely on the on the shoulders of hoax proponets to prove NASA has not gone to the moon. NASA has presented their evidence of their claim and it has been accepted by and large. Any claim to the contrary needs to be backed up with some supporting evidence. Thus far, the only evidence I've seen presented by hoax believers, is well non-existant. All I have seen wild speculation and simple accusations that NASA is "obviously" lying. Shhewitt 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• You need to read the lengthy discussion history archives here. Everything you say has been discussed at great length. Since the article is about allegations, it's understood that the moon photos are in dispute by those who don't agree that we went to the moon. And this article is one of the least-biased you'll find on the internet. Wahkeenah 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) "A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community." Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And, as an overwhelming majority of the scientific community - in fact, "all" of the scientific community (please compare and contrast with pseudoscience) - believes that that is, in fact, a picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon. The "moon landing was a hoax" community looks silly at best, paranoid at worst, by continuing to insist that such statements constitute a biased point of view. Even the vast majority of JFK conspiracy theorists carry themselves with greater dignity. --Action Jackson IV 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

YourPTR is right - the article is biased. There are many parts of the article that treat NASA's claims (with no independent evidence) as fact. 67.101.58.123 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Transmissions?

That supposed "issue" about transmissions looks like "original research". To be blunt, it looks a question the editor thought of (to put it generously) and posted it here. Unless one of the hoax sites has raised this issue, I would favor deleting it. Wahkeenah 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, think how much clearer the images from the moon would have been if they had been on cable. Wahkeenah 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Since the images came from Nevada, why didn't they use cable TV instead of low-resolution slow-scan TV??? Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one else comments by this evening, I'll zap it, as an "uncited" hoax allegation. Wahkeenah 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a disputed tag to Transmissions section, #6. For one thing, the modem article says that they had 2400 baud modems in 1962, whereas #6 claims that they only had 300 baud into the early 1990s. (I'm pretty sure that at least 1200 baud modems were available to the general public in the 1980s). Secondly, though, the signal was analog all the way, so it didn't need a modem. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure that data compression was available bavk then, but again, that is normally done on digital data, not analog. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If transmissions #6 has only that blog to support it (and that appears to be the case), then I agree that it should be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It be GONE. Wahkeenah 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't got round to saying it in time but, for the record, I had no prob with it going... Cheers, Ian Rose 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive ?

Maybe somebody smarter than me could archive most or all of this talk page, which has been mostly inactive since the late-summer debacle. This came to my attention when someone did a minor factual update to that ridiculous table that Canfield posted and which is still here months later, serving no useful purpose that I can think of. Wahkeenah 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added this to Werdnabot's joblist, next time it runs it will take care of any conversation more than 60 days old and will continue to keep this page clean going forward. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. Wahkeenah 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Werdnabot messed up the archives a little. 1) it is not included in the archive links at the top of this page, and 2) it appears to have removed a section which I have restored. This can be found at this archive page. Please feel free to review the history and check I've not buggered anything up. I've notified the owner of the issue. Guinness 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Layout/Tone of article

IMO this article is pretty poor as an encylopedia entry. The title is "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations". Yet the piece is pretty much a list of the accusations with a point by point rebuttal. It reads as though the only purpose of entry is to dismiss the allegations. It would be just as bad if done the other way round i.e. the "facts" in the rebuttals listed first, and then the "hoax facts" contradicting those. I do feel the whole article is very POV. It's also VERY long.--Mike Infinitum 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is neutral. Yes, it is very long, but the reason is that, quite frankly, there's a lot of claims brought up by the group, and splitting it into two articles would be a headache. The fact of the matter is, the claims are debunked and it would be non-neutral to not include the debunking. You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts, after all, and all of the allegations have been answered. Perhaps the presentation is not as neutral as possible, but I can't think of a better way of presenting the claims and counters to the claims offhand. The article's very existence is an example of undue weight, as everyone reputable dismisses it, but as it is a cultural phenomenon it should be addressed properly. Titanium Dragon 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it used to be quite a bit longer. For instance, I think there was a paragraph or perhaps two debunking the C-rock, with references. Now there is one simple sentence without references. As far as putting the cart before the horse, I don't think that makes sense. Bubba73 (talk), 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SS Numskll 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that this article is ay too long: Many of the point-by-point rebuttals should be moved to separate pages. The main article should only give the reader the jist and summary of the accusations. I agree that this topic needs detailed rebuttals, but by including these in the main text, the article will always be a big mess. Lunokhod 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against moving the rebuttals to another page or other pages. Of course it can be written in summary style, which has been proposed before, but didn't gain much support, except for the "examination of the photos" subpage. It might be less of a "mess" if the claims were all put in one section and the rebuttals in the next section. How about that? Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1972 to 2020

NASA plans to 'return to the moon' in 2020. This would be 48 years after the last lunar landing 1972. In 1961 JFK announced NASA's plans to land a man on the moon, a mere 8 years later NASA fufills this dream. How can 1960's technology, be so much better then 21st century technology? What happened (1972-2006) to the technology of moon landing in the last 34 years? The USA surely has more money for it in 2006. Is there anyway this can be added to the article? Could someone provide a varifiable source for this pro-hoax fact? GoodDay 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• The goal is differnt this time. Why do you assume that because it is taking longer this time that we are unable to do it faster if we wanted to? Rushing a project makes it more expensive, and limits the scope of the mission. Take our time, and we'll get more acomplished, and save money. It simply doesn't make sense to rush up there again without a good reason. Shhewitt 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think this should be in the article. There are differences. In the 1960s, the Moon project had top priority and basically had a blank check. The (unofficial) motto was "waste anything but time." Major funding for the return to the Moon won't come until after the ISS is complete and the Shuttle fleet is retired, and even then the budget will be limited. Also, some of the things done in the 1960s would be considered too risky now. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely, American technology has advanced in the last 34 years, to limit the risks. Oh well, it was just a suggestion for the 'trivia' section. After all this is the 'Moon Landing hoax accusations' article NOT the 'Moon Landing article'. GoodDay 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the risks will be lower now. And this time, they are going to do it for real! Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's to 2020, Cheers. GoodDay 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might not happen. People have speculated that the next administration will kill it. More on the difference between the 1960s and now: There was a cold war and a space race. President Kennedy set the goal of landing on the moon by the end of the decade. Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus there's the fact that there isn't much incentive to go to the moon anyway since it would be easier and cheaper to just send robots. Sending people to the moon was more of a political and nationalistic statement than a particularly useful scientific expedition. Dan Guan 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The stark reality is that there is no practical need to go to the moon. It's a case of "been there and done that". The young'uns who question whether we went have no idea what the political climate was really like in the late 50s and early 60s, when the USSR was painted as the gravest threat to America since... well, since the previous greatest threat to America. Wahkeenah 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NO point in arguing with these guys. None of the pro-hoaxers care about this subject anymore because all the evidence is against Nasa. The Apollo Truth Movement has died already... because the general public knew what was up.. and the missing tapes just validated the longest running conspiracy of the 20th century.24.7.34.99 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They've probably just got tired of this one and moved on to the next conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! The argument's over - back to the moon!? We won't go there this time, because we couldn't last time! There will be a lot of talk, but no real moon mission! 67.101.58.123 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

qoute="People have speculated that the next administration will kill it" perhaps we kill the next administration lmao. qoute:"There will be a lot of talk, but no real moon mission!" Personally I think we could definately do it now, technology is finally there. I just feel for the guy that will step onto the moon in 2020 and not get credit as the first person. Poor guy. Supra guy 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is still the radiation shielding - there won't be a real moon mission until someone can get enough shielding up there to get through the radiation belts. But yes, it will kind of suck to be the first, and not to get the credit. Gravitor 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The radiation belts "problem" is a hoaxster red herring. It's not a problem at all. That issue was discussed thoroughly last summer. Wahkeenah 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the hoaxsters think that van Allen is in on the hoax as well? If they do, we should probably note this in the article. Lunokhod 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon golf shot

I wonder if any of y'all caught the Chevy Trucks commercial that ran frequently during the baseball post-season. It featured John Mellencamp singing "This Is Our Country", and contained many little quick-cut clips, one of which was the shot of Shepherd, a still of which was posted on this page many months ago. Too trivial and off-topic for the article. Just thought I'd mention it here. :) Wahkeenah 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I saw it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Motivations for hoaxing the missions

I'd like to add some changes to the Motivations section. I'd like to add a counter-point to all the reasons the US would have had to fake the missions.

1. Distraction—The U.S. government sought to distract the public from the Vietnam War.

A real successful landing would have acomplished the same thing.

2. Cold War Prestige—The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon, if it had been possible, would have been risky and expensive (though John F. Kennedy famously said that we chose to go because it was difficult). Despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, hoax proponents argue that it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.

Faking the missions does not garentee success, getting caught faking it has serious consequences, not just to the USA as a country, but to those actually responsible for attempting it as well.

3. Money—NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. Hoax proponents hypothesize that this could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.

NASA didn't raise money for the program. NASA is a government agency that was allocated money by the government.

4. Risk—The available technology at the time was such that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted. This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems.

Not really much to say here, the second part of this statement refutes the first part well enough for me. Shhewitt 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this would sound too much like an opinion. It needs to be referenced to a good source, if possible. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It already does sound like an opinion. The currect list has no citations, and my additions are not opinions. If anything, the motivations are opinions since there isn't any proof for any of them.Shhewitt 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shhewitt, if they are not your opinions whose are they? I ask because if you could cite any of this stuff we could look over the source and perhaps do better than a laundry list of "plausible to some previous editor" claims Numskll 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, they are not anyones opinion because they are not opinions. They are facts. NASA doesn't raise money because they are not a charity. Faking anything doesn't garentee sucess because you could get caught faking it. And a real successful landing has the same effect of a convincing hoax. How are these statements opinions? Shhewitt 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Example: "Hoax proponents hypothesize that this could have been used to pay off a large number of people,..." Things like that makes it read like an opinion. -th1rt3en 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. But what matters though is that these "facts" are identified outside of this article so we can trace for instance, who exactly proposed that NASA faked the moon landing to take attention off the Viet-nam war. The plausibility of the claims and the fact that we could think of equally plausible rebuttals is nearly besides the point in an article of this nature Numskll 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These are the opinions of some of the leading hoax proponents. They should be referenced, and, if someone from NASA or one of their people want to offer a counter opinion, that could be listed. 129.44.172.8 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

spacesuits and air conditioning

If the astronaut spacesuits could not work in an airless environment (as in a recent pro-hoax addition), then how did/do they work during spacewalks in the airless environment of space (both before the moon walks and since)? Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a question posed by an IP address, probably "original research", which if he did some real "original research", he would find the answer. I don't know the technicalities of it, but it should be easily found, for the reasons you describe. I recommend either answering it or, better yet, deleting it. Wahkeenah 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• It's actually only a slightly less ill-informed question than the one about digital signals. I wonder if it's from the same IP address? Wahkeenah 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• About the spacesuits and air conditioning, radiative cooling is not satisfactory. The equilibrium temperature of a body on the moon ranges roughly from -150°C and +150°C (exact values needed), depending on the position of the sun (night is cooler, midday is hotter and dawn or dusk are warm). Apollo's missions were setting during moon's dawn or dusk (the moon's day lasts nearly 30 earth days), but as the last missions lasted 3 earth days, conditions might have changed somewhat. NASA used a water evaporative cooling (reference needed) : evaporating water in the vacuum is a very efficient way to cool an object (but you need a reserve of liquid water). For example, evaporating only 1 gram of water per second yelds a cooling power of 2460 watts (which is much more than the cooling power of a typical AC device). With a few kilos of water, you can cool the astronauts very easily and efficiently.

NOTICE: {{Citecheck}} removed

1. This tag was incorrectly applied. The second argument is the article name, not the date. You can substitute {{PAGENAME}} if you don't want to cut and paste it, but the arguement parsing and categorization will not be correct unless the date is the third perameter. (The first is the tag name in computerese).
2. There is no matching section (like this one) notifying or discussing the reasoning behind the tags application.
3. The edit summary did not contain the searchable string {{Citecheck, so please remember that others coming later need to be able to find when and who put the tag on in the case of a question. Could I find you, I wouldn't need to remove the tag.
4. Applying such with out a notice on the talk, and clear rationale is discourteous. If something needs correcting, and you don't have time, bear in mind that others following later will have to reconstruct what you apparently already know on our time... causing the many to spend time to correct the ommission of the one.
5. Don't forget that such 'In-Your-Face' administrative tags are both controversial and problematic to many editors who take them as reflecting badly on the project.

     Sorry, // FrankB 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, FrankB, for your attempt to improve the article. I would like to respond to a couple of the points you raised, however. First, the tag was not incorrectly applied. Your comments about the various arguments that should be used with the tag are accurate, if someone was to use the tag today. However, the tag was applied at the end of November, and as you can see, back then, the template did not have any parameters. The template was modified on December 3, 2006 by Rich Farmbrough to add the date parameter, at which point, a bot came around and added the "date=December, 2006" parameter. Even with that, the current version of the template describes those two fields as "optional" fields, and states "Note that order does not matter with respect to the above optional parameters". Second, the rationale was explained on the this talk page under my second bullet point in the "Failed GA" section. Third, if you would like editors who use the tag to put {{Citecheck}} in the edit summary, it would be best if that was identified on the template page itself. Fourth, as I mentioned already, the reason for the tag was outlined in the "Failed GA" section. Once again, if you would find it easier to find such a rationale if the talk page section took a certain form, it would be more helpful to outline such instructions on the {{Citecheck}} template itself so that editors who use the tag don't run the risk of being scolded for using it incorrectly. I'm not sure that simply removing the tag without seeking additional input here if you had questions as to what it was referring to was the best course of action, but I'll defer to your judgement and leave it out for now. Thanks, Neil916 (Talk) 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR

Leading this section is the statement.

At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US.

This is infact completely wrong, the U.S. had a substaintial lead in manned space hours at the launch of the first manned first Apollo flight. Indeed futher on in the section it is noted...

Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight. By the time of Apollo 11, the US's lead was much wider than that

That seems to me to be about right, I will check make sure this is correct before I change the lead in sentence.Teiresias84 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have checked and the lower quoation is indeed correct, so I've updated the article to reflect this.Teiresias84 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Long article

Can someone explain to me why this article is twice as long as the one on Apollo or the one on the moon landings? Why does this article have to be twice as long? The other two articles are factual and this one isn't, yet it's twice as long. Amazing!--Beguiled 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because the moon landing article consists of answers, whereas this one consists of questions and answers. Wahkeenah 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but does anyone really doubt the factual article? I'll give this a better read through I guess.--Beguiled 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or, if you have a lot of time on your hands, you could read through the archives, and find out how long the article used to be. This is the short version. Wahkeenah 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article used to be even longer, but a large part of it was moved to another article. And yes, there are several people who doubt the factual article - and they tend to be extremely vocal. Look back in the archives, for instance. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are millions of people, in the US alone, who believe the hoax. 67.101.58.123 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Which proves nothing. Your series of ill-informed questions has a very familiar ring. Sounds like the user Carfiend, or one of his sockpuppets, might have returned. Wahkeenah 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Beguiled asked a question, and I answered it. Your personal attacks are not welcome. Looks like you're one of Bubba's sockpuppets! 67.101.58.123 04:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure I am. Which is not easy to do, since we live 1,000 miles apart. Wahkeenah 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! And I bet you'll tell me NASA went to the moon, too! 67.101.58.123 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they didn't, but a few of their astronauts did. The Apollo capsule was a tad small to contain all of NASA. Meanwhile, you didn't actually answer Beguiled's question, but that's OK, because I had already done so. You answered a different question. Also, you're an IP address, so it is not possible to make a "personal" attack on you. Wahkeenah 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered the question "does anyone really doubt the factual article?". Your personal accusation was directed at me, not my ip address. There's no evidence for NASA astronauts on the moon, except for what NASA created. 67.101.58.123 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, plenty of people doubt plenty of things that they know nothing about. We went all through this with Carfiend and his sockpuppets last summer. There is lots of evidence, including lots from non-NASA sources, in support of the Lunar Landing chronology, and nothing that refutes it. If you find yourself with some time on your hands, you could read the many archives and see what went on last summer, and then you'll understand our attitude. Wahkeenah 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - there's so much nonsense you've piled up - can you show me a brief summary of the evidence for the landing (not from NASA)? 67.101.58.123 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the archives. Wahkeenah 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I thought so. There isn't one! You're funny! 67.101.58.123 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't "one", there are nine of them. Wahkeenah 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you don't point to where. That user asked a legitimate question - where is the list of non-NASA evidence for the landing? You have not answered. Indeed, it appears that you cannot. 129.44.172.8 06:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to do that user's research for him. His question is also deja vu. The question was asked (with the tone of voice that you did) and answered more than once in the archive. Meanwhile, the user has disappeared, because he didn't really care about the facts, he just wanted to take shots at the article. So why should I waste any more time on him? Wahkeenah 11:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look, I don't think what you are saying is true. I cannot see anything that answers the question of what non-NASA evidence there is for the landing. Perhaps we should start a section here? 129.44.172.8 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. This is old ground that was beaten to death last summer. I'm not touching it again. Wahkeenah 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a section below of independent evidence of human landings. We'll see what's out there. 129.44.172.8 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is any. 64.105.100.228 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you aren't trying. Wahkeenah 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

33 of 36

The Ionizing radiation and heat section states that

33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.

I realized (after editing this sentence for clarity) that the numbers don't add up.

There were eleven Apollo missions in all, disregarding Apollo 1 which was named retroactively to honor the dead astronauts. Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 were equipment tests in Earth orbit, the remaining nine missions went to the moon. Sine the Apollo spacecraft had a crew of three, at most 27 astronauts could have been involved in these missions. Actually, Jim Lovell, John Young and Eugene Cernan flew two missions each, so the correct number is 24 - nowhere near the 36 claimed by Ms Schneider (about 25:30 into the referenced recording). Even when you add the Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 crew, the total only comes to 29 (not 30, since David Scott flew on both Apollo 9 and Apollo 15 and has already been counted). The only way to get to 36 is to add the Apollo 1 crew and the four astronauts who were assigned to backup crews but never flew on Apollo missions (including Clifton Williams who died before his mission ever took place).

Subsequent flights using Apollo hardware (Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz) never left Earth orbit.

I was able to find some hard numbers on this NASA web page:

At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space [...] Of those 39 astronauts, 36 had flown on high-radiation missions such as the Apollo Moon landings.

Obviously, this is a PR story, but it is based on a peer-reviewed article which is available here. I haven't had time to read the entire article yet, but what it seems to say is that out of 295 NASA astronauts involved in the study (including 73 who died or retired without ever flying on a mission), 48 had developed cataracts. Two had never flown and seven had developed cataracts prior to flying. Of the remaining 39, 35 (not 36!) had flown on lunar missions or high-inclination earth-orbit missions prior to developing cataracts. There is no detailed breakdown of cataract incidence per mission type.

DES 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Google videos maintenance

The "What Happened on the Moon" videos have new adresses on Google, and I updated, the links are now working again. The video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" also got a dead link, but I could not find a new one, so I deleted the dead link. Perhaps it was removed from Google Videos due to copyright. Axlalta 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

The photo AS15-88-11890 does show the hammer - I didn't see it at first. Here is the video.

Note that the hammer and feather fall at the same rate, which would not happen on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the video quality is so bad it's impossible to see if fakery is involved, it could happen on earth, in a vacuum chamber. 67.101.58.123 04:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the DVD. Show me proof of a vacuum chamber. Bubba73 (talk), 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's nonsense that that would not happen on Earth, it just would not happen (without manipulation) in air. 129.44.172.8 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a vacuum chamber. Also, note that the hammer falls a lot slower than it would on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might be a large vacuum chamber, with slowed down film - there's no way to know the film speed. 129.44.172.8 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or it might be they actually filmed it on the moon. Wahkeenah 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a large vacuum chamber, then it has to be several miles in size, since the Apollo 15 astronauts clearly traveled several miles on the buggy. Are there any like that on Earth? There is no evidence that it is in a vacuum chamber and no evidence that it is slowed down. And if you watch more of the video, it is clear that it is not slowed down. To paraphrase someone, this is a belief in search of evidence rather than evidence in search of an explanation. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Wahkeenah 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look - don't shoot the messenger, 123 simply pointed out the obvious flaw in your logic. Instead of accepting the correction graciously, you change the subject from the original incorrect claim and instead make other claims, attempting to suggest that this discredits the original correction. How is it clear from that video clip (which is stationary) that the rover traveled for miles? How is it clear that it is not slowed down? These sorts of claims require evidence. It's the belief in the landing that requires evidence, not health skepticism of outlandish claims by NASA. 129.44.172.8 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the ENTIRE moonwalk, which lasts for hours - not just that clip that lasts a few seconds. Bubba73 (talk), 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, the comment was in response to your claim that "Note that the hammer and feather fall at the same rate, which would not happen on Earth." - your claim was wrong, which was what 123 pointed out. If you're going to discuss issues of science, you must try to be more careful in the claims you make - people check, and you will be caught out. Better luck next time! 129.44.172.8 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It would not happen on Earth except in a vacuum chamber. It is not in a vacuum chamber. Therefore it was not on Earth. Understand now? Bubba73 (talk), 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"It would not happen on Earth except in a vacuum chamber" - so it could happen on Earth. It is not clear from the video you were talking about whether or not it is in a vacuum chamber. I understand that that is your opinion, and your original mistake has been corrected! Well done! 129.44.172.8 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Things don't fall like that except in a vaccum. Since it was not in a vacuum chamber, it could not be on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls

Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of feeding this troll, I did not 'put words in your mouth', they were your words. The fact that they were ill chosen is not my fault. I don't know about 'vaccums', but your original comment concerned Earth, not vacuums. I understand that it is your opinion that the video was not taken in a vacuum, but that has not been proven. Your circular logic of 'It was taken on the Moon because it was taken on the Moon' does not wash. 129.44.172.8 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunokhod 2 viewed Apollo remnants?

The Wiki articles on the Soviet Lunokhod 1 and 2 missions mention nothing of this. Indeed, there is no citation in the "hoax" article to support the claim that the Soviets photographed Apollo landing sites. But I'd love to see these photos if they really did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.165.200.100 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't see anything in the article saying that Lunokhod 2 did see Apollo stuff. Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It says under the "Soviet Involvement" section that the BBC used Lunokhod footage for a documentary on the moon landings. But the article also says that the source of this documentary footage is unknown (is it authentic? a recreation?). A citation of some sort would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.165.200.100 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

OK, I didn't find it because it spelled it incorrectly "luna..." instead of "luno...". I don't think this paragraph is accurate. If it was in the TV program, it was probably a simulation. Bubba73 (talk), 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NASA up to it's old tricks again! 67.101.58.123 04:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon hoax prize

I've removed newly-added links to the so-called International Moon Hoax Prize from this and other pages. I believe that the links were added by someone involved in the contest for the sole purpose of advertising the contest. The contest requires participants to pay to enter (which seems to me like a good way to part a lot of gullible conspiracists from their money) and there is no way to verify its legitimacy nor the impartiality of the jury. Furthermore, the organizers / judges do not seem to have any credentials outside the conspiracist community (one of them runs The Bill Kaysing Tribute Website) DES 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed. I did the same last fall. I imagine this is going to be a recurring problem. Numskll 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

removed questionable paragraph

I removed:

In the late 1990s, the BBC made a television series called The Planets. In this, film from a Soviet Lunakhod rover was broadcast which clearly showed the landing gear and descent engine of an Apollo lander, believed to be Apollo 11. A flag was also present, along with impressions of what could be interpreted as footprints. If this is indeed footage of the Eagle landing site, it would be independent confirmation that the landings had in fact taken place. However, no details of the location, the date the footage was recorded, or even which Lunakhod took it were supplied.

which was added Dec 28, 2006 by an IP address, and this has been his only contribution to WP. I'm pretty sure it is bogus.Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence of human landing

Following from 123's question, and Wahkeenah's suggestion, I'm using this space to collect independent (not from a US govt agency or someone paid by them) evidence (actual evidence, video, logs, pictures, rocks, testimony, recordings, plans, layouts, models, anything) of a human landing on the moon. I think that if we can catalogue all the evidence for the landing in one place, it will make the article more informative compelling. Please help! 129.44.172.8 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that such a collection would be a good idea. Several of these things were discussed months ago (now in the archives). However, I don't think that needs to go in this article, since it is about hoax allegations. I think it should go in some other article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent point. The article was getting too long, and detail about photos was separated into another article. Likewise with the chronology of accomplishments, which implicitly refuted the notion that Russia was way ahead of the U.S. Maybe the same could be done with the independent observations. The article wouldn't have to be written in such a way that its sole purpose is to refute the hoaxsters. It could be a good resource for anyone who asks the question just because they want to know. Wahkeenah 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - what do we actually have? 129.44.172.8 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can put it here: Independent evidence for human Moon landings. 129.44.172.8 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to wade through the archives and look for it. Wahkeenah 16:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with my question. I've looked through, and searched the archives - there's nothing there on this. I'm suggesting we start the page, and just leave it for people to fill in if and when any emerges. 64.105.100.228 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not trying. Wahkeenah 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried plenty, so have others by the looks of it. Again, you expect the world to prove a negative, instead of asking for evidence to support the hypothesis. There appears to be no independent evidence, and your self-satisfied "there is, but I'm not telling you where" is childish and unhelpful. It looks like the last refuge of someone whose position has collapsed for lack of evidence. 64.105.100.228 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual honesty - burden of proof

This paragraph is a bit of an embarrassment to Wikipedia - "in formal rhetoric the burden actually lies upon those who propose a new hypothesis, in this case..." How can you possibly argue that NASA is not the one that proposed a new hypothesis? Clearly the burden of proof is on NASA to prove the landings. 129.44.172.8 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bubba, please don't revert without comment. Your POV is clearly wrong on it's face. This is not about point of view, it is about intellectual honesty. 129.44.172.8 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check out the previous sentence. It says some people think NASA should prove things; then the second sentence says other people think the conspiracy theorists should prove their position. If both sentences say the same thing it doesn't make sense: critics of conspiracy theorists think the conspiracy theorists are right?? Critics of conspiracy theorists counter the conspiracy theorists by completely agreeing with them?? Weregerbil 11:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence needs to be changed too. Obviously NASA is proposing the hypothesis of the Moon landing. It's quite ridiculous to try to claim they are not. 64.105.100.228 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. NASA has never proposed any hypothesis as to whether they went to the moon or not. They merely went there and observers reported it. The hoaxsters claim otherwise. The burden of proof is on the accusers. Wahkeenah 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. NASA made a claim - the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that claim. Without that, anyone can claim anything, and by your logic we have to believe them until someone proves the negative. You can say "I solved Fermat's Theorum", and you expect the burden of proof to be on me to prove that you didn't? Thats just stupid. 64.105.100.228 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA never "claimed" anything. However, they did "demonstrate" it... by doing it. Meanwhile, I said 6 months ago that that section was nothing but editorializing. It should be dropped altogether. Wahkeenah 05:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase that you are reverting is not about whether NASA went to the Moon, but about whether, in formal logic, the burden of proof is on them to show that they did. It clearly is. If you agree, I shall remove it. 64.105.100.228 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Formal logic says no such thing. Even in informal logic, this claim is dubious. In formal logic, it's utterly silly. Phiwum 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a well-documented, established historical event, thus the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. And I'm fine with your deletion of that paragraph. But that doesn't mean everyone else will be. We shall see. Wahkeenah 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely not fine with it. In Wahkeenah's version, the paragraph described both sides of a very real disagreement between hoax proponents and opponents. In 64.105.100.228's version, it made no sense. However, Wahkeenah systematically and indiscriminately reverted 64.105.100.228's other changes, which did make sense: removing weasel words and scare quotes and generally adding more balance to the article. Shame on you both, and make sure you read Wikipedia:Revert#Revert wars considered harmful before you edit this page again. DES 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are making a logical error. What you are saying is that you believe that NASA has met the burden of proof because you think it is a 'well documented historical event', not that you do not believe that proof is necessary in NASA's case. There is a difference between thinking proof is not necessary, and thinking it has been achieved. 64.105.100.228 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "proof" is the historical record. There's plenty of evidence for it. Meanwhile, the hoaxsters have never come up with anything that refutes the historical record. Wahkeenah 06:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So you keep parroting, but if you read the paragraph we are talking about, it is not about whether NASA went to the moon, it is about whether, in formal logic, they should have to show evidence that they did. Your opinion is that they have. That's fine - I don't think that you are arguing that if they announced today, without any evidence, that they landed a man on Mars, there would not be a burden of proof. The issue is not 'Have they met the burden of proof', but, 'in formal logic, is there a burden of proof for them to meet'. Please read before reverting. 64.105.100.228 14:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Burden of proof" section currently cites no reliable sources. Per policy, such information may be removed by any editor. (The one web site linked from the section is self-published and makes no attempt to remain impartial, and so rather clearly fails even elementary WP:RS.) I think the "Burden of proof" section is not helpful in the first place. It convinces nobody of anything, and brings nothing useful to the article. Just the facts, please, not a meta-discussion of who must prove what. Other articles have no such meta-discussion, and this article doesn't need it either. Weregerbil 16:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It still kind of looks like an editorial, but it also summarizes the attitude taken by the hoaxsters, as per the argument of the above IP address: That it is somehow up to NASA to "prove" that they went to the moon, thus absolving the hoaxsters from having to do anything except snipe. Wahkeenah 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for jetisoning the burden of proof section entirely. it is an artifact that, through numerous attempts to fix it, has been rendered meaningless Numskll 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed it is pointless editorializing. It should be removed, since it shows no sign of being fixed. As has been pointed out many times, by many people, this section does not deal with whether NASA has proved their case, but with whether, informal logic, evidence is relevant. Clearly Wahkeenah does not think that it is irrelevant whether or not there is any evidence that NASA went to the Moon, he thinks that there is good evidence to support the idea that they went to the moon. Gravitor 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its purpose could be to state succinctly what the hoaxsters' viewpoint often seems to be, i.e. that somehow NASA has to prove something to the small minority who disbelieve the historical record. That part, both sides would agree on, I think: i.e., both sides would agree that that's what the hoaxsters believe. However, that viewpoint can be inferred by the reader, due to the nature of the hoaxsters' questions. The second point, the issue of whether NASA actually does need to prove anything, can be inferred by the poll results. Clearly, the majority would say "no" and the minority would say "yes", so there can be no absolute resolution of that question 100%. So the paragraph in question does not really add anything to the article... and Wikipedia guidelines would say that the reader should draw his own conclusions, rather than being lectured to, as the second part of that paragraph tends to do, even being toned down a bit from what it was before. Wahkeenah 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The two points you are still confusing though are: 1. Is evidence relevant in formal logic? 2. Is there evidence for the NASA landing? In your effort to be emphatic about the second point, you are inadvertently claiming that no evidence is needed. I don't think even you really believe that. Gravitor 01:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're getting at in point 1. Without evidence, you can't prove anything about anything. In point 2, the disagreement fundamentally is that those who accept the historical record say that the evidence is sufficient, and those who do no accept the historical record say that that evidence is not sufficient... which is the reason this page exists in the first place. Wahkeenah 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean? How do we know that Lincoln was assassinated in 1865? There is far less evidence for these events than there is for the Moon landings. I get the feeling that many of these IP addresses that come in here are kids who have just heard about the Moon landings and haven't gotten to the 20th century in their history book yet. One was saying that the Moon landings are a "new hypotheses". Does he think that only 30+ years after the fact, NASA started claiming that they landed on the Moon? That's what his argument seems like. Bubba73 (talk), 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Burden of proof section in a form which I hope makes clear that it is intended to describe a disagreement between parties, not argue one of the parties' case as you people seem to think. DES 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice how it looked back in October, and you'll see what we were getting at about it reading like an editorial:

Hoax critics have claimed that a key assumption of hoax proponents is that the burden of proof for the Apollo landings lies entirely with NASA. These critics have countered that in formal logic the burden actually lies upon those who propose a new hypothesis, in this case, the hoax. According to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Web site, hoax theorists, or pseudoscientists, often focus on a variety of technical minutiae with the expectation that hoax critics should research and address any questions that the hoax proponents raise. Plait says that failure to address a given question is taken by the hoax theorists as proof of some aspect of the Moon landing hoax.

Your version (below) is substantially different, and while more neutral, omits the issue raised in the original version, i.e. that the hoaxsters nitpick what they perceive to be "clues" of a hoax and try to connect the dots to claim that there was a hoax. However, the fact of that nitpicking can already be inferred from the rest of the article. Also, beware of the editorial comment that "hoax proponents must accept..." as it should be more along the lines that hoax proponents have not proved their case to the majority:

One fundamental disagreement between proponents and opponents of the hoax theory regards the burden of proof. In formal rethoric, the onus is on the party proposing a new hypothesis to provide evidence in its support. Hoax proponents argue that it is NASA who is proposing a new hypothesis with their claim of having landed on the moon. Opponents argue that the established consensus is that NASA did land on the moon, and that the burden of proof therefore lies with the hoax theorists. It can also be asserted that NASA have provided evidence in support of their claim (the testimonies of the astronauts and staff; the vehicles that were used; rock samples; TV and radio transmissions and recordings; thousands of photographs) and that hoax proponents must therefore accept NASA's hypothesis unless they can prove said evidence to be falsified. Note that the burden of proof argument is similar but not identical to the scientific method argument described below.

Wahkeenah 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That is better, at least it isn't obviously false now, the trouble is it is still unsourced editorializing / original research. Unless you can source it, it's just opinion and has to go. Gravitor 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of the viewpoints of both sides. In particular, it restates what the hoaxsters on this page keep saying. Wahkeenah 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So you, say, so source it. What the 'hoaxers on this page' say is not good enough - that's original research. Gravitor 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear you admit that the hoaxsters on this page don't know what they're talking about. Wahkeenah 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am, of course, saying no such thing, simply that discussions on this page are not sources for the purpose of articles. Gravitor 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The premise described in that summary, which you are labeling as "unsourced", is the basis for this article's existence. If the premise has no basis, neither does the article. Wahkeenah

Gravitor, this is pathetic. My version of Burden of proof says the exact same thing as the previous version which you claim was "obviously false": that there is a disagreement between hoax proponents and opponents. It just uses slightly plainer language. Your claim that it is "original research" and therefore "has to go" is mere posturing, and your actions violate Wikipedia policy (see Help:Revert). If you are truly concerned about the lack of citations, use Template:fact. Otherwise, step aside. DES 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The two versions are quite different, but my concern is that the entire section is unsourced speculation. In the absence of any sources, anyone can remove it. Please read Wikipedia:No original research before responding. Thanks, Gravitor 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that you are unable to see that this section simply describes the core of the argument between hoax proponents and opponents. Most of what hoax proponents write can be summarized as either "where's your proof that you landed on the moon?" or "I've seen your proof and I think you faked it", while most of what hoax opponents write can be summarized as "here's my proof, where's yours?" or "here's why you're wrong to think we faked it". See for instance [2].

Anyway, I have requested mediation. In the meantime, please abstain from editing the article. DES 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm entirely certain that the moon landings happened just as NASA said, I do also have concerns about the tone of the section. It does describe the core of the hoax argument, but it is also unsourced and presented in a rather OR-ish tone. I'm aware that I am a Johnny-come-lately to the article, and in a sense I'm impressed that it's managed to maintain any coherence at all. But I don't think that the section is helping the article out. It gives the impression of being intended to further the argument rather than simply describing it. MLilburne 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, we've been back and forth on the content, and whether and why it is right or wrong. We disagree. What I think we can all agree on, is Wikipedia's Original Research policy. Source it, or chuck it. Gravitor 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to hear terms like "formal logic" and "burden of proof" used in the context presented in this discussion. "Formal logic", as it is, concerns itself only with the validity or invalidity of an argument; that is, only whether the form of an argument violates the rules of logic, such as they are. "Formal logic" does not concern itself with the truth of the matter as asserted within the argument. With respect to the moon landing, the discussion ought not necessarily to be one of "formal logic", but of probability and credibility; for, one could assign arbitary values to any of the major or minor elements of each mutually exclusive argument and achieve logical validity, which would not speak to the underlying truth. As to "burden of proof", this is largely a legal concept. If one wishes to borrow from this concept, then he ought to define this burden. For instance, what is the burden of proof; does NASA need to show a "preponderance of the evidence" (at least 51% likely in most jurisdictions), "beyond reasonable doubt" (difficult to explain although OW Holmes does a good job), "clear and convincing" (at least 85% likely), or some other defined standard? I agree that NASA should show some evidence because NASA did claim to have travelled to the moon. Consitent with this, NASA displayed evidence, which evidence is generally accepted within the scientific community as highly credible. As far as can be determined, evidence to the contrary has been countered effectively with clear, scientific argument. Therefore, this question is ultimately one of credibility and inductive reasoning; more of aristotle than Plato. All of the arguments presented may be made valid (logical) if the underlying values are assigned individually by the advocate.

Yes, quite, but all of it needs to be sourced appropriately. Gravitor 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the hoax supporters have the burden of proof backwards. When NASA landed, they provided proof. it was widely accepted. Therefore, the statement "We have landed on the moon" was supported by proof. When hoax people come and state "The proof was faked" their following statement should not "Provide us with new proof" but rather "here is proof that it was faked." If the landing statement had to be supported by proof, the statement that the proofs are faked has to be supported. Until that proof is widely accepted, the burden remains on the hoax people and not on NASA, which has provided proof that was widely accepted. When it comes to NASA's proofs, the important part is not about the fact that you don't believe it, it's about how you come to that conclusion and what evidence you have of that proof being falsified.Youkai no unmei 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Burden of Proof - to whom?

Nasa did indeed have a burden to demonstrate their accomplishments - but this proof was to be made to the government, and the respected worldwide scientific community, not to any publicity seeker who wants attention and won't accept basic science. Nasa has met this burden, no respected institution denies the moon landing - so now the burden of proof falls on anyone who asks us to disbelieve the whole world in favor of some guy who chases astronauts around and yells at them.

Furthermore, when public figures who have had no other proven accusations of dishonesty say something, this should be taken as meaningful. Hoax arguments treat anyone associated with NASA as if they were known criminals. How does one justify such distrust? Real scientists don't treat each other like this. Algr 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Some sense at last. Of course there is a burden of proof for NASA. Landing beleivers think it has been met, skeptics think not. The idea that Wahkeenah et al is banging on that there is no burden of proof for NASA is nonsense. 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Algr's assessment is correct. It could be said that NASA had a "burden of proof", which they met at the time, and thus have nothing to prove now, except in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists, who have yet to present any evidence contradicting the history of NASA's programs. Wahkeenah 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists have a burden of proof now. They have to prove two things: 1: NASA is an unreliable source of information due to misinformation in the past. 2: The lunar landing did not happene as explained by NASA. To do that, they will have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that at least a major part of NASA's evidence was falsified. So far, most "proof" I have seen from them was conjectures and theories due to a lack of technical and scientific knowledge. There is no doubt in my mind that in the heat of the cold war (I know, horrible pun) it could have been possible for NASA to fake a lunar landing. However, the fact that it was possible does not in any way make it real. It was also possible for NASA to actually land on the moon (having worked at the Canadian Space Agency, I have seen how much we can do now, landing on the moon does not seem so unrealistic back then). Possible does not mean probable. And probable does not mean certain. (anyway I am getting far from my original point.) Until the currently accepted evidence from NASA is completely refuted, there is no need for NASA to prove what they did again and again. Once an accused person has been found not-guilty, he does not have to go through a trial every day of his or her life.Youkai no unmei 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. So the argument is not about whether there is a burden of proof on NASA, we all agree that there is / was. What we disagree on is whether they met it. Gravitor 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what "we" think doesn't matter, which you as a wikipedia expert are well awere. The scientific community thinks they did, and a large majority of layman think so, too. Beware of letting your personal viewpoint influence your editing. Wahkeenah 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunar Trailblazer

I've heard about an independent American Lunar orbiter called Lunar Trailblazer. It's going to be launched with an ex-Soviet 'Satan' missile (R-36, SS-18, Dnepr) from Baikonur soon. It's a commercial lunar mission with a purpose of photographing the Apollo sites. Does anyone knows when it's being launched? Last I heard it was delayed from Oct. 6, 2006. Regards Necessary Evil 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is their website. Maybe it says there. Bubba73 (talk), 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bubba73--Necessary Evil 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Burden of proof for events 1969-1972

There is a "hypotheses" that something called the Vietnam War was taking place during the years 1969-1972. Has the US Army met the burden of proof on this?

Enough already with the nonsense that there is a burden of proof that NASA hasn't met. Thousands of reliable, verifiable secondary sources have looked at the data and have no doubt that it is authentic. This includes textbooks, scientific papers, and works by journalists. The most recent of these that I have is the March 2007 Astronomy magazine, page 58. There is no doubt among knowledgeable, informed people about the reality of the Moon landings. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice circular logic! The definition of 'knowledgeable and informed' is sharing your POV! Gravitor 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Frequency of deaths among astronauts

I think this section needs a different title because it simply lists deaths and says nothing about their frequency. Or it should say more about the freqency of deaths among astronauts (statistics). Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

When people hear that eight Apollo-related astronauts died in the late sixties, they might think of it as an evidence of MiB had tampered with their aircraft. But 13 astronauts and cosmonauts, without relation to Apollo, died simultaneously. So it wasn't unusual that astronauts died in the line of duty. Readers should be aware of this.

I don't know why it was changed to "Frequency of deaths..", to me it would need some: "46,1583 % of all dead astronauts were related to Apollo and therefore there is a standard deviation of ....". 64.105.100.228 felt that "usual / unusual without more analysis is POV", people can do their own analysis; 8 apollo-related versus 13 non-apollo, you don't need a Ph.D to figure that out! Regards Necessary Evil 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, many of the ones that are listed in the "Deaths of key Apollo personnel" section have little or no link to the Apollo program.

• Freeman killed in 1964 - years before the supposed decision to hoax was made. Never assigned to Apollo.
• See and Basset, killed in 1966. Ditto. Were killed before their Gemini mission, never assigned to Apollo.
• X-15 pilot Adams - link to Apollo?
• Lawrence of the MOL program - link to Apollo?

Don't make no sense to me. Bubba73 (talk), 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument the hoaxsters make is that the number of deaths is unusual... without providing any statistical analysis to back that up. I recall a fruitless debate I had with somebody over the question of whether being a test pilot is any more dangerous than, say, driving a delivery truck. It went nowhere, because I don't have ready access to actuarial figures. Also, as with hoaxes like the Bermuda Triangle, they try to throw the net as far as they can, in an effort to tie as many disasters as they can to their premise. Wahkeenah 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how people who never had anything to do with Apollo were "key Apollo personnel". Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They were part of the "vast NASA conspiracy". Or at least "half-vast". >:) Wahkeenah 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

400,000 people worked on the project. I'm surprized that only eight had to be eliminated. Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Only 8 that we know of. There were thousands more, but the conspiracy of the survivors kept that fact quiet. Even from their relatives. The cover story was that they had dropped out of society and joined a cult known as the Moonies. Wahkeenah 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Irwin was supposedly going to contact Gelvani about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred." I'm convinced that if Neil Armstrong dies tomorrow, Gelvani would say the same thing about him, it is easy to allege exclusive conversations with now-deceased people.
If the Fox television programme used the phrase:"Deaths of key Apollo personnel", it shouldn't be touched. However, with the "Frequency of deaths among astronauts" headline, people will expect some scientific statistics. How about "Deaths of non-Apollo astronauts" ? Necessary Evil 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deaths of non-Apollo astronauts are only relevant with some kind of reference to statistical conclusions making it relevant to Apollo. Otherwise it's just original research. Gravitor 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JFK

The paragraph states the hoax-believer claim that the reason we couldn't go to the Moon because it was too difficult. JFK said that we should go to the Moon because it is difficult ("difficult", "expensive", and "hard" in his words). So it is important to say this. Otherwise the part about JFK doesn't make sense.

It is claimed that people swimmed across the English Channel. But that arguement could be applied to say that people wouldn't swim across the Channel because it is too difficult. Peopl do difficult things. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote about JFK is relevant because the paragraph is about how difficult the idea of landing on the Moon is. Even the President who ordered it agreed that it is difficult. We should simply report what he said, not couch it in our own weasel words to try to place spin on his words. Gravitor 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

Here we go with this subject again, after it had been debated ad nauseum last summer. Gravitor, can you find a citation that says "conspiracy theory" is an insulating term? Or is that just your personal opinion? Bearing in mind that personal opinions on the talk page can't be cited in the article, as you pointed out about that one paragraph about "burden of proof". Wahkeenah 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Mike Rudin, an editor with the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/12/the_danger_with_conspiracies_1.html Gravitor 04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

...who says "The very words we use to describe conspiracies and conspiracy theories are highly charged. Calling anything a conspiracy theory is, to some, a criticism." No argument there. That does not prove that the term is inherently insulting, only that some find it insulting. Wahkeenah 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

...riiiiight... There are no words that are inherently insulting. They are only insulting if someone finds them insulting. Gravitor 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like the wording is in pretty good shape now. Until someone messes with it again. There seems to be sufficient documentation that (1) it's a conspiracy theory and (2) conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists. I used to fall into the conspiracy theorist group, when I gravitated (!) to the theory that there were multiple shooters of JFK. I am now convinced that Oswald was one, and quite possibly the only one, and in any case I always thought of conspiracy theory as amusing rather than insulting. If someone insults you, the cure for that is to prove them wrong, and you right. Maybe that's what the hoaxsters find so irksome about the term... that they can't sway the general public, because their evidence is, to put it charitably, insufficient to make their case. Wahkeenah 18:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the term is used to devalue your opponent in politics. Prosecutors in conspiracy cases are not called conspiracy theorists, except occasionally by flamboyant defense lawyers who want to insult them. There's nothing to prove about the term 'conspiracy theorist', it's like taking the term 'wog' and saying "well, if you don't like the term, prove you're not a wog". There are some issues with the current version, which gives far too much credence to random insults by landing believers. Gravitor 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because a term is insulting to those to whom it is applied does not make it incorrect. Wahkeenah 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The term has no meaning except as an insult. The only thing it 'means' is that the person using it does not believe in the theory they are describing. It tells us nothing about the actual theory, only about the state of mind of the person using the word. Gravitor 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you would argue for deleting the Conspiracy theory article? Wahkeenah 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, my approach to opinions I disagree with is not to try to suppress them. I would like to see that article take a more NPOV view though. Gravitor 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then stop suppressing the demonstrable fact that this is a conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is that you don't listen, and don't learn. You're stuck parroting the same old rubbish, and always will. The world moves on, your rhetoric is fossilized. Gravitor 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory should not be a charged word. A conspiracy theory is simply a theory that a group of people ocnspired towards a specific goal. Until proven, it'll remain a theory.Youkai no unmei 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would be perfectly happy calling Patrick Fitzgerald a conspiracy theorist? After all, he has a theory that a group of people conspired towards a specific goal, and he has yet to be proved right. Why don't you go on over to the article about the Scooter trial and put that right in? Gravitor 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're getting two different concepts confused. Wahkeenah 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a technical sense he is a conspiracy theorist. However, he has solid evidence backing his claims. Which means that a conspiracy seen and described by Patrick Fitzgerald is rarelly a theory by the time it comes public. The trials seem to prove that. Maybe you should call him on the fraudulent use of 30 billion dollars by NASA officials... Youkai no unmei 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually not, in the specific meaning of "conspiracy theory" as it's used in popular culture. Watergate as well as the current case brought by Fitzgerald were crime stories that evolved into criminal cases pursued by the government and, in the case of Watergate, convictions; the current case obviously is ongoing, and may or may not result in convictions, but it's still the government trying the case. A "conspiracy theory" or an "alternate" theory, or whatever you want to call it, is a story that runs counter to the "official" government explanation/conclusion and/or conventional history for some event. Thus, there are counter-theories about the JFK, RFK and King assassinations; the deaths of Hollywood stars like Bern, Reeves and Monroe; about 9/11; about the Iraq war; on and on; and about the NASA history. Wahkeenah 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If we adjust our understanding of the world simply by how it is understood by popular culture, we would end up with a lot of meaningless words. At the most basic level, you have conspiracy and theory. Conspiracy is understood, in this context, to mean an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some point in the future (prior to the possibly faked lunar landing). And theory, which means a speculation, something that is unproven. At the most basic level, if you ignore the connotation of the word, and focus on the denotation, the meaning, in this context, is accurate. There is a theory that people conspired to hide the truth from the population. Connotation is a much more flexible meaning than denotation, and it may change in the near future. In fact, the very same concept can have many connotations in different cultures or even groups. Among people who firmly believe in a shadow government, a conspiracy theory is taken more seriously than with people's which only had contact with the local nutjob who wears a tinfoil hat. (I am not saying anyone here is such a nutjob.) I do believe that in an international and neutral work, denotation should be used rather than connotation.Youkai no unmei 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wahkeenah, are you sure you are not suffering from concussion? Perhaps you should lie down for a while? You have total trust in the outcome of the case currently being prosecuted, despite no findings? The 'official story' from the executive branch is that there is no conspiracy. The prosecutor has a conspiracy theory (by your definition) that he is propounding that is counter to the official version. What is happening is that you are using the term 'conspiracy' for a case where you believe in the evidence, and 'conspiracy theory' for one where you don't, and want to disparage the idea. That is the only meaning of the term. Gravitor 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While user Youkai no unmei is correct in the context of the literal meanings of the terms, "conspiracy theory" as a term was coined specifically to describe these alternate explanations to the official story, probably originally in connection with the JFK alternate theories. And the White House's view of the current case is just their personal opinion, it's not an official government explanation of an event. Wahkeenah 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" as an expression apparantly dates to the 1920s. While it is true that the events in the 60s most likely pushed it in the spotlight, conspiracy theories as a concept and not as a set expression have been around for far longer than 100 years. History has been filled with people conspiring against someone. And people have been suspicious of these conspirations ever since the first one was found. However, all semantics aside (while I love arguing on the nature of terminology, we have to get to the point at some time), we must consider the following: Until something is proven, it is concidered a theory. People secretly working together with the intention of deceiving is a conspiracy. Hence, the possible faking of the lunar landing is a theory relevant to a conspiracy. However, if you want to go even deeper in the meanings and use the scientific method's definition of theory, to actually be a theory, it would recquire a partial backing by fact of what is supported that would, according to the current understanding, lead to the theory's conclusion. Since the False Lunar Landing conspiracy is mostly based on speculative evidence, if not entirely, it is hard to see it as a theory in the scientific definition of the term. In common usage, theory can be used for anything that is suspected, like a hunch. However, conspiracy hunches seems a bit too weak. Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand. People suspect a conspiracy, it is therefore a conspiracy theory UNTIL it is proven or disproven, at which point it will simply be a conspiracy or it will become nothing if it is disproven. Youkai no unmei 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Whether it's within the broader sense of a theory (i.e. a hypthesis or a hunch or a suspicion) about a possibly conspiracy... or if it's a "Conspiracy Theory" of the JFK variety... either way, it works. Wahkeenah 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

total fraud

the attempted debunking of the article is a total fraud, from start to end.

p.s. i liked the most the part about 'cataracts from the radiation'... in old farts, eh?. thanks for the good laugh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.176.8 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're right. Some of us struggle with this from time to time, trying to moderate the tone of the POV pushers that squat this article. In the end, most of us have jobs and lives, which the NASA shills don't seem to (unless trolling this page is their full time job...) Please feel free to help! Gravitor 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a rerun from last summer. Wahkeenah 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The catarcats argument could hold if compared to the actual rate of cataracts in similar non-space faring individuals. It, however, remains a rather weak argument, as the astronauts probably had other things in common that may have caused cataracts. It is still a stronger argument than some person who claims that some guy who died the week before was about to give him proof.

And wouldn't shill be a case of personal attack? I mean, just saying... Youkai no unmei 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an NPOV term. If you think it's not, please feel free to prove why. Gravitor 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A shill is someone paid by an organization, in secret, to mislead the public in the guise of a neutral observer. The term itself is neutral. Its use without evidence could be considered a personal attack, except that neither Gravitor nor Carfiend has ever sunk to that level, as its various remarks on this page continually attest. Wahkeenah 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whole sentence is rather impolite. "In the end, most of us have jobs and lives, which the NASA shills don't seem to (unless trolling this page is their full time job...)" In one sentence, people who diagree with him are accused of not having a life nor a job, of being tools for NASA and of being trolls. Not the worse personal attack, but it does seem to assume that everyone who accept the idea that man has landed on the moon as described by NASA are no-life trolls who are paid by NASA.Youkai no unmei 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you said that, not me. Gravitor 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did, I was just deconstruting your sentence and observing the meaning present in what you said. I don't believe that anyone here is paid by NASA to express their opinions concerning the conspiracy claims. Any paychecks I have gotten from the canadian space agency was related to my work in their Earth Observation program and not as their "wikipedia" monkey. And that was years ago.

Oh and by the way, I believe in the Apollo landings, I have seen much more data confirming them than I have seen data confirming a conspiracy. In fact, I have never seen data confirming or even supporting a conspiracy, only wild alegations. I, however, have the civility to respect your right to think what you want. However, do not call me a troll, or unemployed, or a shill for NASA. I don't live under a bridge, I have a job, and its not for NASA. Youkai no unmei 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see a pattern here . . . Numskll 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the pattern is more and more pro landing editors admitting to having been paid by NASA. Gravitor 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, can't you read? The discussion above states exact opposite. Honestly would you consider yourself more of a fool, a liar or a troll. Or do try to keep it evened out between the three. Nasa shills, indeed. Numskll 14:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a frequent tactic of Carfiend last summer... to accuse others of what he was doing himself. Gravitor's comments on admins' talk pages are rather more deferential, so I've concluded he's just playing a game on this page (as was Carfiend). I think that particular game has a name... tolling, or trawling, or something similar-sounding. Wahkeenah 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't sell me short. I'm not just a paid government agent shill. I own NASA. Wahkeenah 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Individuals featured in the controversy" section?

In the interest of shortening this long article, I think that it might be a good idea to remove the section "Individuals featured in the controversy". I think that these people are notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry, if they don't already. Furthermore, listing and discussing the individuals seems to have a problem with NPOV. Why would it matter who is making these claims? Perhaps we could just convert this to list form? Or perhaps create a Category:Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers (or something like that)? Lunokhod 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They should not be removed anymore than the list of astronauts should be removed from Project Apollo, listing the major proponents of the hoax is worthwhile. We could move the details into separate articles for each person if length is the issue. Gravitor 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But aren't the hoax proponents already cited in the article? If we follow this logic, then shouldn't we also add a list of lunar scientists to the topic Geology of the Moon, and a list of Engineers that participated in the Apollo project? Lunokhod 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! A list of engineers might be a good idea, if they have published something substantial. A list of the main proponents (some of whom do not appear in the article) is useful as a reference. Gravitor 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it matter who is making these claims? When some guy claims, with no objective evidence, that the Saturn V never went into orbit but instead the astronauts parachuted into the ocean and were flown to a film studio, how can anyone know whether they should be given even the slightest credence if they know nothing about that person's background? I think it's very important to know who is making these claims and whether they have any kind of background that would allow them to do so... the Apollo-deniers don't like this because it's immediately apparent that most of these people are, shall we say, a little out of the ordinary. Mark Grant 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just don't call them "conspiracy theorists". Wahkeenah 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, is it really worth arguing with these pay-on shitheads? just by reading a sentence or two from them it is clear that these emotionless bastards are just doing their job by planting this nonsense. that's what they're paid to do... you'd be surprised what these plebians look like in real life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.223.2 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

• NASA pays me residuals for this work. Of course, the checks are getting kind of small by now. The last one was for 2 cents. Wahkeenah 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work Gravitor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.34.99 (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree completely with Mark Grant. He's slightly off base, because it's the landing believers that are so opposed to laying out the facts, the hoax proponents seem to be in favor of this list. Gravitor 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That comment is baseless. It's the kind of thing a conspiracy theorist would say, to deflect attention from their own lack of evidence in support of their so-called theory. Wahkeenah 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunokhod is a landing believer and wants to remove the bios from the page. I and other people interested in the truth of the hoax want to keep them. Landing believers are also trying to delete the page listing evidence for the landing - it is landing skeptics who want to keep that neutral list of evidence. What part of that do you disagree with? Gravitor 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The part that says "the truth of the hoax", which is an oxymoron. Otherwise, I'm in favor of retaining pertinent information. It looks like that user wants the biographies to be in their own articles, in order to keep this article shorter, as its length is a constant source of complaint. Putting lengthy bios in separate articles is standard wiki procedure. But is there enough for a separate article? What can you say about guys like Kaysing and Sibrel beyond the obvious, that they don't know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, I see that Carfiend is also back after a long absence. Those winters in Siberia can be rough. Wahkeenah 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The part where nefarious motives Are attributed to anyone who doesn't accept the hoax proponent's views as recieved truth and noble motives are attributed to hoax proponents no matter how spurious the logic is? Numskll 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I think that the removal of the detailed personal descriptions of hoax proponents will improve this article in one important way (and in fact will favor the hoax proponents). As was mentioned above, many view the hoax proponents as "crackpots", so the less visible these people are in the article, the more respectable the article will appear. The hoax opponents will thus have to counter the hoax proponents with evidence. As it is now, the article does a decent job of describing the controversy, but at the end, the list of proponents just screams "if you don't believe us, look at these crazies who are making these claims!" Lunokhod 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What complete rubbish. Your POV about the credibility of the proponents should have nothing to do with the content of the article. I'm astonished at your assumption that your own POV should guide the information in the article. Gravitor 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be clear as day in the article that these guys are lunatics. Wahkeenah 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment by Wahkeenah is very telling about his stance towards NPOV. The hoax accusations is a social phenomenon. The page is not a place to disprove the claims but rather document them.24.7.34.99 07:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they is. Wahkeenah 10:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This page must cover both the claims and the arguments against the claims to be NPOV. Simple, really. -- ArglebargleIV 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah has a total disregard for NPOV, and a complete disrespect for the principles of Wikipedia. He actually admits it too, for which I applaud his honesty, if not his rapacious insistence that the article reflect only his POV. Gravitor 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that he admits he is not NPOV disqualifies him from editing this page. This article is a sad joke. People already know the moon landings are fake anyways, so it's not a big deal.24.7.34.99 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

99 - I appreciate your contribution - how about getting a username, and helping out a little more? Gravitor 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. How about something catchy? Maybe "Carfiend". Wahkeenah 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI...

I plan to request someone who knows, to determine whether Gravitor and Carfiend are the same user. Gravitor[3] and Carfiend [4] were both very contentious on the Apollo hoax page last summer; both disappeared around mid-September; and both re-appeared recently. I'm posting this here first, as a courtesy. Wahkeenah 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. While they're at it, they can check whether Bubba and Wahkeenah are the same user. This is the same tactic we discussed on the 'conspiracy theory' issue. When you run out of facts, start slinging mud and trying to undermine the other side with cheap accusations. Gravitor 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If Carfiend hadn't suddenly turned up for a short time today, during which time you made no edits, my suspicions would not have been raised. It could be coincidental. But those two ID's were also at their peak of activity around the same time last summer and disappeared (temporarily) around the same time. Meanwhile, they can check Bubba73 and me if they want. I think he's in the south. I'm in the upper midwest. Wahkeenah 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ the gestapo tactics. They are not the same person.24.7.34.99 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And you would know. Wahkeenah 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"And you would know" Ah, the wit of Oscar Wilde. Change but one syllable and the whole delicate epigram falls apart. Gravitor 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was in a library recently. Along a narrow aisle, with hardbound copies of Bartlett's on a teetery top shelf, an international orange sign read, "Danger! Falling epigrams!" Wahkeenah 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia doesn't work the way you're used to at NASA - you can't just have someone 'disappeared' because they don't agree with your POV here. This article is not your personal property. Gravitor 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the current conflict, are you asserting that NASA has people 'disappeared'? That's quite a contentious claim to make, care to back it up with evidence? Or would you like to withdraw it? Your own credibility is the only thing at stake, I await your response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The dirty tricks campaign waged by Wahkeenah and his sock puppets is very reminiscent of NASA's behavior. [5]. Gravitor 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My efforts on the page themselves have been to try to reduce the editorializing on both sides. Meanwhile, you and Carfiend use the same rhetoric, you both focus all your editing energies on this one topic, and you both disappeared and reappeared about the same time, which is why it is easy to get the two of you confused. When I say "disappeared", I mean y'all stopped editing wikipedia. Being a reasonable sort, I'm sure you'll understand why those coincidences make me say "Hmmm..." Wahkeenah 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a word for people who construct elaborate theories about the world being in conspiracy against them? Gravitor 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they is. Wahkeenah 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The dirty tricks campaign waged by Wahkeenah and his sock puppets is very reminiscent of NASA's behavior. [6]. Gravitor 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC) This is foul. Perhaps you should revisit WP:NPA and just just plain common sense. What would posess you to say something like that? Truthfully. Numskll 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That kind of thing is a continuation from last summer, after a 4-plus month hiatus by that user. I'll let the insults ride for now and see how things go. Wahkeenah 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, how much is Nasa or the CIA paying you folks?24.7.34.99 08:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, says the foul mouthed mystery IP Numskll 14:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The typical IP address vandal's attitude is "IPonU". Meanwhile, I already answered the payment question, elsewhere on this page. 0:) Wahkeenah 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now which one of you Nasa Shills accused me of being Gravitor? This shows you how deluded and paranoid you people are. Don't worry, it's not the end of the world just because we have the truth about the faked moon landings. The real moon race has just begun EU, China, Japan and the US will all try to get to the moon by 202524.7.34.99 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No one did. Thanks for admitting it, though. Wahkeenah 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully Wahkeenah, he did not say that. Oh, but perhaps you knew that already, and were just trolling? Gravitor 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to write in the exact same style and tone as Carfiend. It helps make the case more easily. Wahkeenah 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Two hypotheses.... A number of people all accuse you of trolling - perhaps it's a conspiracy by all of them, or perhaps they are all the same person.... or, maybe you are a troll... Gravitor 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that you people think the only way people can trust the evidence brought forward by NASA concerning the lunar landing is that they are paid by NASA and the CIA in a major conspiracy to ensure that a minor fraction of the population is convinced of something that at this point has no influence on your daily lives. Yeah, keep believing we are paid by NASA, it just makes not believeing in your arguments a lot easier. Youkai no unmei 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, Youkai. Gravitor 01:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The admin has determined that Gravitor and Carfiend are not on the same IP subnet. They are merely copycats: same M.O., same single-subject focus, same active time period. Wahkeenah 08:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I have done the following in an attempt to better organize the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusation pages. First, I have created a category with the same name and have added the relevant topics that I know of. Second, I have created a separate page Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers. Finally, in the interest of triming down the size of this article, and to stick to the point of documenting the claims, I have removed this section from this article. I am sure that some will not be happy with this, and I do not mind at all if any of these edits are reverted. Lunokhod 09:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A hoax page without the people that started the movement? Might as well take off the "debunkings" and start a separate page for Apollo hoax debunkings. That is a lot more appropiate than starting a separate page for hoax accusers.24.7.34.99 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The hoax propenents are in the article, they are referenced, what is the problem? If they are NOT referenced, they should be! The article is about accusations, not the people. It is definitely non-standard for an encyclopedic article to have bios of the key personel. The only purpose of this is to make these people appear as cranks, which is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Check out General relativity and see how much of Einsteins life is detailed there. As for the suggestion below to make a small summary, with a link "main" pointing towards the article, this is reasonable (though in my opinion, unnecessary). Lunokhod 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't write an article about Apollo-denial without talking about the hoax proponents, because so many of the claims are merely their word against NASA's. An article which doesn't cover their background and their justification is pointless. If you want to shorten the article you should be throwing out the laundry-list of claim and counter-claim, not information on the people making those claims.

The only purpose of this is to make these people appear as cranks, which is inconsistent with WP:NPOV This whole article violates the 'undue weight' and pseudoscience provisions of NPOV. I've pointed this out numerous times before, and so have others, but couldn't be arsed to continue worrying about it. Pretending that they should be given equal weight with NASA and the scientific world _is_ a violation of NPOV. Mark Grant 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with you much. I said some time back, and I still think, that on balance this is one of the fairer and lower-keyed internet articles on this subject. It gives the hoaxsters more credit than they deserve, and it could still use some fine-tuning, but putting myself in the shoes of someone who might not know about this phenomenon, hopefully I would come away with some reasonable sense of what it's about. Wahkeenah 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than excising them to such an extent, as was done by Lunokhod, I think it would be better to retain the list in this article, with maybe a sentence on each player, and with the link to the "main article" on those guys. That would still have the desired effect of shortening the article and would follow the normal wiki approach. However, there is also duplication between that spinoff "main article" and the individuals' bios. I'm not so sure that's a good thing, although that practice seems to be rampant in wikipedia. Wahkeenah 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I took Lunokhod at his word "I do not mind at all if any of these edits are reverted". It's ridiculous to remove this information, and just goes to show his commitment to destroying this article. His comments about trying to shorten it are in direct conflict with his attempts to lengthen it by destroying other articles. Gravitor 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who did not follow the above logic, gravitar is refering to the AfD nomination of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which contains a grand total of three sourced facts (two are about future missions, and the other is to an "an opinion by someone who appeared in a BBC documentary"). I would be happy to create a NPOV article such as Evidence for Apollo Moon landings, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in such an article. Lunokhod 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Such an article is well-intentioned, but it's just another case of the hoaxsters trying to make someone else do their research for them, and they have already stated (in last summer's archives) that they won't accept anything it says, so it's a futile effort. Wahkeenah 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are rather more than three. Gravitor 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no independent confirmation of the moon landings. This is a fact and is an argument used by the hoaxers. It should be included in the article.24.7.34.99 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was plenty of independent confirmation, and you're correct that the hoaxsters deny it. This issue was debated at great length last summer. Feel free to review the archives. Wahkeenah 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is so much, why are the US Moon program shills so frightened to assemble it in one place? Gravitor 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is in one place. In the archives. Wahkeenah 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been proved a liar on this front so many times, I don't know why anyone still talks to you. There is NO evidence in the archives, and even if there were, why would the shills be afraid of putting it in an article? 70.149.96.78 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He's right Wahkeenah - you can't constantly spout rubbish that everyone knows is not true and expect people to believe you. Gravitor 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not really interested in spending our time doing your research for you. It's good to know that you're as lazy as the rest of us. Wahkeenah 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So butt out then If you're not interested in helping to build the encyclopedia, stop sowing disinformation and let others get on with it. Gravitor 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's stopping you? Wahkeenah 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed, I have been adding independent evidence for the landing to that page. No help from you, or any of the other shills. In fact, the only thing that the landing believers have done is try to delete the effort. That is what is stopping me right now. Please, if you have no interest in the truth, leave those of us who do to get on with it. Gravitor 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who can not follow the logic of Gravitor, he is referring to my deleteing of deep space network stations from the article independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. They do not constitute "independent" evidence as DSN is run by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is run by NASA. Lunokhod 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I am concerned that a government agent is deliberately trying to delete evidence relating to the Moon landings. Gravitor 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor. I commend you for being a warrior for the truth. Don't let these NASA shills discourage your quest for the truth.24.7.34.99 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They are asking for discussion from editors of this article on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-05 Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

The merge debaate has begun on the talk page of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please leave your comments there. Lunokhod 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is too long, and the material on the evidence page has no direct relationship with this page. Oppose. Gravitor 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who are worried that this page will become too long, please read the merge proposal. The above claim is incorrect. Lunokhod 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. Carfiend 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment stemming from merger debate

This editing two talk pages is a right old pain in the wossnames. Right - about the length of this article. There is no denying it goes on, and on, and on. A couple of observations.

• Firstly, the main instigators of the allegations now have an article unto themselves, so I think that whole section can be trimmed severely. We need names and at most a two sentence paragraph on who they are, and their tie-in to this whole thing.
• Secondly far the biggest part of this is the accusation-rebuttal bit. It's a great piece of writing, but too long to sit in the middle of the page.

To shorten the article, do with it as we have the accusers - carve it out as a separate page called along the lines of "responses to the moon landing hoax accusations" or something similar. That takes out a big chunk of this article. If needs be, the ultimate rebuttal (here's a stack of other things that people nothing to do with NASA saw on those nights) can be lobbed in there too.

I see the problems here "it doesn't deal with the way the accusations can be rebutted" which can be driven by a short paragraph setting out that each of the accusations can be explained, and indeed have been explained by NASA et al, see other article. This leaves a bit of a gap, but with some re-wording that can be overcome. Much as Being Bold is part of WP, doing this off my own bat would be tantamount to declaring war; I'll sit back and see what everyone else thinks.

I do recall seeing a similar suggestion somewhere in the archives, but I'm stoned if I can recall why it was deemed to be a Bad Idea. LeeG 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if the people have their own article their bio can be shortened to two sentences. The approach of taking issues like photographs and spinning them off to their own article seems to have been successful, I would be cautious about your other suggestions, it sounds like it will be unpopular with anyone committed to an NPOV article. Gravitor 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's done as LeeG suggests, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. -- ArglebargleIV 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although actually, when I come to look at it, a lot of the entries of these people are Moon Landing Hoax accusations, it seems better to the parts of the bios that are actually bios on the bio pages, and keep the parts which are elucidations of their hoax theories on the hoax page, that way someone interested in the person can get the bio, and someone interested in the hoax can get all the hoax stuff in one place. Gravitor 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't just list the hoax claims without the counter-explanations, as the hoaxsters want to do as part of their agenda of deception. Wahkeenah 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone propose that. Carfiend 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let's keep it that way. Wahkeenah 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We talked about using WP:SS last summer to tackle this very problem, which seems to be the suggestion here. The objections had to do with pro-hoaxers calling it an inflamatory move by pro NASA POV jihadis, or words to that effect. I'm not sure of the specifics of the objections beyond that, assuming there were specifics, beyond that. It never got of the ground in the face of their objections and the various editors were lucky to even maintain some sort of equilibrium. Numskll 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy potatoes this is a minefield. I have done a first pass on My Moon Hoax rewrite test page in which I have done a lot of text removal, a big chunk of copy writing, duplicate statement removal (that Gallup poll was in twice, for example), excise two sections (step by step rebuttals and the bios) and it is STILL 46Kb long. I know the first pass will not survive as I'm sure I have inadvertently upset one party or another - if that's the case, I'm sorry. I'd prefer if you hit the discussion page over there (or here) rather than the rewrite page, as it will be easier for me to track what the heck people actually think. To shrink this further we need to look at all sorts of stuff. There's the links for starters - it's a link farm at the bottom. There's the almost endless list of song lyrics and obtuse references to video games, bits of film script and random TV shows. I don't see what any of that stuff adds, but I am not a fan of bloated "trivia" sections in any article. In short - see if I am on the right lines, if so I'll continue, if not I'll try to do what you think with it. LeeG 00:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend that you do not try to maintain a parallel version of this article - suggesting edits here, where everyone interested will be able to see and comment, will be much more likely to gain consensus. I do not approve of anther version being developed. Gravitor 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave my draft in my userspace whilst I mess with them, and drag bits here section by section. As you can see below - first up, a big trim on the bios. LeeG 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnote - other archives

Archive 1 | /Archive 2 | /Archive 3 | /Archive 4 | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8 | /Archive 9 | /Archive 10

Note: due to page renaming, some of these archives point to different talk pages.