Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Cannot move my discussions

This page is used for general discussion about the moon landings. If you want to move my discussions, then I will delete any discussion that does not pertain to main page. There is no justification for this type of censorship besides hiding honest discourse.Noodle boy 02:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have never taken any of your comments personally, despite any apparent evidence to the contrary. However, I'm still waiting for your expansion on the coincidence of the shuttle Challenger blowing up at 1:13 after launch. Wahkeenah 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(for more discussion on the Challenger coincidence, please see User talk:Noodle boy. This particular discussion has nothing to do with the article itself.--ScienceApologist 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, although we disagree I respect you for actually debating points and not resorting to censorship as ScienceApologist has done. I am not here to cause trouble but to have an honest intellectual debate about the validity of the moon landings. Also the reason why I don't edit the main page is because I know it is a hopeless endeavour, at least on the discussion page I thought I could express my views on this issue. Noodle boy 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Honest intellectual debate is not what the talkpages are for. Please take this to a debate site such as the Universe Today forum. --ScienceApologist 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talkpages are not "used for general discussion" ever. The points are rightly moved to your user talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They are for discussion of the subject included in the main page. Once we can come to a concensus about the allegations we can move the allegation to the main page. This is the point of the talk page. What you are doing is censorship, plain and simple. You deleted hoax allegation links before so your track record is not very good.Noodle boy 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, if you are interested in seeing prose included in the article, propose prose here on the talkpage and we'll all be glad to talk about if and whether we will include it. General discussion and debate is not the purpose of the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will revert it again until you delete everything on that page that does not relate to the main page. You cannot selectively delete my post under this rule. It has to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion.Noodle boy 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, Noodleboy. It's just saved in the archive above. --ScienceApologist 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle boy has made some fine contribution in this discussion page. I see that they now are well hidden for the public. I consider this an injustice. Noodle Boy could of course refrase his contributions as suggested sections for the main article. Then ScienceApologist clearly would not have any formal reason to do censorship.

The main article as it is now has this function: People curious about the hoax accusations may look up the article, and within 30 seconds conclude that the hoax rumor is ridiculous. Just the first sentences, pictures with text, and perhaps read some of the long "rebuttals" which may seem resonable. The landing believers will want the page to stay that way. I do not think hoax proponents ever will se that this page presents the hoax claim in a fair way. I am surely not going to spend much energy on such a hopeless task. The topic is not really that important. But I will do some writing now and then, and support persons like Noodle boy. (Axlalta 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the support. Not only did they move all of my discussions to my user page, they blocked my IP so there is no way for me to edit on my main computer. The reason for this is beause supposedly I tried to avoid the 3-revert by using a "sockpuppet" which is ridiculous. I restarted my computer and edited it without signing in and next thing you know my IP is blocked. They claim that I tried to avoid the 3 revert rule but anybody who checks the history can see that when I was logged in as noodle boy I reverted the deleted discussions around 10 times. Anyways, no worries. I agree with you that the hoax allegation page will never be presented in a fair way. These people clearly have something to hide and moderators such as chairboy are blatantly Pro-Apollo so it's no surprise he blocked my IP. These actions actually make my convictions stronger that the whole thing was a fake. Clearly, as was already evident on the main page, they only include hoax allegations that are clearly easy to debunk. Also any hoax allegation links that make valid points will be deleted under the excuse that it is a "non-notable" link. Whatever that means I do not know, but it is censorship plain and simple. Glad you have enough good sense to at least question what is being told to you, unlike the sheeple that dominate this page.Noodle boy 15:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read this

Please read Help:Talk page to understand the purpose of the talkpage. It is not simply for engaging in endless debating and discussion. They are expressly for improving articles and proposing changes. Minimal amount of sidechatter is fine, but section-after-section is rightly redacted to the user talks. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

per suggestion, archived

Per suggestion, all the remaining talk has been archived. Talk pages are for discussing what to include in the article and related issues. Please see Help:Talk page for more. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding claims/rebuttals section

I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the best place for this kind of tit-for-tat argumentative style. Perhaps we should consider looking into merely reporting on the controversy rather than reporting on actual point-by-point issues in the controversy. Something along the lines of Creation-evolution controversy might be worth looking at as a guide. Thoughts of the editors? --ScienceApologist 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are suggesting taking away all the point-counterpoint stuff and just leave the various links. That might work. For about half a day. Wahkeenah 13:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a better model might be Kennedy assassination theories. For great justice. 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That could work, if you could isolate the various (and contradictory) moon conspiracist "theories". Admittedly, there are not as many as there have been for the JFK assassination. Wahkeenah 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why I like the format of the JFK - both have numerous theories that originate because small things are wrong with the government's story. The flaws are no enough to construct a full story without further investigation, but do prove that the govt version is not adequate. For great justice. 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete my posts...

delete all that don't talk about the main page. You cannot selectively delete my posts by saying they are discussion while simultaneously allowing other non-main page related discussions to remain. Please use some common sense. I know my position is threatening to your world view, but please be a man for once in your life.24.7.34.99 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your posts. Per the suggestions of yourself and another user, I merely archived all previous discussions so we could "start from scratch" as it were. --ScienceApologist 03:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. You moved all my discussions to my personal talk page.Noodle boy 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's where those discussions belong. If you are interested in talking about the article itself, please do so here. --ScienceApologist 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof addition

In my recent addition I point to something that could be taken as a weakness in the structure of this article as a whole. While lots of text is devoted to attacks and defense of the NASA version of events, the alternative theory is not examined on its own terms. I'd like to ask moon hoax proponents to assemble a complete narrative of what they believe happened so that the two versions of events can be placed on an equal standing for comparison. Algr 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on starting the next round of the Edit Jihad on this article. The conspiracists have been arguing that the article is "too pro-NASA", and now you're asking them to "put up or shut up". However, you're likely to trip their trigger with this one, because you have pointed out that there is no single theory of the moon hoax, only the premise that "NASA lied about it". Further, they argue that anything they consider "suspicious", ranging from the amateurish photo mockup in Shepard's 1975 book to the worth-a-look theories about the alleged dangers of the Van Allen belts, is "proof" that NASA lied; meanwhile, any holes shot in their own arguments don't invalidate their original, unshakeable (and unprovable) premise that "NASA lied about it". Good luck, you'll need it. Wahkeenah 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• While your commentary is compelling, they will probably rub it out on the grounds of editorializing or "original research". Wahkeenah 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not original. Phil Plat says the same thing on his radio show, and the recent PBS documentary "Evolution" describes the same tactic from Creationists. If we are talking about ideas, then the tactics of the idea's advocates are of central relevance. The most important question of all is why people choose to believe what they do, and why can two people look at the same data and reach such different conclusions. Details about cameras and shadows are background. Algr 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, just be prepared to cite it when the "cons" challenge it. Wahkeenah 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not a moan hoax believer, but I do not like the new section. It seems like argument rather than neutral presentation. It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. On the contrary, it seems a fairly insightful point. But it is nonetheless presented as an original argument.

I suggest you cite others making this argument and present it as a report of someone else's claims. You mention citations above. Give them explicitly in the article. Phiwum 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole claim and rebuttal section should be revamped. The hoax claims should be presented as they are. This is a documentation of what hoax advocates believe. It is not the place to refute their arguments. There should be a separate page for that. In the beginning of this article it is clearly stated that most scientists and general people believe the moon landings to be real. That is enough to let people know the mainstream take on this issue. This hoax allegation site should be just that. Hoax allegations. Then there could be a link to a hoax debunking page. This is the best and most neutral format.206.148.32.16 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why should hoax advocates present an alternative theory? They are just questioning the anomalies of the Apollo record through seemingly "impossible" photographs or analyzing the technical hurdles involved. If any of their claims are true, then it simply means that we are not being told the whole truth about the Apollo missions. There is no need for Hoax advocatees to come up with an alternative story because only Nasa knows the truth about this issue, whether we went up to the moon or we didn't.206.148.32.16 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new section. It provides a logical underpinning and correctly decribes the major difficulties with the moonbat theories for anyone of any intelligence and/or education. Splitting the article would constitute a content fork, which is against policy. There is every need for hoax advocates to come up with a cohesive and self-consistent alternative story; the fact they cannot is a clue as to why they are derided by most people who actually know anything about the subject. --Guinnog 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The hoax claims should be presented as they are. This is a documentation of what hoax advocates believe. It is not the place to refute their arguments.

No. If we do this, then the article becomes it's own subject. It ceases to be an article about the Moon hoax theory, and becomes the theory itself. It would be the same as looking up Alice in Wonderland and finding nothing but Louis Carroll's original text. That is not what an encyclopedia is. Algr 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why should hoax advocates present an alternative theory? They are just questioning the anomalies of the Apollo record through seemingly "impossible" photographs or analyzing the technical hurdles involved. If any of their claims are true, then it simply means that we are not being told the whole truth about the Apollo missions.

This is the most unbalanced approach possible. There are an infinite number of questions that one could ask about Apollo. It is the same logic as saying that if even one Hoax argument is false then the landings must be true. Balance doesn't mean making both sides of the argument look equally good, it means holding both sides to equal scrutiny. This is why you must present an alternative theory. If you don't, then you have no position and your "evidence", even unanswered, means nothing. Without a coherent alternative explanation, Nit-picking Apollo details proves nothing but that your understanding of them is incomplete.. Algr 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my sources: 1. Phil Plait: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html 2. Scientific method 3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

The last one isn't available on the web, so it is just a description of the program. I'm looking for something on the web that says the same thing. Here's another: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01278.htm Algr 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice, if you will, how the "cons" want you to present the challenges without the responses. That's because the responses undercut their position. They want to plant doubts in people's minds without presenting the explanations that might remove those doubts. Wahkeenah 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way, they want to "recruit" new members to their small club, and that's easier to do if they raise questions without the explanations. Then the article could become like a conspiracist infomercial. Wahkeenah 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! How are you doing? Just re-read the article, and, while I like some of the changes, I am a bit worried about the 'burden of proof' section, which seems like an unsourced pro-NASA polemic to me - can we get some of those opinions sourced? Thanks! For great justice. 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like the "Burden of Proof" section does nothing much except to bait the conspiracists and start a new round of edit wars after a week or so of relative peace and quite... which it has obviously succeeded in doing. Wahkeenah 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we remove it - if there is any real content, let's see if we can fit it elsewhere. For great justice. 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then remove it. Your re-posting of the assertion about NASA "claims" is inherently biased. They have never "claimed" anything. It is the conspiracists who make the claims. Wahkeenah 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll remove it. I'm surprised to hear that you do not think that NASA claims to have gone to the moon. I think they do. For great justice. 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done - I agree that it is POV bait! For great justice. 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the burden-of-proof section, and the slanted additions worded to inappropriately favor the conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! I'm glad you've discovered the talk page! What things do you think are POV, in particular? It's hard to tell from your comment whether you just don't like anything that disagrees with your point of view, or whether you have a legitimate complaint. For great justice. 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts seem to revolve around two points:

The use of the slur 'conspiracy theory', which is only ever used by landing believers.

Whether or not either theory is 'falsifiable'. Clearly both of them are, but only by experiments that have not been carried out. To try to claim high ground by making one sound more scientifically rigorous than the other is nonsense. For great justice. 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

let's all remind each other what this place is all about

taken from WP:NPOV "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." Since a cornerstone of an ongoing political/scientific debate rests on the truthfulness of evolution, is it not fair to take all sides equal until proven otherwise? the so called appollo missions were supposed to have been the basis for using "moon" rocks to determine the age of the universe? how convenient that ordinary people can't see this "moon" rocks to see for themselves in a peer reviewed environment if the universe really has been "evolving" for millions of years as most people who defend the appollo landing would swear by. This article seems to endorse one side over the other, totally against the spirit of NPOV--F.O.E. 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you just trolling or do you believe what you write? --Pjacobi 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple matter of fact: I am probably an ordinary person and I have seen moon rocks displayed in museums several times. The article is a model of how to deal with controversial issues at present. --Guinnog 14:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they were moonrocks?? did you get to carbon date them?? no of course not, that means only people with direct access can confirm or deny the so called age of the moon--F.O.E. 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best, User:F.O.E., if you worried only about the subjects you have actually researched. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that carbon dating would have much use on moon rocks! Plenty of people have had direct access and have confirmed the age of the moon and the authenticity of the moon rocks, which is very interesting and takes scientific knowledge forward. What you believe is of course entirely up to you, but having read a lot on this issue, I choose to believe the thousands of reputable scientists (many from other countries, and many who it is very hard to see taking part in any NASA conspiracy) over a handful of (no offence) ill-informed conspiracy buffs. So do most people in general, and so do 100% of those who have actually taken the trouble to inform themselves of the issues here. --Guinnog 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that someone would think you could do carbon-14 dating from moon rocks is a good indication of why priceless artifacts are not made available to "ordinary people". Wahkeenah 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolution has barely been mentioned on this page, and certainly isn't a cornerstone of anything we are discussing here. An ordinary person doesn't go hunting for any stray mention of his chosen topic so that he can demand respect for an unrelated agenda.

is it not fair to take all sides equal until proven otherwise?

As I said above, WP:NPOV does not mean making every idea sound equally reasonable. It means holding each side up to equal scrutiny and standards of evidence. If you recognize that your position fares badly under this treatment, then perhaps you are close to recognizing something important. Algr 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So true. I wish that it were possible to subject NASA's preposterous claims to independent scientific scrutiny and for their 'evidence' to be verified independently. Alas this is not possible. We are left with the position (pretty much unique in the scientific world) of being asked to believe their claims based only on evidence that they produce, with no third party verification. When they are shown to be guilty of falsifying visual evidence, that troubles me. For great justice. 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Once they go back to the moon, which they will someday, they will find all the junk left by the Apollo missions, and that will settle it... except among the hard-core "cons", who will then claim that the new missions put the stuff there. Meanwhile, user F.O.E. (which I would assume stands for something religious) has been slapped on his talk page several times for pushing his Biblical literalist views on various other pages, so you have to take that into consideration. Wahkeenah 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - the way to settle this is to apply scientific method (repeatable, verifiable experiments like returning to look at the debris). Until NASA applies the scientific method to their claims, they are simply that - claims. For great justice. 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. NASA doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, the conspiracist, and you have not done so. Wahkeenah 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously NASA doesn't have to prove anything. I, also, went to the moon, but don't have to proove it to you. Sound a bit hollow? Of course someone claiming to have been to the moon has to proove it. For great justice. 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me the photos and I'll let you know. And there better not be any C's in the rocks. Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem! I can photoshop some if you like, just like NASA! The point is that we only have NASA's word for it. No scientific analysis of their claims. For great justice. 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

A bit off-topic for an article talk page, but this idea that NASA is the only source of evidence is strange. For instance, according to [1]:

"The Russians have made three unmanned missions to the moon in which they brought back samples. The two countries have shared samples for study."

Are the Russian unmanned missions suspect also? If not, wouldn't the Russians have noticed differences between their moon rocks and NASA's? And wouldn't this be mentioned? (Because these pages are for discussing article contents and not debate, I won't continue this conversation here.) Phiwum 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How are the Russian unmanned missions evidence for a us manned mission? For great justice. 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

His statement as to the existence of Russian-obtained rocks was in response to this, posted at 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC): How do you know they were moonrocks?? Answer: because we can compare them to moon rocks that the russians brought back. That seemed so obvious to me. It strikes me as odd that your retort is, "sowhat? Those missions were unmanned." I suspect you aren't following the conversation.

Because they demonstrate that man has the technology to soft-land an object on the moon, denial of which is a cornerstone of the conspiracist "theory". Wahkeenah 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense - the theory doubts human, not robot, landings. For great justice. 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Only ONE branch of the theory acknowledges the possibility of robot landings. If the Van Allen belts are all that dangerous, the robots wouldn't have got there either. Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which theorists deny robot landings? I guess the flat earthers might, but apart from them? For great justice. 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bringing up the former USSR of course adds another nail (or twenty) in the coffin of this idiotic conspiracy theory. As they were able to track, via radar, the entire mission, one thinks they'd've noticed, and commented upon, anything that was at variance with the Apollo missions landing on the moon. After all, this battle to land a man on the moon was a competition betwen the two countries, with national pride at stake. To think that they would just clam up if they knew (as they would have) that the mission was bogus is to show a complete misunderstanding of the dynamic between the two nations. (As would including them in an ever-widening conspiracy).

Expected rejoinder: "But that they tracked the spacecraft to the moon doesn't mean humans were on board, so there!". Alas, the Russians also tracked the conversations between mission control and the men on the moon, and could very easily determine whence the source of those radio signals (it's a simple matter of triangulation).

Finally, all of the other nonsensical "evidence", if it were true, would have been noticed and pounced upon by the Russians. Alas, that they did not is a pretty good indication that the "evidence" purporting to "prove" that man did not land on the moon, is bogus. Jim62sch 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course - you have evidence of the Soviet data? It's published somewhere? What's that you say? It's not? It's just wild speculation on your part? Oh, you Astronots - you crack me up! For great justice. 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Science appologist - I'm sorry that, like most NASA proponents, you prefer to communicate through reverting, with, if we are lucky, some barbed comment in the notes, I shall answer your question: It is only landing believers that use the term 'conspiracy theory'. No proponent of any theory ever describes it as a 'conspiracy theory'. It is a derogatory term used solely to disparage a theory that the writer wants to denegrate. Its usage is appropriate as a sourced comment, not under the guise of a neutral, 'factual' statement. For great justice. 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No proponent of any theory ever describes it as a 'conspiracy theory'. --> Do you have any cite for this audacious claim? --ScienceApologist 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How can there possibly be a citation for something that never happened? Please provide a citation that NASA never claimed the moon was made of cheese. Erm? For great justice. 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong described the surface as fine and powdery. That would pretty well exclude the green cheese factor. Wahkeenah 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prove that he never said it was cheese though. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a hoax proponent calling it a "conspiracy". [2] --ScienceApologist 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they describe the NASA conspiracy as a conspiracy, not their theory as a 'conspiracy theory'. You don't here the prosecutors describing their case of conspiracy by Enron as a 'conspiracy theory', do you? For great justice. 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By the definition of conspiracy theory this set of ideas qualifies. A sympathetic show about the ideas was called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" [3]. You're going to have to try harder to show your contention is correct. It's not just the critics who claim this is a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a Fox TV special, not a hoax proponent, so, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox TV? Oh man, I'm laughing so hard my sides hurt. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The TV special advocated the hoax believers' points. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is another "hoax believer" who calls these ideas a "conspiracy theory": [4]. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the guy starts out "Well, maybe I'm not completely convinced that the moon landings were faked". So, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So any slight amount of skepticism amounts to exclusion? You are making up criteria now and have not offered any evidence to the contrary of hoax believers explicitly claiming that this is not a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of the distraction tactic. He is suddenly going on about being offended by "conspiracy theory" in order to change the subject from the Burden of Proof debate, and his inability to articulate his own position completely. Algr 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof piece is an embarrasment to everyone, but if you want to discuss it, we can. The term conspiracy theory is simply a term of abuse. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, refusal to discuss the point at hand, which is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is simply a slur. For great justice. 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure to discuss hoax accusations

This article is titled "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations". It's primary focus should therefore be a discussion of what hoax advocates claim actually happened, not endless nit-picking of photos, and demands for others to research NASA's version of events. There is no accusation unless you can articulate what NASA actually DID do. Without that, all the questions in the world mean nothing. Algr 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• What it should be, then, is a strict definition and nothing more. Because if you present only the side of the conspiracists, there is a built-in bias. Wahkeenah 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But the article DOESN'T describe the side of the conspiracists in any real detail. It goes in depth into NASA's version of events, but doesn't ask basic questions like "how big would a moon set have to be?" or "What, if anything, actually went to the moon?" Algr 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So what's stopping you from adding those kinds of details? Wahkeenah 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Because I'd have to make them all up, and they'd be silly and sarcastic if they didn't come from someone who believed in it. Algr 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • In that case, I wonder what's stopping the conspiracists from writing them up? I've got some silly and sarcastic answers to my own question, of course. >:) Wahkeenah 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all pretty bogus. The accusation is simply that NASA lied, a full description of how they did it is not necessary to prove a cover-up and prompt an investigation. For great justice. 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lie = Not True. Where is your truth? Everything you have proposed has been thoroughly discredited on these pages. You have ignored the blatant flaws such as Russia, 10,000 conspirators, and Watergate in what little we can see of your proposal. How can you expect an investigation if you can't even articulate what you think NASA did? Algr 20:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You exemplify the problem. It is not for you or I to discredit or decide. We are to write a neutral article. Your POV and mine has no place here. Besides the fact that you are plain wrong, the point is that the article needs to describe the controversy, not decide the outcome. For great justice. 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, couch time. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then DESCRIBE IT! The point of this section is that you refuse to do so! Algr 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you can possibly mean. There is a huge section of the article devoted to the claims. For great justice. 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't assert that someone is a liar unless you have evidence to support that assertion. Otherwise, it's libel and slander. Why hasn't NASA sued, you may ask? Because the conspiracists are not nearly as worrisome to NASA as the conspiracists like to fantasize that they are. If you threaten to use Congress to cut off their funding, then you'll get their attention. Wahkeenah 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Their funding has been cut off to all intents and purposes. It's nothing like it was when they were faking the moon landings. The article is full of evidence of NASA's duplicity. If you're a true believer, I guess you've just decided you're not going to see it. For great justice. 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a big fan of cause and effect, are you? Or of economics, politics, ever-changing requirements and visions, etc.

BTW, If you're a true believer in the consdpiracy theory, I guess you've just decided you're not going to see the facts, but will rather wallow in your own fantasy world. User:Jim62sch 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No cause is attributed. Whkeenah made a comment about NASA paying attention if their funding was cut, I pointed out that it had been. You produce no facts, just insults. For great justice. 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote?

" By getting scientists bogged down in technical details such as why stars aren't visible or how a retrorocket landing might work, they overwhelm the non-technically trained audience into doubts, while distracting from larger issues like how to get tens of thousands of educated people in countries that were (at times) near war with each other to all keep silent for 40 years. Why not hide Watergate or the failures in Vietnam in a similar manner? " Is this a quote? Or is it just editorialising? Who claims there are 10s of thousands of people involved? For great justice. 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 10s of thousands of people who were in the employ of the Apollo program. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not all of them needed to be in on the hoax. The designers of the landing module might have believed it went to the moon. Again - is this a quote? If so, where does it come from? For great justice. 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program. If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us. Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles. We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch. They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

With Cold War tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool the Soviets that we had technological superiority.

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Wow, the idiocy of that quote speaks for itself. I guess the tens of thousands of personal witnesses of various Saturn V launches doesn't count as evidence -- but I suppose the basic physics was never one of the moonbats strong suits. --ScienceApologist 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your lack of logical thought trips you up. How does a Saturn V launch prove human landing on the moon? It doesn't! "But I saw a rocket launch! They must have gone to the moon" erm? No. For great justice. 22:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you take your meds? •Jim62sch• 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual, AstroNots responding to logic with insults. I take it you are saying that seeing a Saturn V launch is proof of human landing on the moon? For great justice. 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Read further up the page. Besides, I was showing concern that your med levels might not be what they need to be. [[User:Jim62sch 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. More insults. No content. I'm seeing a pattern... For great justice. 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rampant POV

"The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers. As is the case with many conspiracy theories, evidence presented in opposition to hoax arguments is generally labeled as unconvincing propaganda made by the "establishment" to cover-up the alleged lie."

Where does this gem come from? Is is sourced? It looks completely untrue to me. The accusations are falsifiable. For great justice. 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the accusations are not falsifiable for the very reasons outlined. There are plenty of lunatics who claim that such fiends as Phil Plait are really NASA-shills covering-up for the lie. --ScienceApologist 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are falsifiable. Go there and look. If there is a lander etc, then the hoax theory is false. What's wrong with you that you have to constantly insist that, rather than a neutral treatment of the subject, this article must only contain your POV? For great justice. 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough because the claim can easily be made that there will be no evidence good enough for the hoax believer to prove there is a lander at the site. That's why it's called pathological skepticism. --ScienceApologist 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea? Is it sourced? No. It's just a personal insult you want to make in the article. For great justice. 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is sourced by the incredible iterative arguments that the hoax-believers went through when lunar-ranging experiments were mentioned on the internet to them. Before it was explicitly mentioned in "debates", the moonbats hadn't known about them. Suddenly, they were forced to scramble to come up with an alternative explanation. Their solution? Lunokhod. That's a perfect example of how they refuse to accept falsification. It's a feature of most conspiracy theories anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, don't be mean. You and I both know America landed a manned spacecraft on the moon. The challenge here is to apply Wikipedia's concept of "fairly describing the dispute" to the hoax accusations - not your own personal standards. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ed. Why don't you find a problem with the page and bring it up on talk for us to discuss? --ScienceApologist 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not how Wikipedia works. With the possible exception of intensely controversial pages, there is no need to discuss *all* edits prior to making them. Only "substantial changes". --Uncle Ed 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your personal attack was really unwarranted, wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What attack? It's not an attack to assert that all Wikipedians are bound to follow NPOV policy, rather than apply their personal standards. I apply this rule to myself, and no one's ever accused me of attacking myself!

Then you need to be careful in the use of your pronouns. --

Anyone whole believes Ed's story might want to see [Intelligent design], a very good (once upon a week ago) article that Ed hosed up. •Jim62sch• 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is SA, you revert anything that isn't your POV without discussion, and refuse to discuss it. It is very anti-social. For great justice. 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This was a good edit. More like this, please! --Uncle Ed 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! For great justice. 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Too funny. •Jim62sch• 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I removed " The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers."

Because it is simply an insult. It's not sourced, and makes the unjustified claim that, because someone thinks that hoax believers are 'pathological', the theory cannot be tested. That's just wrong. For great justice. 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While I don't quite like the wording, I still think it is important to mention the idea of a non-falsifiable theory, because that was what the section you pulled it from was talking about, and it is important to understanding the issue.--DCAnderson 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's calling the hoax proponents crazy. (Which I personally believe, but that's besides the point. ;-) The article can't say pro-hoax advocates are insane. But it *can* quote a verifiable source who makes that assertion. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it can, but to assert that the theory is not falsifiable is simply not true. To say someone thinks it is, and others disagree is one thing, to assert that this nonsense is true is another. For great justice. 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Describe then, how it is falsifiable. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to the moon, and find evidence of the lander. Or observe it with a sufficiently powerful telescope. For great justice. 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But if we go to the moon, they'll claim it's a hoax and if we show them images from a telescope they'll claim they were doctored. It's an obvious no-win situation. --ScienceApologist 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with discussing anything with the astronots is that once you prove them wrong, they just resort to stupid comments and juvenile sarcasm. I know, I'll put a paragraph about that in the article. Oh wait, that's an astronot tactic. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution is obvious. Take them to the moon and to the stuff from the Apollo flights. Then leave them there, and they can spend the rest of their days looking for the "exit door" to the filming location. Wahkeenah 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like that. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is obvious - apply the scientific method. Test the prediction that, if NASA went to the moon, the debris should be there as the photos describe. You're hoisted by your own petard, because, if you follow through on your science rhetoric, you'd have to do an experiment that would prove you wrong. NASA won't do it. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither I nor NASA have to prove anything. The historical record is what it is. You say the historical record is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that the historical record is incorrect. You have not done so. Wahkeenah 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure our friend has never heard the old debating axiom, "he who asserts, must prove." Of course, he'll twist it round to "NASA asserted first". User:Jim62sch 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! AstroNot logic at it's finest! "he who asserts, must prove", "erm, unless it's NASA that asserts it went to the moon, in which case they don't have to prove at all. Yes. That's better, the rule should be 'He who is NASA, doesn't need to prove'. Much easier to defend our point!". You evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable by restoring to abuse, again. For great justice. 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In effect, the historical record is the "proof" for the Apollo flights. They don't have to "re-prove" anything just to satisfy the complaints of a few conspiracists (none of whom are responsible for NASA funding allocations, right?). The ball is in the court of the conspiracists to prove that the historical record is false. Wahkeenah 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not proof, since the 'historical record', is just NASA photos, video and commentry. There is no independent record, since their claims have never been verified independently - a core part of the scientific method. Absolutely agree with you though that the hoax theorists don't control NASA funding, and, given that, why should NASA respond? Well, there's no political reason, the only reason they would respond is if they cared about the truth. Again, you evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable. For great justice. 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "proof", not proof. If it's true that NASA is the only source (which I question), then you still have to prove NASA lied. Their being the only source does not prove they lied. I have never gotten into the "falsifiability" mumbo jumbo, because it's as obvious as the nose on your face that the way to "prove" it to (almost) everyone's satisfaction is to go back to the moon and say, "See, there are the remnants of Apollo" or "Oops, there are no remnants of Apollo". If you really think your hard-earned tax dollars should go for a project like that, knock yourself out. Wahkeenah 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether falsifying it is a good use of tax dollars is separate from the issue of whether the theory is formally falsifiable. For great justice. 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Both are "falsifiable" or "verifiable" depending on which term you want to use. You go there and look, or you develop a telescope strong enough to confirm it. Barring those measures, it comes down to whether you buy into the historical record or the conspiracists' rejection of it. That whole issue is a "no-brainer", which is why I am not interested in editing that section. Wahkeenah 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are not interested, then don't comment on it, but this section of the discussion was about whether or not the claim that the hoax accusations are not falsifiable should go in. Clearly it should not, because the claims are falsifiable. For great justice. 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in it, just not interested enough to write about it, because it seems to have to do with whether either view is falsifiable based on current evidence as opposed to actually going there and answering the question definitively. Both sides have made up their minds about the current evidence, so it's unresolvable. Wahkeenah 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but unresolvable based on current evidence is not the same as 'unfalsifiable', which is a claim that formally cannot be falsified. For great justice. 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This gets back to the ambiguity of the original statement at the top of this section. I don't understand any of it. So I will likely have nothing more to say about it. Wahkeenah 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Public opinion

Cut from intro:

Public opinion polls have shown that a large majority accept the Apollo missions as fact, while a notable percentage have at least some doubts about them.

What polls? The link just goes to the generic article on Public opinion polls. Let's provide a source. The article only mentions ONE poll, and that by a pro-hoax source. That's not meaty enough for the intro. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ed, I'll admit that you're a tireless Bertrand de Born. •Jim62sch• 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are refering to this

[5] For great justice. 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added that line in the intro because I thought it was fair and balanced (like everything Fox does, obviously) and summarized the several (not just one) polls that are listed in some detail later. I think it's fair to include in the introduction, that of the lay public, a large percentage accept the history of the space program, while a notable percentage (as compared with those very few who believe the earth is flat, for example) have at least "some doubts". Wahkeenah 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with SA's edits

• Why did you remove this "Sibrel and others however, claim that, to the contrary, so-called 'debunkers' do not address the genuine problems, and fixate on aspects of the case against NASA that they feel they can answer, while ignoring others."

Because it's totally unsupported by any evidence that Bart Sibrel believes this. It is, however, something that you believe and have stated many times. Are you Bart Sibrel? --ScienceApologist

I'll find a source for it. Good to know that I can just remove anything I like that's not sourced though.... For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• And re-insert this nonsense? "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers."

For great justice. 21:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted above. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Noted above"? What? For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The universe created 30 minutes ago by a cynical god (see Omphalos (theology)) cannot be falsified, but that doesn't need much mentioning in Wikipedia articles, either. --Pjacobi 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that contribute nothing to the debate? For great justice. 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving sufficently dogmatic values of "falsifiable", nothing is technically falsifiable, is the morale of my remark. --Pjacobi 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, SA, please respond to your unexplaned reversions. For great justice. 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. By the way, FGJ, you are in violation of 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I am, it's because you will not discuss your reverts. It is very frustrating to be lectured by you about reverting, when you constantly do it and show no inclination to discuss it. I'm not the only one who has noticed it, and it is completely counterproductive. Please explain your reverting. Saying you did is not enough - you did not. Please point out exactly where. For great justice. 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the history of this page to see where I responded. --ScienceApologist 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for that invitation to trawl through masses of discussion, but I have followed it, and you have not. It should be easy for you to point to where you responded, except, wait! You didn't! I will remove it if you continue to refuse to explain your actions. For great justice. 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[6]. Please stop blustering. You're going to give yourself a nervous breakdown. --ScienceApologist 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blustering? You're too funny! OK, that wasn't so hard - you're starting to get the idea of collaborating, or, at least, explaining yourself. You say: "::::Actually, it is sourced by the incredible iterative arguments that the hoax-believers went through when lunar-ranging experiments were mentioned on the internet to them. Before it was explicitly mentioned in "debates", the moonbats hadn't known about them. Suddenly, they were forced to scramble to come up with an alternative explanation. Their solution? Lunokhod. That's a perfect example of how they refuse to accept falsification. It's a feature of most conspiracy theories anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"

Except that none of that is relevant to the issue of your re-inserting the nonsense about falsifiability. Your vague and random insults are not a credible source. You'll have to do better than calling people 'moonbats'. No one in their right mind would claim that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing. Furthermore, you do not provide any evidence that the behaviours you attribute are anything more than your fevered imagination. The fact that you want to believe that 'moonbats' 'scrambled' to find an explanation for mirrors is entirely fictional. For great justice. 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would claim that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing. --> and I'm the one who is making vague and random insults? --ScienceApologist 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't. Who does? Honestly, find me someone who makes the claim that mirrors on the moon, per se, are proof of human landing. Nice way to avoid the point, by the way. For great justice. 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Phil Plait for one. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you want to believe that 'moonbats' 'scrambled' to find an explanation for mirrors is entirely fictional. -- except that's exactly what occured. When this whole nonsense got a little bit of attention in the late 1990s, this was posted on a usenet message board frequented by a few of the more vocal moonbats. The characterization is exactly as I outlined it. You can read more about it at the clavius website. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Phil Plait does not claim that mirrors on the moon prove human landing. And 'usenet' is your source? Please. For great justice. 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it could easily be said that no one no how advocates that anything "proves" the moon landing. --> but this is more nonsense moonbattery. I find it very funny that most of the battiest loonballs in pseudoscience talk about "proof" as though science has some standard measure of such a thing. Obviously, they rely on their pathological skepticism to get by -- something that's allowed because there is no proof in science since everything is learned by induction. Evidence is only evidence when it supports their ideas, otherwise it cannot be true! --ScienceApologist 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Instead of answering the point (that Phil does not claim that the mirrors prove human landing) you respond with more insults. Just keep on taking the rope, SA. You've got enough to hang youself. For great justice. 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have answered the point. Plait goes into some detail about how the retroreflectors were placed on the moon by Apollo. That's evidence. Your inexact conflation of evidence with proof is the major issue here. A promotion of such ignorance seems to only be rewarded with response, however. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA claims they were placed there by Apollo, but the only evidence presented is that they are there. They could have been placed by a robot mission, just as other reflectors were. Reflects does not prove human landing is the obvious falacy that you seem blissfully unaware of. For great justice. 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. The fact is that you are wrong. Phil does not, as you claim, say that the mirrors prove the landing. Admit you are wrong and move on. For great justice. 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt at a dumb-win, but it's a ridiculous one. Any person can go back and read the context of your statement. That evidence != proof is a side-issue that is nicely illustrated by your tactics. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SA, you do realize that this is essentially the equivalent of talking to a dog, right? What you said reads to FGJ as "bark, ruff-ruff, bark, yelp visit to the vet bark, ruff-ruff, bark-bark". •Jim62sch• 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely should get that translator. --ScienceApologist 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong, but instead of admitting it, you simply pile on more insults. Nice. For great justice. 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point that you are missing is that the presence of the reflectors on the moon proves only that they were put there, not that they were put there during a human landing. I'm not conflating evidence and proof, you are conflating evidence of the existance of the reflectors with evidence of the Apollo landings. For great justice. 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got it! It was the apes around the monolith! •Jim62sch• 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. More stupidity from the AstroNots. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reflectors on the moon don't prove that man set foot on the moon... but they prove that man had the technology to safely send a rocket through the Van Allen belts and to soft-land on the moon, which rubs out a large percentage of the hoax accusers' premise. That's why there needs to be a distinction made that not all hoax believers are in lockstep. They have more than one theory to try to explain the observable facts. Not nearly as many theories as the JFK assassination, but more than one anyway. Wahkeenah 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It means they could have sent a robot through the Van Allen belts. The premise of the radiation problem is that it's too dangerous for people. Please make an effort to familiarise yourself with the basic facts before commenting. You just make yourself look stupid. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from my understanding, the primary "danger" from the Van Allen belts appears to be to machines and communications. Regardless, a cornerstone of the hoaxsters argument is that we did not have the technology to soft-land on the moon. Wahkeenah 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I've seen revolves around the people, Like this one "René offers data suggesting, among other things, that without an impractical shield about two meters thick, the spacemen "would have been cooked by radiation" during the journey." For great justice. 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If so, that's the reason they skirted the Van Allen belts rather than going straight through them. Wahkeenah 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So you say... But seriously, I havn't seen much about claims that no mechanical mission could have been sent. Anyway, I think your point is more that there is no single, cohesive, hoax theory which I agree with, and have tried to integrate in the (I think, fatally flawed) Burden of Proof section. Let me know what you think, For great justice. 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Part of neutral presentation is not giving undue weight to the views of a tiny minority. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I call bogus. "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." You don't have this on the page it should be on, the Apollo page, it's on a separate page devoted to these views. For great justice. 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is for instance covered in the Stormfront clause of WP:V, various precedents establishing the non-sympathetic-point-of-view nature of Wikipedia, the Aetherometry precedent, the Reddi2 ArbCom decision and more, if you really want me to dig it out.

And there is limit on absurdity, where you can quote snippets from policy until the server dies, but it makes no difference, as we are writing an encyclopedia and not fairy tales. Except for those fairy tales that are so funny, that they are kept anyway, like Space opera in Scientology doctrine.

Pjacobi 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your arogance towards other people's opinions, and disregard for policy that contradicts your POV is startling. For great justice. 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you "call Bogus" again, I'll call "incivility." Certainly this page is devoted to the hoax accusations. We should, and do, present them in detail. We should not present them as being equivalent to scientific fact. This is not a rational debate between two comparable parties of reasonable men. We give undue weight, and do our readers a disservice, if we present it otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about naming something what it is. The fact is that the page frequently comments that nearly all scientists reject it. It is not presented as equal to scientific fact. My problem is with those who want the article to come out and say 'this side is right', rather than 'the scientific establishment thinks A, and this group thinks B'. For great justice. 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One side is right. The Earth is not six thousand years old; Carrying a buckeye in your pocket won't relieve arthritis; The world is round; Elvis is dead. It's not neutrality to pretend otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Your idea of neutrality is 'our side is right'. That's what I feared. Please re-read wikipedia's neutrality policy. The fact that you believe you are right, and I beleive I am right, does not mean you get to write the article from your POV. For great justice. 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the scientific establishment. It's the vast majority of people. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pointed out that between 70 and 94% of people beleive NASA. The fact remains that the theory has credence with a small, but significant number of people. Probably about the same number in the US as believe in evolution without divine intervention. We should treat the issue with neutrality regardless of the numbers. For great justice. 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a bit off on your numbers, but hey, it's not like we're talking scientific matters here (or weird takes on them) so numbers don't matter. Anyway, others are trying to discuss it neutrally. •Jim62sch• 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, those are the numbers mentioned in the studies quoted in the article. I find it hard to believe that others are trying to discuss it neutrally when they insist on inserting their own POV as if it were established fact, and pass of crude insults as neutral commentry. For great justice. 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your analogy -- the numbers are significantly different. User:Jim62sch 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the number of people in the US that beleive in non-theistic evolution is not in the range of 6-30%? If you are, I think you are wrong.For great justice. 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is where the new notion of "Intelligent Design" comes in... an attempt by religionists to reconcile their faith with the observable facts of evolution. I think you would have a tough time finding very many scientists who believe in Biblical literalism where the age of the earth is concerned, for example. I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with Apollo, though. Wahkeenah 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about sub-groups. Jim was questioning my numbers for the percentage of people in the US who believe the various things. The point is that the number of people who believe in the moon hoax is certainly within 5-10% of the number who beleive in non-theistic evolution. For great justice. 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

more pov

Can you source this random insult? "Like many conspiracists, hoax believers work from limited knowledge; Their theories are conceived in reaction to newspaper and television accounts rather than from the scientific data." For great justice. 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that there are no moonbats with PhDs. ;) --ScienceApologist 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you source that, or is it original research? For great justice. 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can source it. All you need to do is look at all the linked moonbats on the page. None of them have PhDs! --ScienceApologist 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this random, unsourced insult. For great justice. 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, but it's from 'The Demon-Haunted World', by Carl Sagan. Should we include that as a reference? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to claim that Carl Sagan insulted the hoax proponents, that's fine, just don't present it as uncontested fact. For great justice. 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To me it sounds like a pretty good description: I've never met a scientist who believes that the Apollo landings were hoaxed, but I've met several people whose opinions are 'conceived in reaction to newspaper and television accounts' who do believe the landings were hoaxed. In fact, I would say there's simply zero scientific evidence to support their claims, in which case the quotation is true by definition.

And, frankly, if we're going to worry about insults, what about the grave insult the hoax believers are causing to the hundred thousand people who worked on Apollo? It's hardly surprising to me that Buzz Aldrin has apparently taken to punching out people who claim he never walked on the moon. There's about as much evidence that the landings were hoaxed as there is evidence that the Earth is flat: how could anyone seriously post a 'neutral' article about flat Earth theories? MarkGrant 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Carl Sagan is a good reference.--DCAnderson 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think referencing in general is good. A referenced insult is better than an unreferenced one. For great justice. 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not even an insult. "You're an idiot", is an insult. Sagan's point was a matter of fact. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an insult to take the whole group of hoax believers, and comment on their 'lack of knowledge'. It's not a statement of fact, any more than if he had said that 'Jews are stingy'. For great justice. 05:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of fact if my own experience holds true. Every believer in any hoax theory I've ever run across has been woefully ignorant of basic science (especially that science disputed by the conspiracy theorists), math, politics, economics, etc. Were they not, they'd not make such glaring mistakes in developing their "proofs" of a hoax. -- For example, one of the earliest boners in the Apollo hoax theory was, "there are no stars in the background!" Duh, it's daytime! (Besides, given even the modest special effects used on Star Trek, the assumption that NASA would have been too dumb to put stars in the picture, if they were supposed to be there argues against a hoax as one cannot say, "they were too dumb to do a simple thing" and "they were really smart and could pull the wool over everyone's eyes".) User:Jim62sch 09:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, your opinion is the not basis for the article. Please try to understand this. For great justice. 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

junk

• The proposed methodologies that the conspiracy theorists propose for doctoring the photos with "wrong" reticles are often contradictory and generally require absurd lengths to explain the "inconsistencies" when there are prosaic explanations. In particular, prints were often cropped and rotated which cause the illusion of reticles occuring off-center or "not straight".

This nonsense presents unsourced claims that are simply wrong. Please source this claim. For great justice. 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Egg on your face? --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no? Completely ignoring everything you're asked, and instead responding with insults? For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If "completely ignoring everything you're asked" includes responding to "Please source this claim." --ScienceApologist 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you responded, but not with a source, with more insults. For great justice. 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the source that is included on the page doesn't count then. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More junk

Do you think that adding this sort of random insult stengthens your case? " As most of the accusers lack education in basic science and make many of their claims based on popular misconceptions: a fact that has encouraged certain educators to feature debunking assignments as a way to encourage critical thinking regarding bad science.". It just makes you look like unreasonable POV pushers. I'm sure you're not, of course. For great justice. 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything included there is verifiable fact. --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not. Which is why you don't source it, I suppose. For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is one of the instructors who advocates what I stated, and we've already shown the lack of education on the part of most hoax believers. I'm pretty sure you're not exactly cum laude, Mr. justice, though that's beside the point. --ScienceApologist 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more insults, SA, please review WP's civility policy, and try to keep your mind on the point. Whoever the hell Tim Cole is, his scattergun insults "I'm reassured that the forces of ignorance can't totally suppress our basic need to explore and discover — even vicariously." add nothing to the debate. For great justice. 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Fgj is lecturing me on "civility". At least he's progressing. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Felonious's massive and undiscussed revert

Monk - how about discussing before you revert to a version from four days ago? I guess that's not common practice among the pro NASA crowd? You might also want to check out Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy - it still applies to articles you have an axe to grind about. For great justice. 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To be neutral, the Hoax and Truth explanations must be treated equally. You insist that the article scrutinize only NASA's version of events while barely even articulating the alternative that the article is named after. That approach is totally biased in favor of the hoax theory. One is innocent until proven guilty, so the Burden of Proof is central to the subject. Algr 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to apply equally intense scrutiny to arguments made by hoax supporters as to hoax opponents. --Uncle Ed 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracists won't allow it. They want their challenges posted alone, with no responses, thus giving the casual reader the false impression that there is no reasonable explanation for the alleged "anomolies", and thus allowing them to recruit new members into their little cult. Wahkeenah 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two things I object to: (1) Wikipedia:mass revert, which I hope does not get enshrined as policy; (2) One side insisting on their challenges to an idea alone, with no responses ...giving the reader the impression that their POV is the only reasonable one.

Wikipedia articles do not and cannot thrive on censorship. --Uncle Ed 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

These policies may disagree with you:

• WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience
• WP:NPOV#Undue weight
• WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity"--DCAnderson 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Except they don't. They say that one should not represent minority views as fact. They do not give carte blanche to throw out neutrality if you happen to have a different point of view. Read them - their quite clear on that point. For great justice. 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

While we've all been busy combatting FGJ's peculiar statements, has anyone noticed that the article need a significant copy edit for syntax, grammar and semantic accuracy? I'm going to start doing just that -- but I'll give everyone a day (see WP:BOLD) to discuss it. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• You almost had it right the first time, as it's durn near "bust" from this latest Edit Jihad. Anything you can do to improve the article syntactically would be good. Wahkeenah 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mass revert

In accordance with a proposed policy with is about to lose a vfd vote, SA and crew are continually reverting the moon hoax article to their preferred versions.

I reverted it back to Revision as of 23:36, 2 June 2006 (Reyk) in attempt to stop this war. This will be me only reversion of the weekend.

Think about what this means: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Uncle Ed 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Back on the lecture circuit, are you, Ed Poor? --ScienceApologist 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Have I picked up a stalker? If you would only address points instead of flouting wikipedia:avoid personal remarks this project would be better off. Give it a go, would you please? --Uncle Ed 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, Ed. --ScienceApologist 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if my revert of Ed's revert blanked the burden of proof section, I apologize -- it was not intentional. •Jim62sch• 09:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to your unexplained mass revert to a version from days ago. I am asking you as a reasonable person to respect my restoring it, since it flies in the face of wikipedia policy and practice. If you disagree, please discuss it here rather than edit warring. For great justice. 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This would probably go better if you would make a few incremental changes and then let them sit for a few days, rather than trying to immediately rewrite the article the way you think it should be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I really didn't. The changes I made the last few days has been largely removing unsourced POV editorialism. Anything sourced, I have left in. For great justice. 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about radio triangulation

I understand that radio in 1969 was omnidirectional, or near enough to those alive to listen; the Apollo spacecraft sent messages to the entire planet, not just America. I am also aware that with simple triangulation, one could pinpoint the source of the images and audio being broadcast with only three receiving stations placed suitably far enough apart. Russia had the technology and motives, of course. And scientists can prove to be a suspicious and jealous lot; even Americans or Europeans may have been motivated enough to check. Are there records of any triangulation being done at the time?--Ryan! 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Directional radio dishes were in use in 1969, but it wasn't always possible for the Apollo astronauts to use them - I recall reading about how they had to get out of the LEM, unfold the dish, and point it at earth before they could transmit video. I could be wrong, but I think that even the directional dishes on the moon would still cover the whole earth - a 10° signal spread concentrates far more power then 360°. I also recall something about spies in WWII having to be very careful about transmitting with radio for fear of being found by triangulation. Look it all up, I think you are on the right track. Algr 09:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - finally, bringing some science to bear on the question! Let's find some evidence that NASA's 'moon transmissions' came from the moon, not low earth orbit. With all those people watching, surely someone triangulated? For great justice. 16:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take much thought to suspect that the conspiracists notion of the moon broadcasts coming from orbitting satellites does not hold water. But I would like to see what an expert has to say about it. Wahkeenah 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You can show that they were not coming from LEO by useing a single tracker. Something in LEO would probably travel from horizen to horizen in about 45 min. This was not the case for the apollo signal.Geni 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. It seems like you would have to put up a satellite that would be positioned in such a way that it would appear the signal was coming from the moon. As I recall from high school physics, the only way to actually do that would be to have the satellite at the same distance from earth that the moon is, or from the Apollo flight path. Assuming it could be confirmed that the signals were definitely coming from the Apollo flight path, the cons' next ready-made answer would be that the Apollo vehicles were just unmanned satellites, beaming earth-based signals back to earth on their way to soft-landing laser-reflective mirrors to fool us earthlings further. It gets more and more preposterous. It's like the kinds of wild theories you have to come up with in order to postulate backwards time travel. Wahkeenah 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice speculation, but it depends entirely on what orbit the satelite was in. There appears to be no triangulation data available. What a surprise. For great justice. 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What orbit do you suppose the satellite would have to be in? Wahkeenah 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but there is some work somewhere about this - the satelite used is discussed by someone... I'll find it. For great justice. 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. [7]

Here's one. For great justice. 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What was its orbital period? How does he know it didn't crash? For that matter, how do I know he isn't making up the entire story? Wahkeenah 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Orbial period was ~92 minutes. The soviets would have noticed if it was still in orbit.Geni 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any edvidence for that piece of original research? For great justice. 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You want evidence proving the existence of the USSR? Or that there was a cold war? Algr 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I want evidence that the USSR tracked the apollo mission and it's communication - that claim was made a moment ago. How do you know? For great justice. 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The KIK system tracked every Earth-based launch from 1956 on. --ScienceApologist 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you keep saying. I presume you have evidence, or is it just more baseless fantasy? For great justice. 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel's comments on this are: Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Sibrel is just wrong about lunar tracking capabilities of the Soviets which were available well before 1972. [8] ScienceApologist 22:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny supposition about the Russians fearing to speak "the truth" about Apollo because we would go to war with them over it. Keep in mind this is a country that put missiles in Cuba and whose leader Kruschev told us "We will bury you." Wahkeenah 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the Soviets tracked Apollo? For great justice. 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Zond 5 mission orbited the moon before we did. And their unmanned landers Luna 16 and Luna 17 worked well. [9] How could they do this without tracking ability? Maybe they were all watching football that day and didn't notice the moon landing happening, but to succeed, any Nasa fakery plan would have had to have dealt with the fact that the USSR COULD intercept all transmissions.

BTW, FGJ, you are always asking for evidence and refrences, when was the last time you provided any? Algr 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice piece of speculation. Where is your evidence that the Soviets tracked Apollo? You. Don't. Have. Any. For great justice. 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an Article- [10]. Keep in mind it is in Russian, so here's a translation- [11]. Now, I do not doubt that the translation being on Bad Astronomy will lead to the claim that this doesn't prove anything, but the facts are present- the Soviets tracked Apollo. And there is absolutely no way that they would have "kept the secret" if they had found the missions to be a hoax, as there is no way they could have resisted the chance to embarass the United States on a global by announcing the missions to be false. FVZA_Colonel 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Clinton's flippant comments are certainly strong evidence that Apollo was a humbug. As we all know, Clinton is an unimpeachable source. Wahkeenah 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny! For great justice. 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wired

"Another says that the entire cold war was fake, to justify massive spending on fake defense, as well as a fake moon landing.[12] Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit? An overview of the evidence is provided below."

OK, there is nothing in principle wrong with this, if it is sourced. An article in Wired though? It might be ok, if it actually said this, but it doesn't. The page referenced does not mention the cold war. Why not find a primary source for this, rather than a pop magazine? Plus, where are the rhetorical questions from? Are they part of the Wired quote, or your own research questions? For great justice. 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everything that occurred before my lifespan was a hoax. World War II? Never happened. D-Day was filmed on a (soggy) soundstage. Wahkeenah 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the subject. Don't answer the question. AstroNots, I don't know.... For great justice. 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I never flew to the moon, and neither did you (did you?) so that makes the both of us AstroNots. But I think I have a pretty good sense of what rings true and what doesn't. The explanations of how the Apollo missions were done made sense, and the various accusations since then (safely realized after the hoaxsters were sure we weren't going back) don't stand up to reason. Wahkeenah 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA the only source?

There are frequent comments by the hoaxsters that NASA is the only source of the information. There are at least two problems with this frequent assertion: (1) It is circular logic, in that it is using their assumption that NASA lied to prove that NASA lied; and (2) It is very likely not true, as other countries independently tracked the flights. Wahkeenah 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While there might 'very likely' be other independent tracking of the NASA data, it is typical AstroNot logic to use their assumption that there is to prove their point. It's circular logic. "Since NASA is right, someone else must have verified it, so NASA is right". Erm? No. Let's see this evidence, if it exists - third party replication and verification is the scientific method, after all. For great justice. 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I say "very likely" because I have seen references to it here and there, but I have not personally studied the question closely. Not that it matters. The conspiracists have already answered that by saying that such tracking "could have been" tricked by earth-orbiting satellite transmissions. In the hoaxsters world, "could have" equates to "definitely" when it comes to their position. Meanwhile, I keep waiting for the hoaxsters to come up with something that will make me question the Apollo program's sequence of events. I ain't seen it so far. Wahkeenah 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen it said that triangulation could be fooled, nor have I seen any triangulation data. I've never seen any third party verification, and would be interested to see any that you have. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about it beyond what I've already said. I'm waiting for an expert to post that kind of info. Wahkeenah 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting facet to conspiracy theories that I'm not sure has been fully explored. It could be called the Da Vinci Code syndrome. It has been applied to many different situations, from Biblical scholars trying to find hidden meanings in the scriptures based on lining the text up a certain way; to micro-inspection of the available JFK assassination video and photos to try to definitively prove (in vain, so far) that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza; to Area 51, the "top secret" government testing site that everyone knows about. With Apollo, they started with the premise that NASA lied. They couldn't find any direct evidence of this assertion, however; no one in a position to know has "confessed". So, instead, they put on their Sherlock Holmes caps and looked for "clues". When they found enough of them to satisfy themselves, they proclaimed they had found "evidence" that NASA lied... even though most of their so-called "clues" have been shown to be either ignorant or willful misinterpretations of what they were seeing (such as the "waving flag" nonsense). Maybe the "Apollo Code syndrome" would actually be the better term. Wahkeenah 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think even the CIA believes the 'one shooter' theory any more, but apart from re-stating your point of view, and indulging in some pseudo-psychology, what is the point of this diatribe? For great justice. 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That the Apollo hoax theory fits the pattern of other conspiracy theories, a term which you don't like, but it fits like a glove. And while it is possible that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, there is no definitive proof of it. One of the cornerstones of the JFK consipiracists was that Oswald was not a good enough marksman to have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds. First, he was a good marksman. And second, the six seconds start with the first shot, so technically he only had to fire two shots in six seconds. Etc. Etc. The JFK story is pretty much off the conspiracist radar anymore, because too much time has passed and nothing new has emerged, and JFK remains dead (although one theory postulated that he had survived and was in a vegetative state; once the autopsy photos were made public, it pretty well put that one to rest). However, the Apollo story remains alive. It will die (except in the minds of a handful of hard-core doubters) when and if we return to the moon, which will require funding, and also a practical reason to go... other than to "prove" that the Apollo program happened, which would be a collosal waste of our tax dollars. Wahkeenah 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue will, indeed be settled when science is applied to the problem - by observing it. As for JFK, you are in a very small minority of true believers if you believe the full govt account. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And who here honestly believes that any "moonbats" will even believe it if/when we go back a second time? Repeatedly claiming that "we can settle this once and for all by going to the moon" is a huge red herring...logically it makes sense, practically it's easy to rest on because the likelihood of it happening anytime soon (we're talking decades here) is slim, so you keep repeating it. Anyway, this talk page makes an amazing read, you moonbats are quite off your rockers. Rhetorical exercise for you: take off your blinders for a couple of minutes, look at all the evidence again, and ask yourself what is more plausible - a faked landing, or a real one? Sounds like you're fixated on the Van Allen Belts, and have no problem with soft-landings, the nicities of photography, etc. Hit those books, boy! 161.225.129.111 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Going back wouldn't prove that we went there in 1969-1972. I saw a comparison to cold fusion somewhere on this talk page. Cold fusion is a scientific issue, the moon landing is a historical one. Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo question won't be settled to everyone's satisfaction, no matter what is done. And I do not necessarily believe the "full government account" of the JFK story. It is possible that Oswald acted alone, and it is also possible that he had co-conspirators and that, as with Tim McVeigh (as some have postulated), he kept silent and protected them. I am about 99% certain that Oswald was involved. I don't buy into the "vast government conspiracy" stuff that Oliver Stone came up with. There is no question that the government wanted to downplay any hint of conspiracy that might suggest the Soviets were behind it, as it would likely have triggered WWIII if it were true. But the conspiracists can't accept that one lone nut could do this to us, denying the fact that all it took was a rifle and the will to do it. As the years have gone by, we have seen that JFK had many enemies. The group with the greatest motivation, other than supporters of Fidel Castro, would seem to be the Mafia, as they felt betrayed by JFK. I have sometimes wondered if Oswald and some other independent assassin were coincidentally shooting him at the same time. Not likely, but possible. Unless any new evidence comes forward, I don't think we'll ever know the truth of the JFK situation for sure. That raises the question of the "falsifiability" of the many JFK assassination theories. That could require a book or two. Wahkeenah 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC there are still some govt archives that are sealed on the JFK issue, but I agree that, without new evidence, it's unlikely that there will be resolution. There is a difference between a case like the JFK assasination, where the evidence has been largely destroyed, and the Apollo landings, where, if they happened, the evidence should be in good condition, on the moon. We can't revisist the JFK moment, we can (if we want to) revisit the scene of the crime with Apollo. That's what makes the moon landing accusation falsifiable, and JFK not. For great justice. 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right, and that's why I have to hedge on the JFK thing. Maybe once all the participants are long dead (along with us) the full truth will come out. There were a number of folks who also thought the Lincoln conspiracy was an "inside job", but after 141 years I think the chances of determining that are fairly slim. However, as with JFK, I wouldn't say with absolute certainty that it's "not falsiable", just "probably not falsifiable, or verifiable". Obviously, the final answer to the Apollo question is to go there again and either find or not find the Apollo remnants. Back to JFK, don't forget that the Kennedys themselves bear a good share of the responsibility for all this, as they went to some lengths to keep "sensitive" info out of the public eye... such as JFK's extramarital situations... and their reticence helped to fuel the conspiracists' flames. Maybe we need to invent that time machine and go back and revisit any number of historical events and find out what really happened. If only we had the funding. Wahkeenah 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get working on the time machine! For great justice. 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you on that. Wahkeenah 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Moon base

Guinnog, I'm glad the spirit of collaboration is alive and well - perhaps you could explain why you immediately reverted my addition of the 'Nazi Moon base' link to the See also section. It seems to me that it is a theory about conspiracy related to moon landings. What's the problem? For great justice. 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever deleted this, maybe you should put it back. It provides a little perspective to the Apollo hoax story, as it is off the chart for silliness. One item I liked was that the Nazis supposedly met several alien races, and it was just begging for the postscript, "...and the Aryans were superior to every one of them." Wahkeenah 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's off the chart for silliness, but it is related, vaguely - perhaps, if you agree, you could put it back in, since I'm done with being seen as a revert-warrior... Thanks! For great justice. 16:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's more than vaguely related, as it contains a backreference to this page. I'll give it a few days, for the current tempest to subside (maybe). Wahkeenah 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry , FGJ, I just didn't think it fitted in. I don't feel that strongly about it though.

On a similar note to Wahkeenah's above, I'd like the revert war to be over as I'd like to copyedit the article. It's currently riddled with typos and small errors of style, but obviously there is no point until things have settled down. --Guinnog 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - what are the main issues with the current version though? I see a lot of reverting, but no discussion of why. For great justice. 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to be taken seriously, or just trolling?

"The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a collection of urban legends suggesting that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked by NASA." - I reverted this. Please don't do it again. For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits have skewed this page so far in the direction of credulous acceptence of the hoax claims that it's necessary to provide a balanced presentation. Are you seriously suggesting that the hoax claims are not urban legends? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They are not urban legends by any definition of the term. Please look it up - it does not mean what you think it means. For great justice. 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconceivable! Wahkeenah 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Never get involved in a land war in Asia! For great justice. 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great would dissagree.Geni 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He might have also been the originator of the phrase, "Live fast, die young (32) and leave a good looking corpus." Wahkeenah 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Biographies

I did some work on expanding the biographies section - please don't revert it without comment - I'd like to add brief one sentence bios of the main NASA proponents too. What do you think? For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend?

The moon hoax stories are not really urban legends. Urban legends are more like the stories about alligators in the sewers and tarantulas in the cactus plants. The moon hoax stories are conspiracy theories, i.e. the idea that there is a vast conspiracy (usually by the government) to hide the "real truth" about conventional history. Urban legends are usually about something innocuous, although they can cause harm, such as the claim that Procter & Gamble's moon-and-stars logo was a satanic symbol, which was very hard to shake, even when very conservative Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell went to bat for the company. Conspiracy theories are like a parallel universe to generally accepted history. They are often hard to totally disparage, but they are also fad-like, so they tend to stick around for awhile until the next one comes along, or until proven or disproven definitively. Another good example of a conspiracy theory is the notion held by some (mostly leftists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks. This is of particular interest because it's similar to the notion held by some (mostly rightists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack on 12/7/41. In both cases, the allegations were raised by people who objected to our having gone to war over it. It now occurs to me that this section really belongs on the conspiracy theory page. Whatever. :) Wahkeenah 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voice of sanity. ;) For great justice. 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

May I quote you on that? :) Wahkeenah 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While they are certainly conspiracy theories, there is some overlap: They're narratives with many elements of folklore; they're usually thought to be true by those who repeat them; The points about the malign intent of the supposed perpetrators are sensationalized, as is characteristic of urban legends. I think 'collection of urban legends' succinctly summarizes the nature of the hoax stories. I suppose reasonable men might disagree, but the phrase would have to be up long enough for someone to see it and disagree with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is overlap, but they are not the same thing. One characteristic of urban legends is that there is virtually no evidence. Has anyone ever actually seen an alligator in a sewer? No, but those who talk about it know someone who knows someone who has seen them. By contrast, conspiracy theorists take bits and pieces of actual evidence, like a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing, and construct their own "picture" from it. Also, conspiracy theories are usually connected with politics in some way or another. Liberals like to talk about how there is a vast right wing conspiracy, and conservatives talk about how there is a vast left wing conspiracy. It's not a coincidence that the conspiracy theories really heated up during the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Of course, that's my own conspiracy theory. :) Wahkeenah 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Maybe 'urban legend' is more confusing than informative. Ultimately, I think I wasted an afternoon on this; I don't think there were any substantive improvements after [13]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to know how much time I've wasted on this article. Maybe if the Chicago Cubs were playing better I could focus on them and leave this article be for awhile. Wahkeenah 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About "Nearly all"

I don't want to edit more again, but please tell me what evidence about "Nearly all" people believe this plan.

Maybe my English is poor, but I think you can know what I mean.--219.78.196.244 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the article itself about polls which answer this question. --ScienceApologist 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has inquired "Nearly all" the world people?--219.78.196.244 08:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No one answer my question, what polls? If the polls inquired "nearly all" US people,then the polls can behalf of all world people? "Nearly all" that word is exclude other suspicion authenticity of Apollo Moon Landing's people.--219.78.196.244 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Err..Can't tell actually what you are talking about. Sorry! michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the accusations as baseless.

I doubt that even a sizeable fraction of these have even bothered to mention the hoax accusations. Don't they mainly just ignore it, like most biologists ignore Creationists who criticize Evolution?

If there is a rejection of the accusations, however, we should say something like:

• Joe Blow, an astronomer at Universty A, says that he can see the Lunar Module at Mare Tranquilitatis through his telescope.

Or:

• A survey of space scientists and technicians conducted by Reuters (or Gallup or Roper or Pew?) indicated that X% agreed that the accusations were baseless.

Let's apply NPOV and WP:CITE here, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, again you didn't read the sentence you removed. "Nearly all interested..." is what it says. We support this statement later on in the article by quoting the interested scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts. --ScienceApologist 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nearly all" US's scientists, technicians believe? Or "Nearly all" all world scientists, technicians believe?--219.78.196.244 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example as to why this would make a difference? (i.e. is there a schism among U.S. and other scientists regarding this subject?)--DCAnderson 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there's no evidence presented about opinion outside the US - that's par for the course for the AstroNots though. Evidence isn't required for their claims. For great justice. 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to find some polls external to the U.S. - along was you also cite polls indicating what those respondents thing of the U.S. in general, as their responses could be based on anti-American attitudes. Wahkeenah 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we wanted to comment on opinion outside the US, we would. I'm not sure that polling has been done. Better to state the facts, that no polling data is known, and so opinion is not known. If data turns up later, we can add it. AstroNot speculation on world opinion isn't useful. For great justice. 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me an earlier incarnation of this page said that a Japanese poll indicated about half the people there had doubts about Apollo. Of course, it would not surprise me if half the Japanese people also think the U.S.A. started World War II. Wahkeenah 00:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, can we produce a source for the Japanese poll, or this another article of faith? For great justice. 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be buried somewhere in the countless reverts of the article and/or in the archived talk pages. Go ahead and look for it. Don't let me stop you. Wahkeenah 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found an anonymous posting from May 17th in the talk page (Archive 3) that reads "In Japan, it is estimated that the majority of people there believe the moon landings were faked. Hence probably why they want to send LUNAR-A up there." Spot-checking among the many changes made in the article that day, I don't know see a reference in the article itself, so I don't know what the anon's source is, if any. And at this point (see my most recent comments before this) I lack the interest to pursue this or any of the other point-counterpoint stuff further at this time. Wahkeenah 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if an anonymous poster made an unsourced comment that should be "Good Enough For Astronot Logic" (GEFAL) in future. For great justice. 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The last few edits by User:For great justice.

Appear to be trolling. Especially considering this curious statement he made to User:Ed Poor [14]. I find it hard to take a user who makes bald accusations in such an arrogant manner seriously. It's hard for me to see this kind of behavior as anything but disruptive. --ScienceApologist 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attack. I guess when your intellectual arguments are exhausted, that's about all that's left. For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually wanted to discuss "intellectual arguments" you wouldn't resort to so many violations of Wikipedia policy. I think you are gaming the system. Any gesture towards good faith at this point would be appreciated. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Random insults are all very well, but I'm at a loss to know what you mean. For great justice. 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your continued aggressive behavior does not seem tempered with any desire to really dialogue about any of these subjects. Rather you have made the curious declaration that no one discusses anything with you. That doesn't feel like good faith to me. --ScienceApologist 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you certainly don't. It's a fact. Look at the history. When asked a question, you reply with insults and avoid answering. For great justice. 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making generalized statements like this? They are rather bizarre considering the lengths you bend over backwards to accomodate your own idealization of "balance". You feel that the ends-justifies-the-means or what? Are you honestly saying that I have avoided answering every single question you've ever made? --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have avoided answering most, for example, this kind of thing, which is pretty typical.

"Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For great justice. 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that I had no answer to this particular point (mostly because that was not prose I had a vested interest in)? Again, you're having a problem in assuming good faith. I changed the entire section, after all. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you have no object to my removing it? For great justice. 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you see this in the article? --ScienceApologist 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It was there about half an hour ago, it seems like events have overtaken the discussion. For great justice. 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof, again

I see that this section has been edited to remove anything except pro NASA editorialising. It is unsourced, POV rhetoric. Rather than simply remove it, I wonder whether anyone can justify keeping it in its current form? For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can suggest what about it is "pro NASA editorialising" rather than making blanket statements? --ScienceApologist 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard not to be blanket, since it's uniformly bad, but, let's take this bit. "Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there you go - a thoughtful response indeed. That puts all my fears to rest. For great justice. 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicability

Your addition to the sentence contextualizing the hypotheses was poor writing. Anyway, the sentence was not offering a way to determine whether any hypothesis was correct but rather was simply offering a way to distinguish the ideas. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

SA - you reverted this, saying the writing was poor, perhaps, rather than the reflex revert reaction, you could specify what is poor about it? Or is it that you fear the scientific method? For great justice. 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Application of the scientific method to this scenario would require that indepentently duplicable evidence for a claim of a moon landing be produced, allowing each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:" For great justice. 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What's poor about it is that application of the scientific method to the scenario established competing hypotheses, it doesn't "require" the criteria you inserted. This criteria might be something that hoax proponents yearn for, I don't know, but the sentence is establishing the two possible hypotheses, it's not trying to describe what amount and kind of evidence is required for a "claim of a moon landing [to] be produced". What's more that sentence doesn't even make any sense. A "claim of a moon landing" can be "produced" whenever and however one likes. It's really one of the poorer edits I've seen. --ScienceApologist 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Application of the scientific method would involve replicable experiments by third parties that provide proof of the NASA claim. This sort of experiment would allow each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:

This statement is terrible. Application of the scientific method does not require "replicable experiments" by "third parties". There is no such thing as "proof" in science and the "NASA claim" hasn't been described yet! So this is again another example of an extremely poor edit. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community." From the scientific method article. Of course. NASA's claims cannot stand up to that sort of scrutiny, so they will not subject themselves to the same standard as every other scientific claim. Cowards. For great justice. 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why should they? The Apollo flights are a matter of historical record, and the conspiracists have yet to produce anything to the contrary. Wahkeenah 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'historical record' is entirely NASA's. There is no independent verification. For why this is important, see below. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• What many pathological skeptics fails to realize is that the standard of evidence is provided by the scientific community that confirms the points, not the fringe maniacs who cry foul. What's more, the sentence in question is not describing any "experimental or theoretical results": it's describing the set-up of competing hypotheses: something which does not require "reproduction by others". Insisting otherwise is putting one's behind before one's face. --ScienceApologist 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Stem Cell Fraud Worries U.S. Scientists and Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_the_result

For the kind of thing that happens when the scientific method is ignored. These frauds were detected when attempts were made to replicate them. If there is no oversight, even scientists tend to perpetrate fraud. NASA has, uniquely, no effective oversight. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for your assertion that no one was "watching" NASA? Wahkeenah 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been produced that they were. I don't invent things for which there is no evidence, unlike the Astronots. For great justice. 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that no such evidence has been produced? Wahkeenah 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence for any. I do not 'know' that there is none, just as I do not 'know' that you don't have three arms. I assume there is none until I see evidence that there is some. When 30 years have passed without anyone publically producing any, that assumption is looking pretty reliable. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence the moon flights occurred, and none that they did not occur. Meanwhile, who told you about my three arms? Wahkeenah 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is plenty, why can't you produce ANY that doesn't come from NASA? For great justice. 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that the basis of your claim...that there is no evidence of the moon landing except from the organization did it, hence it was faked? I just want to make sure where you're coming from...161.225.129.111 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I have not studied the question of other nations' evidence in depth. Besides, you are presupposing that NASA lied, but you can't come up with any evidence of that assertion. Wahkeenah 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. No one has produced any. You would think that the Bad Astronomy site, with all the people scrambling to try to find explanations for the accusations, would be able to come up with something, but zip. Nada. There is no evidence except for NASA's own. That rigns big alarm bells for those committed to the scientific method. For great justice. 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the only evidence is NASA's, nor that they lied. And the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing all that loudly. The space program, of which the moonflights were a part of its evolution, has gone on its merry way. Wahkeenah 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect your deeply held beliefs about the existance of this evidence. But it's not science. Let's make sure we separate the two. For great justice. 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way to "prove" it is to go back to the moon. Send your contributions to NASA today and tell them to get on it right away. The future of science hangs in the balance. Wahkeenah 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't they just say NASA faked it again, this time with updated special effects? The only way to convince everyone would be for all of us to go to the moon together. Even then someone would deny that he was actually there, and challange anyone to prove that he wasn't just a brain in a vat. We went to the moon before, and some people say they don't believe it. If we go again, what difference will that make? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There we are, back on comfortable AstroNot ground - ad hominem attacks. Disguise your lack of independent evidence by claiming that your opponents are too pig headed to accept any. Nice. For great justice. 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, really. Why would it be any more convincing next time? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Apparently there is independent evidence. Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! You're starting to look for evidence, and think critically, instead of trotting out your tired and erroneous rhetoric! A victory for the article! For great justice. 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fgj: what constitutes "independent evidence"? Do the statements of scientists who don't have NASA grants count? Do the statements of Soviet scientists count? When they interview ex-Soviet generals and they comment about the Apollo-Soyuz detente work and they talk about the Apollo missions as though they actually happened, is that independent evidence? --ScienceApologist 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are eye-witness accounts of the landings, then yes. For great justice. 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes an eyewitness account special? Do you have a cite for your claim that an eyewitness account qualifies as indepedent evidence? --ScienceApologist 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the astronauts themselves, maybe the little green men on the moon that Apollo kept quiet about (according to one of the several hoax "theories") could be called as witnesses. Wahkeenah 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term 'pathological skepticism'

This pseudo-medical term has no accepted usage outside insulting people. It should go. For great justice. 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a well-used term in skeptical communities. --ScienceApologist 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a well used term of abuse on web forums devoted to disparaging critical thinkers. Can you demonstrate it's use in a respectable context? Actually, why don't you follow wikipedia policy, and source the claim? For great justice. 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no claim to make. The statement is neutral in terms of the description of the subject. --ScienceApologist 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, AstroNot thinking is clouding your logic. "There's no claim to make because... there's no claim to make. Because... I say so!". Erm, not good enough, start thinking critically. For great justice. 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a thought-out explanation. --ScienceApologist 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't wait up. He's gone. Check his user page. Wahkeenah 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal without explanation

SA - why did you remove this? "Bart Sibrel responds to this by pointing out a common tactic of NASA proponents, to take a claim that hoax proponents do not make (for example that there are tens of thousands of conspirators), and then 'debunk' it." For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel did not respond to this like that. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He did. For great justice. 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to you providing evidence of this cause-and-effect relationship with a direct quote. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are the two section of his FAQ that I was thinking of. It is, I suppose, subtly different in semantics - I presume you are ok with me adding it back in slightly re-worded, since it does clearly relate to the point made about the thousands of people? For great justice. 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination."

"Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?) A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. ..."

These are both quotes I've seen before, but they are not in response to the points the statement was addressing in the article. I don't see Bart addressing this idea as such at all. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mean they don't occur in the same interview transcript, then you're right. But of course it addresses the issue of the 10,s of thousands claim. For great justice. 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it only addresses the claim that 10s of thousands of NASA workers should verify Apollo. It doesn't address independent observers. --ScienceApologist 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory - trying again, in the hope of getting an explanation, rather than insults

No one could explain why the term conspiracy theory should be used, except in the context of reported insults by pro-NASA types - it is not a neutral term and has no objective meaning. For great justice. 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a conspiracy theory, in the objective sense of the term as used by journalists and academics. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no objective sense. It's an insult. What definition are you using? For great justice. 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See the references in conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for a hoax proponent that says calling the accusations a "conspiracy theory" is an insult? Or is it just your opinion that it's an insult? --ScienceApologist 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" works much the same way the word "cult" does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion. Historians do not use the word "conspiracy" to describe accurate historical reports. On the contrary, they use it to indicate a lack of veracity and objectivity.

“Reconstructing Reality: Conspiracy Theories About Jonestown” by Rebecca Moore http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Articles/conspiracy.htm For great justice. 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I don't buy this at all. E.g. the gunpowder plot is often called a conspiracy by historians without any derisive connotations. --ScienceApologist 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the Great Conspiracy, and the Catiline conspiracy, off the top of my head. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no question it's a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theorists don't like the term. Maybe something more politically correct, such as "Minority Report", would work better? Wahkeenah 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Apollo hoax proponents don't like the term "conspiracy theory"? ScienceApologist 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume none of them, because none of the ever use it about themselves. I can't produce evidence that they don't like the term "asshole", "fuckwit", or "bitch" either, I suppose you want to put those words in on the same logic? For great justice. 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike conspiracy theory, those are epithets; they have no non-pejorative use. We call the hoax narrative a conspriacy theory becuase that's what it is, and no alternate term accurately describes it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Except 'theory', 'accusations', 'claim' etc etc. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those are accurate descriptions of the phenomenon as a whole. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "all of them" don't like it, but I'm not sure; it's clear you don't like it, nor will I argue that it's necessarily a neutral term the way it's often used. Meanwhile, the middle of those three vulgarisms is a new one on me. Is that a Britishism? Wahkeenah 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite - and yes, I agree with you that it's not neutral. But Wikipedia should be. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory can be used a pejorative, as can Dutchman. Conspiracy theory has a perfectly well-defined meaning, and is in current use by academics and journalists. I've told you where to look for the definition, and pointed you to the references by Barkun, Fenster, Melley, and others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's somebody else who calls it a "conspiracy theory" and clearly supports the moonbats. --ScienceApologist 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The American Patriot Friends Network gives a sympathetic read to the moonbats and calls Ralph Rene's idea a "conspiracy theory". --ScienceApologist 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, AstroNot logic at it's finest. This is a comentator, not a proponent. For great justice. 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well these people certainly aren't "hoax sceptics" so trying to characterize the label as the unique purview of such people is not accurate. I guess we have a different definition of a hoax proponent. I would describe the owners of both of those websites I listed as being hoax proponents. What clued you in to them being a "comentator"?--ScienceApologist 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We went through want to call the activists who run websites like Bad Astronomy before, and you did not recommend a better name for them. Please tell me what we should call them. For great justice. 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point. The two citations provided are to sympathetic websites. --ScienceApologist 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask (yet) again. What is the correct term for people who actively advocate for the NASA position? For great justice. 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoax opponents seems to be a pretty good one. --ScienceApologist 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like that. Actually, I don't know of any "NASA advocates" in the sense he means. The "advocacy" has come from the hoaxsters, putting interested scientists on the defensive. How about "The Defenders"? In any case, I think Mr. Justice is gone for good, unless he starts over with a new logon (and behaves differently). Check his user page. Wahkeenah 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SA's reverts

SA - you reverted this, saying the writing was poor, perhaps, rather than the reflex revert reaction, you could specify what is poor about it? Or is it that you fear the scientific method? For great justice. 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Application of the scientific method to this scenario would require that indepentently duplicable evidence for a claim of a moon landing be produced, allowing each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:"

Discussed above. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so anti science?

Every time I put in that science requires independent, replicable verification of data, it gets taken out. Why are you so anti-science? What are you afraid of? Why do you not think it strange that cold fusion was debunked by the failure to replicate it by independent researchers, but NASA should not be compelled to provide more than 'because we say so'? For great justice. 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussed above. By the way, "debunked by the failure to replicate" is not synonymous with "required to replicate". See is-ought problem. --ScienceApologist

Not, in fact, discussed above. You have no answer for why scientific method has not been applied to the Apollo claims. Is-ought similarly has no relevance here. For great justice. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to apply the scientific method? Either a man landed on the Moon or he didn't, you don't need to set up an experiment to prove it.--DCAnderson 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Stem Cell Fraud Worries U.S. Scientists and Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_the_result

For the kind of thing that happens when the scientific method is ignored. These frauds were detected when attempts were made to replicate them. If there is no oversight, even scientists tend to perpetrate fraud. NASA has, uniquely, no effective oversight. For great justice. 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And you'll notice those frauds were found quickly. Yet, after over 3 decades, there is no evidence that NASA misled the public. However, there is plenty of evidence that the hoax proponents are very willing to twist the facts to fit their hypothesis. Also, what is the basis of your assertion that no one was "watching" NASA? Wahkeenah 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that those frauds were found when independent researchers tried to verify the claims. No one has been able to try to verify the claims, and NASA is in no hurry to facilitate them. They know that their claim would not hold up to independent scrutiny, and they'd be just another case of scientific fraud. For great justice. 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA is in no hurry because there is no need to, and more to the point, there is no money for it. Write to your congressman and urge that we spend billions of our tax dollars to go back to the moon just to prove Apollo really happened. They should have a good laugh over that one. Here's the deal: The burden of proof is on the accusers. And there is no proof of anything other than that the missions occurred. What is the basis for your assertion that it would not stand up to independent scrutiny? Every question the hoaxsters has raised has proven to be based on either ignorance or willful misleading. Wahkeenah 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your claim that NASA is unique in the world in not being required to produce evidence is fascinating, but odd. If I claim to have produced cold fusion would accept it so credulously without any independent verification? Of course not! When a Korean lab claims to have cloned stem cells do you accept it with no verification? Of course not! When the US govt claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, do you accept their claims with no verification? Erm. Actually, forget that last one... For great justice. 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence from the moonflights, and none from those who claim otherwise. Notice, again, how quickly it became apparent that Iraq was only fooling itself about its alleged WMD's. The notion that the Apollo flights could have been so carefully guarded does not square with the reality that these kinds of things get exposed eventually. I keep waiting for someone to present some actual evidence that contradicts the historical record. There ain't any. Wahkeenah 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. Show me ANY non-NASA evidence for the moonflights. There. Isn't. Any. For great justice. 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there isn't any, and neither do you. Wahkeenah 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. So your position is that you continue to believe in the possiblity of evidence for NASA's claims, even though you have not seen any? Classic AstroNot logic! For great justice. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There were independent trackings: [15] --ScienceApologist 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Finally you're starting to think critically about the information you've been spoonfed! For great justice. 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So wait, he just proved you wrong, but that is a victory for you? And then you basically insult him by acting like he hasn't been "critically thinking" up to this point? Right...--DCAnderson 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a victory for a better, more sourced and more neutral article, rather than the dumbed down POV-tirade that it was turning into. Unlike you, I am on the side of a neutral, verifiable article, not a one-sided rant. For great justice. 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are on the side of idiocy in the face of pathological skepticism. There's an easily seen difference. You don't conduct yourself in a way that makes your edits seem reasonable. You never discuss the implications of your model for NPOV on the article, but just revel in disruption. --ScienceApologist 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For great justice - in the face of a random critic, do you think Edmund Hillary would be under any obligation to prove he climbed Everest? If not, what's different in the two cases, for you? Adhib 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he used public money in his ascent, if not, then he probably has little reason to respond to any critics, it's up to him whether he wants to provide evidence for his claim. If he was sponsored by a government agency, and senators had written to him asking him to explain himself, I think that would be different. For great justice. 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hillary used public money as his expedition was sponsored in part by exploratory agencies of the Commonwealth. Hillary has no senators as he is not a subject of a nation which has such representation. What makes senators so special? --ScienceApologist 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hillary and Tenzig went to the top and took pictures from there and brought back equipment. Sounds no different than Apollo. Of course, they could have staged it at Shepperton. >:) Wahkeenah 23:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there are very strong parallels. It's extremely easy to point to 'ambiguities' in Hillary's account - just which of them, exactly, got to the top first, anyway? - which one might take to cast doubt on the whole story. And yet - I'm not aware that his story has ever raised sceptical questions, such as demands for independent evidence. The reasons why seem pretty clear. That species of cynicism which gives rise to conspiracy theories does not attach to the efforts of individuals, whose motivations are relatively easy for the casual observer to discern. It only gets properly aroused by the activities of large institutions (science, government, industry) whose sophistication is unsatisfying to those who prefer their truths simple - and whose authority appears to them as de facto grounds for suspicion. Adhib 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You've nailed it perfectly. Wahkeenah 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently rather too complex an argument to cross the divide. If my scant grasp of American idiom is correct, the short version would be: "conspiracism = Hayseed science". Adhib 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

About "Nearly all" again

Please tell me,"Nearly all" behalf of which place's scientists and technicians,US? UN? Russia? China? If just behalf of US's scientists and technicians, then write "Nearly all interested US's scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless."

This is English Wikipedia, not the United States of America's Wikipedia. Must analysis clearly, our country's scientists and technicians maybe not believe this.--219.78.49.187 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to any notable non-U.S. scientists who disagree? Is there a reason we should think that this is just an opinion held in the U.S.?--DCAnderson 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AstoNot Logic here again. There is no evidence either way outside of the US. Better to say that, than to assume the rest of the world reflects US opinion. For great justice. 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the basis for your assertion that there was no independent verification, no tracking, etc.? Wahkeenah 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because none has been produced. Typical AstroNot logic. "I assume it's been independently verified until you prove it hasn't been..." Of course I can't prove that no one has verified the landing, but in the absence of any evidence, I'll say it hasn't been verified. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not assume it has been independently verified, because I don't know. How do you know? Who says none has been produced? And if that's true, then why do the hoaxsters bring up stuff about signals possibly being sent from earth orbit? Wahkeenah 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you have not seen any independent verification of the landings, and that doesn't bother you. The hoaxers speculate on signals from satellites because it is a plausible hypothesis for the signals recieved from the ground stations. With no evidence triangulating the signals, there is no way to distinguish between that and the landing truth theory. For great justice. 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not studied that aspect of it in any kind of depth. I have vague recollections from the time that many places around the world were tracking them. Wahkeenah 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok then. If you have vague recollections, then that settles the matter. If only we all used AstroNot logic... For great justice. 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Like NASA, I have other things to spend my time and money on besides trying to prove things that have already happened. Wahkeenah 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny! It needs no proof, because of your unshakable belief. Classic Atronot logic. I know AstroNots don't like to stick to the point, but this thread is about evidence of opinion in other countries. I take it we agree that we don't have any, and simply saying that is the most honest thing to do? For great justice. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of "proof", but the hoaxsters won't accept it because of their unproven presupposition that NASA made it up. Show me something that contradicts the historical record. Wahkeenah 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And I do not agree that we don't have any, because I don't know if we have any. I must yield to the experts on this, if they haven't already abandoned this page by now. Wahkeenah 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, until the 'experts' chime in, it's fair to say on the page that we don't know of any, since any claim to have any would have to be sourced? For great justice. 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no hoax proponents in the nations you list either. People comment only where issues present themselves. Fgj's claim would be similar to stating that because there aren't official statements from scientific organizations in China denigrating the Flat Earth Society that the only NPOV thing to do is exclude them in the scientific caveat. The scientific and technical community knows no national boundaries. --ScienceApologist 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't list any countries, but what about Philippe Lheureux, and his French language book? The fact is you have no evidence about belief outside the US either way (and we're talking about the general population here, not that there is any evidence about scientists either). Why can't you admit that and move on? For great justice. 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are French-language debunkers as well. I don't see your point. And actually, we were at one point talking about scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts here. So I'm pretty secure in calling this point finished. --ScienceApologist 04:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the French language debunkers? Are we to take them on faith too? For great justice. 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The French language debunkers live in France for the most part. I don't ask you to take anything on faith, Fgj. --ScienceApologist 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"point out", "claim", "note that"

These are all tendentious. "Say" is often a more neutral choice. More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with these? Why are they not synonyms for 'say'? For great justice. 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that its on that page, but I've never see an explanation. I'm happy with either, since I think they're synonyms, but I'm interested in why you think one carries more weight than the other. Whatever, I'm happy either way. For great justice. 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Claim", in particular, carries an automatic bias with it, as it is shorthand for saying, "This is what they say, but I don't agree with it." "Point out" and "note that" are less confrontational. "Say" is totally neutral. Wahkeenah 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why are you worried about places where hoax proponents 'claim' things? For great justice. 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No more worried than about where "NASA proponents claim" things. It's every bit as prejudicial as the term "conspiracy theory" is, if not more so. Wahkeenah 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Very fair. For great justice. 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Other words to avoid

"theory", "NASA proponent", "hoax theorist"

Theory has special connotations in science and since there are "scientific aspects" to this topic we should avoid this (except in the special case of "conspiracy theory" which can be linked to a separate term). For the same reason "hoax theorist" should be avoided in the article. "Hoax proponent" or "hoax believer" is appropriate.

"NASA proponent" is an example of an inappropriate generalization. There are NASA proponents that argue in front of Congress for more funding for NASA. They are not involved in this topic. To avoid equivocation refer directly to the opposition they have to hoax believer's claims.

--ScienceApologist 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Nice attempt at inserting your POV again! The hoax theory is a theory in the scientific sense. What, out of interest, are your preffered alternatives to hoax and NASA proponent? Why a double standard? Oh, wait.. For great justice. 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that these allegations amount to a scientific theory. If they did, you should be able to introduce in the first sentence as such in an NPOV fashion. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are a scientific theory. The theory is that there is a set of data (the NASA 'evidence') and two theories to account for it. One that NASA is telling the truth, the other that they are lying. An experiment can be designed to differentiate the theories (going to the moon) and the evidence of that experiment would tell you which is true. What's wrong with that? For great justice. 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory != conjecture. Learn some basic philosophy of science. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That experiment has already been conducted. The hoaxsters failed. Wahkeenah 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, aside from insults and childish comments, why is that theory not valid? For great justice. 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory because it doesn't have the features of a scientific theory. Go ahead and read the page on the subject. --ScienceApologist 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You havn't got anything apart from 'It just is', have you. I've read that page - it's a theory. It meets all the requirements. Show me any that it doesn't meet. For great justice. 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not parsimonious for one. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors

Let's get this one settled once and for all. Read the Lunar Ranging article. The Russian mission placed mirrors on the moon. They returned ranging data. A mechanical failure left them in a less than ideal position. This was a successful mission in that it proved that robot missions could place mirrors on the moon. Subequent failure of a motor is not the point. For great justice. 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The laser reflectors worked pretty well when the Americans put them there, since a manned mission allows for fine adjustments to things. Wahkeenah 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the robot mirrors worked fine, and are a good proof that robot missions can place mirrors acurately. The fact that, on that particular mission, the lander later malfunctioned is not relevant. You know that, so I don't know why you continue to press the point. Oh wait, yes I do. For great justice. 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And another point is that a soft-landing on the moon was well within the technological reach of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., despite the hoaxsters continued argument that we lacked the technology to get to the moon. Wahkeenah 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice change of subject. The russian mirror experiment proves that mirrors on the moon can be robot placed. Soft landing a robot without return capability is not the same problem as landing and returning humans. Capability to do one does not equal capability to do the other. For great justice. 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some (or many) hoaxsters have argued that a soft-landing on the moon was impossible. Clearly, they have not thought it through. Similarly, they argue that taking off from the moon was impossible. Well, they got it wrong once, so their odds of getting it wrong again are good. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, the hoax theories are not coherent, there are several different versions of them. That doesn't mean they are all untrue. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So what missions could the US have used to put the mirrors on the moon. what was the launch date?Geni 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't go bringing technicalities into it. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but since we only have NASA records of the missions, I would be surprised if they include them. That is the importance of verification. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First, you have not proven that the only records are from NASA. Second, there is a presupposition (without proof) that NASA staged the events. Wahkeenah 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonshots require considerable lifting power. Launching them is a major event. So what was the launch date of these robotic missions?Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Their best guess would probably be that the supposedly manned launches were actually these robotic launches. I suppose that when the astronauts appeared to be boarding the spacecraft, they were actually ducking down some secret escape hatch. Not that the conspiracists indulge in speculation or anything like that. Wahkeenah 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no records from anyone but NASA. You have not shown any. I have not seen anyone else produce any. If they exist - where are they? I'm not going to make assumptions without evidence, that's AstroNot logic again. The hypothesis that NASA faked the landings is based on supposed errors in NASA's account of the landings. There is no third party record available. For great justice. 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You've hit it on the head: "Supposed" errors. Everything the conspiracists come up with is easily shot down. They can't find anything or anyone to contradict the historical record. I keep waiting. I would love to have it exposed, if it's true. But there is no evidence of such. Wahkeenah 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the subject. There is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE for NASA's claims. I know you believe anyway, and that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs, but while I agree that the hoax claims are not proven, neither is NASA's case. For great justice. 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't know that. Meanwhile, show me something to undermine my "faith" as you erroneously call it. If that Fox special is the best they can come up with, then why should I give the hoaxsters any credence about any argument they make on anything? Wahkeenah 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And you're entitled to define "independant" in any way you see fit, likely in such a way as to it not being possible to verify; according to a peculiar personal standard. Not just anybody could walk around the Apollo program, for obvious security reasons, and not just anybody can be shoved into a capsule to "verify" they are actually going to the moon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you're stuck in a corner. When asked to produce evidence for your position, you say you don't know whether any exists, and ask for evidence that you're wrong. This is like much pseudo science. This conversation is fruitless, since you don't have any independent evidence. If anyone else does, maybe they can chime in. For great justice. 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence? Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes NASA-sponsorship non-independent verification? Why is it that just because someone is paid by NASA it is okay for the hoax-proponents to claim they aren't independent? Can you show any evidence that scientists and technicians are not independent when they are involved in NASA? The knife cuts both ways. You have to show that the evidence provided is "not independent" -- you can't just assume that it isn't. --ScienceApologist 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the constant circular reasoning of the hoaxsters. NASA lied, therefore NASA lied. I keep asking them for something to show that NASA lied. They've got nothing except their presuppository. Wahkeenah 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the NASA sponsored verification? Please, produce anything - I'm happy to look at it. Regardless of the hoax, let's see any independent evidence. For great justice. 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So if Bubba looked into his telescope during launch, saw the vehicles in orbit and leave orbit, that, instead of the evidence we do have in abundance would convince you? Oh wait, Bubba doesn't have image capture on his telescope, which are otherwise known as binoculars. My point is your definition of "independant" is likely laughable, and anything provided by say, other countries, could be dismissed as "unconvincing" or part of the conspiracy. Is there a compelling reason to find said evidence when you obviously have handily dismissed much of the evidence already presented in detail? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We have an actual user on here named Bubba73, an interested scientist who has argued against the hoaxsters many times, but I haven't seen his name recently, so I'm guessing he's had enough of it (which I am getting close to also). So, in your example, instead of "Bubba", I suggest you substitute "Gomer" or "Goober". :) Wahkeenah 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scientist - I just play one on TV! I still have this article on my watch list. But when my watch list shows literally dozens of edits, I get discouraged. Too many for me to check. Also, it has gotten too heated here. I think the discussion page should be about changes to the article, and much of it is like an argument on a blog or newsgroup. I've had to cut down on my Wikipedia hours, and about a month ago, the majority of the time I have for Wikipedia was on this one article! So I had to back off for a while. Bubba73 (talk), 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget that your bumpkin of an observer might have seen Coke bottles, too. Wahkeenah 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case the apollo craft were spotted. Just rather outside LEO.Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA sponsored verification? Wouldn't that be the entire Apollo program? They did it, they took pictures, they videotaped it.--DCAnderson 03:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They also provided telemetry data, communications, mission specifications, payload inventories, testimony of the astronauts, sample return, scientific data collection... --ScienceApologist 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would presume anything that was touched by US/Soviet? government hands doesn't qualify, as it can be created by said conspiracy. Certainly a tidy way to remove the vast majority of the evidence from rational consideration. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, the idea that the US and USSR would/could have cooperated in this way in the late 60s, before detente and while the Vietnam war was at its height, and that this could have remained a secret (as in no verifiable evidence) from then until now, is ludicrous to anyone with an understanding of human nature, geopolitics, or both. --Guinnog 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As ignorant as they are of science and technology, it's no surprise they are ignorant of history as well. Wahkeenah 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Revelation

According to this link [16], Mr. Justice has been pulling our lariat: He doesn't believe the hoaxsters either. He's just challenging this article's presentation. However, he has been justifiably smacked around by Admins (i.e. temporarily blocked) for straying from that mission significantly by "stirring the pot" or "baiting" us, which is against wiki rules. So, while his motives may be valid, his methods have been questionable. Well, I did my part by trying to neutralize the article a tad, a couple of weeks ago or so, and now that I know what Mr. Justice's true position is, I feel like I can back off from this constant point-counterpoint stuff. Wahkeenah 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Algr 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's why Mr. Justice has been temporarily blocked on one or more occasions recently. Wahkeenah 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you seem unable to comprehend is that my and your points of view are not relevant to the article. Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and take it to heart. I have never claimed belief, but do take seriously the encyclopedia project. For great justice. 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue. It's your constant confrontational attitude, such as what you just displayed in the above comment. Wahkeenah 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Every element of confrontation originate with the pro-NASA. I have been invaliably polite except when confronted with refusal to engage constructively and abuse. For great justice. 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing a minority opinion about NPOV to prove a WP:POINT. And you violate WP:NPA as a matter of course. --ScienceApologist 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that user was indefinitely block at 20:14 UTC, which ought to quiet things down a bit. However, I concur with the user farther down the page, that this megillah should be archived sometime soon. Wahkeenah 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom needs some NPOV education...

"Since men did in fact land on the Moon on 21 July 1969, hoax...". Come on. Stop trolling. For great justice. 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source who says they didn't? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to rise to your trolling. You know the npov policy. Please follow it. The whole article concerns the controversy over the statement you keep inserting as if it were uncontroversial fact. Stop it. For great justice. 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial fact; no reliable source is available saying the moon landing didn't occur. That we recognize that and say so doesn't prevent us from neutrally describing the claims of the hoax believers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I pulled what I wrote, it's beside the point now. Algr 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll probably want to archive much of this in a week or so anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA - Apollo 11 How did they do it?

First Google video link, is there a response to that in the article? As I can't see it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A response to what? The wilful overinterpretation of some indeterminate footage? If response is wanted, I'd recommend: "Mainstream opinion treats this as a perfect example of how loose methodology inevitably leads to fallacious conclusions." Adhib 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

it is solidly debunked here.Geni 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We don't mention it because its not notable enough? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Solidly debunked". Yeah, right. I tried to find some facts or serious arguments in the link. I only found this: "If the Apollo capsule was actually in a low-earth orbit as Sibrel claims, the observed cloud patterns would be whizzing by the screen at a very observable clip rather than remaining relatively fixed as we see in the video." Seriously?? What am i missing? He claims that the picture of the earth which was filmed should show moving clouds? I would think that a picture would not be showing moving clouds, or anything else moving. Does the page say anything about the blue light coming in from the windows late in the movie clip? I find the debunking argument as thin as the debunking arguments you find in one of Wikipedia's weakest pages, named "Apollo moon landing hoax accustions". (Axlalta 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Like the waving flag argument, for example? Wahkeenah 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept is quite straight forward, in low Earth orbit (or any orbit for that matter) the spacecraft would be travelling so quickly the Earth below it would be noticeably moving (not just the clouds). This can be confirmed by bothering to watch any orbital footage. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, clue me in... What, exactly, is the "problem" with the video? Wahkeenah 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a calculation on this (probably back in an archive), and if the circular part of the Apollo was used to make it look like a distant Earth but actually in low Earth orbit, something would pass through the entire field of view in under a minute (I think it was). It clearly doesn't do that. Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean they're saying they used a fisheye lens or some such to emulate a hemisphere of the earth? Where did they go to college, Mad Magazine University? Wahkeenah 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You also have the filmclip where they are claiming to film the earth halfway to the moon in the first part of "What happened on the Moon" with David Percy commenting (second Google video link, about 15 minutes into part 1). He claims that they are filming a colour transparent of the earth. My point is that you don't rebutt the colour transparent theory by arguing that the earth is not moving. I looked at the first 8 minute Google link again "NASA - Apollo 11 How did they do it?" - and they are saying something else, so I understand your comments. Percy knows about film and photo, and his view is more thrustworthy. Percy let the filming run longer, and then you se the real earth close from another window :) The faking is obvious. The "talk" instruction. Saying they fill up the window with the camera, when you in fact can see a person coming in front of the camera. Saying they are halfway to the moon, and later you see the bright blue sky from the windows. Surely this filmclip was not ment for the public. (213.161.184.64 12:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Given the conspiracists' track record of ignorant and willfull distortion, I wouldn't trust any video clip that they claim anything about. Wahkeenah 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of these suggestions are so dumb I cannot believe they're being made. Did any of these people ever take a science class in their lives? Do they not understand that when you turn on lights in a room that is dark, light will reflect off the window? They really think that it's the Earth that shows up when they turn the lights on? How dense can one get? --ScienceApologist 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's more to it than ignorance. The conspiracists are quite willing to distort information to push their bogus point of view. How do we know they didn't alter the video to try and make it fit their "theory"? Wahkeenah 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was watching the National Geographic channel show about this again the other day (titled Moon Conspiracy, I think. Excellent, BTW - everyone should see it.) Kaysing says that the F1 engine (the one used in the first stage of the Saturn V) was too unreliable. Kaysing was in technical writing at Rocketdyne during their early part of the development of the F-1 (rocket engine), I think, and left about 1961. Yes, there were problems with the early F-1 tests. But about five years later, the problems were solved. There were thirteen Saturn V launches, each one had five F-1s in it, and none of them failed in actual flights. Yet Kaysing said that they were too unreliable... Go figure. Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, it's either ignorance or willful distortion. He based his assertions on when he left. So he was perhaps correct in saying the 1961 version was unreliable, but to continue to spout that when its problems were fixed amounts to fraud. It would be interesting to find out the circumstances under which he left. Maybe he was angry at NASA for some reason, and this moon hoax stuff was his way of trying to get back at them. I think it would be useful to investigate the motives of the moan hoaxsters. They want everyone to think they are innocent little cherubs who are only looking at facts and, at worst, misunderstanding them. But I have come to realize it's much more than that... those characters are guilty of what they accuse NASA of doing. Meanwhile, I see that someone posted a "POV" thingie on the article. However, it's from a red-linked user who posted nothing here explaining it, so I am going to take the liberty of deleting it. Wahkeenah 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA - Apollo 11 How did they do it? Come on, it was the end of the sixties, beginning of the seventies. It was a can-do time. Anon2 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it was. Anyway, it's time to stop cutting the hoaxsters so much slack and to start examining their motives and methods. When I first read this article, I just assumed their approach was based on ignorance. I am now convinced that the hoax claims are a "conspiracy" in and of themselves: willfull disinformation, based on nothing except the desire to deliberately deceive the public, which is generally ignorant of science and history. Wahkeenah 18:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Personally, I can never understand why some people simply cannot understand that even when all the computing power that's available to you is less than that which is present in a Wal-Mart watch, all it really takes is your imagination and the right determination. Given that, anything can be achieved. And I mean anything. And as to the Russians or Chinese, or Japanese, for that matter: they can have all the technology in the world but they will never be able to put a man on the moon. They simply lack the right attitude, they do not have the proper determination, they never experienced a time like the sixties where imagination could run riot, and, basically, they've got no Wal-Mart. Again, given the right imagination you can achieve anything. Anon2 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm guessing you also think the pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, as there is no way the Egyptians had the technology to get it done. Wahkeenah 14:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• The computers were primitive by today's standards, but they got the job done. Wahkeenah 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. But as I said (and you often say), with a bit of imagination and the right amount of can-do attitude a lot can be achieved. A lot. Anon2 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yep. Like taking no evidence and asserting that Apollo didn't happen. Wahkeenah 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? We're not talking about evidence here, Wahkeenah. It's about imagination. That's all it takes. Anon2 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. The conspiracists' use their imaginations to make up for their lack of knowledge about science and technology. Wahkeenah 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It takes imagination to see a flag flapping in a still photograph. Bubba73 (talk), 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam,

Class G12 is doing its project work on space this term. Our teacher Mr Thomas says that our debate topic should be about whether we really went to the moon. I am in charge of the team that is debating that we did not go. Please could you help me to find information for this. Thank you very much, Juliw, Class G12.

• What is a nice, polite person like you doing in a disputed page like this? :) Well, your team should find some arguments by exploring this site with links. For your school project I may suggest that you check out the following link, to a fairly balanced site. I copy the general conclusion: "Despite several science based web sites intent on countering the conspiracy theorists, it is still possible to find what seem to be significant unanswered questions on the web. A reasonable person may conclude that 1. There are too few scientists willing to answer questions from the public about this historic experience, 2. It is disappointing and curious that NASA does not have an official open question and answer forum as a means of teaching science and generating interest in the US space program, 3. Some unanswered questions cast reasonable doubt on the official story." Your team should find some arguments to use here: http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003.htm

(Axlalta 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

What an incredibly ignorant website! I'll quote their first "unanswered question":

Gravity of Moon Doesn't Fit Neutral Point -- In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon. A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said "At a point of 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant" In 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles. The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%. A moon with 64% of Earth's gravity would require way more fuel and power than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions. -- STATUS -- AS YET UNANSERED

The surface gravity of the Earth and Moon don't have anything to do with the neutral point. The neutral point depends only on the individual masses. The surface gravity also depends on the radius of the body. Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And another thing - the distance to the neutral point varies, because the distance between the Earth and Moon varies. Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the neutral point depends only on the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, and the distance between them (which varies by a significant amount). The surface gravity of the moon depends only on the mass of the moon and the radius of the moon. The mass of the earth and the distance to earth have nothing to do with it. Secondly, spacecraft don't go on a straigt line from the earth to the moon. Finally, when they say "200,000 miles" - that is a rounded number, not exact. Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When debating against the moon landing, your best strategy is to overwhelm your opponent with questions about details and minutia. Never provide answers, even if you know them. NASA had thousands of people solving problems and working out details of the trip - it's not humanly possible for one person to know every answer to every problem they foresaw and solved. Even if your opponent knows the answers to all your questions, you will notice that the answers are usually much longer then the questions. If both you and your opponent are given equal time, you'll be able to ask far more questions then your opponent can answer. Then you can talk about all the unanswered questions! Algr 07:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another advantage you'll have is that a question can't be 'wrong' - only an answer can. This means that you can make up any question you want, and your opponent has to do all the research of finding the answer. Algr 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cynics "R" Us. 0:) Wahkeenah 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I think that hardly any Moon hoax advocates really believe in their own theory. Like FGJ, they just want to stir up trouble. My own pet theory is that the purpose of the moon hoax is to discredit other issues by association. "Oh those people who believe in / JFK assassination / Iraqi prisoner abuse / Global Warming are all just kooks like the moon hoax theorists." Algr 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do they even have their own theory? I've never seen one say "here's what we believe actually happened with the moon landing, and here is the evidence supporting it." Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As with most conspiracy theorists, they claim that because they are being discriminated against, they don't have the resources to come up with the correct explanation: they can only tell that the "official story" is wrong. This is another good tactic if you're going to debate on the side of the hoax proponents: keep your head above the clouds and simply say that NASA didn't go to the moon, and when someone asks what actually did happen claim that you cannot find out because NASA spends all their 15 billion dollars in resources maintaining the coverup, killing off people, preventing research dollars from getting to the true believers, etc. --ScienceApologist 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bomb fake too??

For some similar reasons, the atomic bomb may have been fake too. See webpage. Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• We can only hope. Wahkeenah 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• sometimes WP:NOR really really applies.Geni 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When scepticism goes overboard

This is to all the sceptics that have contributed to this article. Maybe it will change their mind.

To illustrate my point: only recently I was reading up on the Old Greeks. In one of their stories they write about having walked on the sun. Of course, initially I laughed, as I am naturally inclined to scepticism. Later, however, I began to think: what arrogance and what temerity of me to doubt that a people as intelligent and inventive, and as resourceful and imaginative as the Old Greeks could not have put a man on the sun. Of course, they lacked the computing power that was available in the nineteen sixties and seventies, let alone that of our age, but look at their imagination, their power of reasoning and their capacity for storytelling. They must have known hardship, and then be able to overcome that hardship with the proper will of mind and the right amount of can-do attitude. They must have known adversity and set-backs. And then managed to counter that all. And while I was pondering all this, I saw my mistake: never underestimate the power of the imagination. Even when rocket science was in its very early stages and the only computing power available to them amounted to no more than a few electrons running through a stick of amber rubbed against a piece of straw, the right amount of can-do attitude could have taken the Old Greeks to where they said they have gone. Putting a man on the surface of the sun may seem an impossible project for us people in the 21st century, to them it was a mere challenge and a truly achievable goal. There are times and situations where scepticism is due but there are also moments when it is totally misplaced and inappropriate. That is where scepticism goes overboard. Anon2 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They went there in fiery chariots. Wahkeenah 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this page a joke? Trepan 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. Wahkeenah 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a Japanese sattelite that had photographed the moon lander? Trepan 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, as of yet. You are probably thinking of SELENE, whose launch has been delayed. SELENE might be able to do it (I'm not sure). See this link. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, as discussed here before, photos (Clementine, I think) show something at the reported landing site of Apollo 15. Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Do we know what? Where can I download those photos. Definative proof would shut these idiots up. Trepan 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From back in the talk archive, here and here. Something disturbed the dust where the landing believers claim Apollo 15 landed, and it wasn't a meteor. Can't see for sure what it was, though. It may have been a secret unmanned landing to stir up dust. Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think so? I thought didn't think this was serious. How would you distinguish between the two? Trepan 22:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He's being funny. A segment of the moonbats are willing to concede we might have soft-landed unmanned missions on the moon as part of the "coverup". That explanation is a compromise, to try to explain observable facts (such as the lunar laser mirrors) that don't square with their "theory". Wahkeenah 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, trepan, I was trying to be funny. But even if we did have photos showing not only the lander, but even footprints, I don't it would convince everyone. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is not as much evidence as I thought there would be - I assumed this was a lunatic fringe theory, but, while I am not convinced, there are some serious questions. The article doesn't really reflect that. Trepan 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean there's not much evidence supporting the hoax claims, you're right. It is nearly a lunatic fringe theory, and all their questions have been answered. That doesn't stop them from asking those same questions over and over, though, and that's what keeps alive the mythology that somehow Apollo was a humbug. The conspiracists don't like having the questions answered in the article, because it undermines their "theory" and reduces the likelihood of recruiting new believers. Wahkeenah 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged article for POV check

I clicked on a link to this page just out of curiosity, and found the article to be rather POV - arguing against the hoax accusations. To be clear, I don't advocate any of the landing hoax arguments, but I think the article would better serve everyone if it didn't actively argue for one position. It should simply present which arguments are made by each side and who supports them. And just an asside, I don't think that making the article argue against the hoax accusations really helps that side of the debate. If anything, it actually makes it come off as too defensive. I think the best model would be that of the flat earth article - at least the last time I saw it. With absurd ideas, the article can be written completely NPOV and the facts will speak for themselves, so there's no need to argue the case. I'm thinking though that perhaps in this article and some others the POV problem may have arrisen from an over-correction of hoax POV-pushers. But two wrongs don't make a right and we need more fair minded and unbiased editors to maintain NPOV. ENpeeOHvee 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that both sides are presented. There are plenty of pro-hoax arguements given. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of both sides being presented, but neither one should be *asserted* by Wikipedia. For example, where the article reads: "The idea that the Moon landings were staged has become a classic example of the improbable theories that a small minority support with more zeal than logic." While I'm not an expert on this issue, that assessment seems pretty on-the-mark to me, but that's my point of view. We can objectively state that these views (that the landing was a hoax) are held by only a small minority, but NPOV demands that Wikipedia not assert whether or not they're "logical." You and I might both think they're illogical, but that's our point of view, not Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Of course if we presented this point of view as someone's opinion, say by quoting someone at NASA who said something to this effect then that would be fine, but it's just not ok for Wikipedia to assert it. The issue here isn't my POV - real or conjectured - or your POV, it's maintaining Wikipedia's NPOV. ENpeeOHvee 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence does seem POV. I haven't read the entire article in quite some time. Can't really keep reading it over and over, I try to watch the changes. But even then I get tired of doing that for some periods of time. Bubba73 (talk), 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the conspiracists usual trick - they object if both sides are presented. They only want their side presented, so that the casual reader will think there are no answers to the questions they raise. If you only present the conspiracists' side, as that user argues for, then the article becomes POV. Wahkeenah 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah - please observe civility and assume good faith. If you actually read what I wrote then you'll see that your name-calling is not only uncivil but untrue. Thank you. ENpeeOHvee 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only referring to conspiracists in general. I did read what you wrote. And I agree that editorial comments like the one you cited about "more zeal than logic" don't belong, because then the article is telling the reader what to think. However, we've had some writers complain that even addressing the questions the conspiracists raise was somehow "not neutral", that in essence we should just list the questions. And that is point-of-view, because it implies that there are no explanations, and it serves to "recruit" naive new members into this parallel universe called the "Moon Hoax Theory". So, definitely take out the editorializing, but don't leave the questions unchallenged, and that should keep things fairly neutral... Until the next zealot (from either side) comes along and starts editorializing again. If you were to look at the history of this page for the last 6 months or so, it would boggle your mind how much edit fighting has gone on as various folks have weighed into it from time to time. Wahkeenah 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when it comes to NPOV, this article is shameful for Wikipedia. I looked at the flat earth article wich was referred to, and it could be an example to follow. It just refers to the "flat earth view" on a matter of fact basis, without any POV regarding those arguments. The arguments pointing towards the Apollo program beeing the greatest hoax ever, could be presented in such a way. The Wikipedia have a lot of articles about the Apollo program which are in accordance with the official story, so this single page could be presented in a standard NPOV way. Axlalta 13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are naturally some differences with Flat Earth. There aren't very many people who believe in the Flat Earth theory today, whereas there are millions who believe the moon landings were a hoax. (Actually the Wikipedia article says that the Flat Earth Society is defunct.) The Flat Earth theory is not pushed in the media whereas the landing hoax theory is widely pushed. The Flat Earth people don't have this long list of points that needs to be examined. Bubba73 (talk), 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Flat Earth article states over and over again that the notion of the flat earth is bogus. If you want to use that approach as a model for the "Moon Hoax Theory" page, i.e. to say that the idea that we didn't go to the moon is equally bogus, go for it. Wahkeenah 13:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the Flat Earth article is showing great dicipline in NPOV. Bogus-claims? Maybe we interpret some sentences differently. Axlalta 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, ok, the Flat Earth article maybe not the best example. In that article it is interesting to see how mankind gradually accepted that the earth was not flat. Then you have to mention the historical arguments in favour of planet earth.Axlalta 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • They don't literally use the word "bogus". They use words like "misconception", which is a politer way of saying the same thing. Maybe a better analogy with the "moon hoax" stuff would be the "ancient astronauts" idea that was circulating in the early 1970s or so. This writer, Erich von Däniken, cooked up the idea that strange visitors from other planets had somehow lent a hand in the building of the Egyptian pyramids, for example. The basis of his argument was that it just didn't seem possible that the Egyptians had the know-how to do it themselves. Sound familiar? The same argument is used by the conspiracists to claim that we couldn't possibly have had the technology to go to the moon... despite concessions (by some of them, anyway) that we could have soft-landed unmanned missions on the moon. You can take out the patronizing editorializing from the article, as long as you leave in the question-and-answer stuff, because if you leave only the questions then you have an inherently biased article. Although it's true that Apollo has plenty of coverage, it does not necessarily address the specific questions. Wahkeenah 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I just thought of a compromise solution. Maybe you could have a short article defining what the hoax is, and be done with it. Then have a separate article with the questions-and-answers, and the plethora of links. Wahkeenah 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, some think that organized religion is the greatest hoax ever. If so, that would make the alleged Apollo "hoax" fairly small. Wahkeenah 13:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agee with EnnPeeOhVee - After looking at this, and reading the external references, it does deserve to be treated with neutrality - Wikipedia should not take a side. Trepan 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There was one sentence that I think we all agreed was POV, and that has been changed. As far as external links, there are three to pro-hoax videos, 10 to pro-hoax websites, and 13 to hoax-debunking swebsites. 13 to 13. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the links are fine - I'm just saying that, having read the links, the article favors the NASA story much too much. It makes it sound that there is no doubt, and no unanswered questions. Trepan 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to pose some unanswered questions, if you can find any. That was the core issue in one of the recent debates by someone (since blocked by the Admins) who kept yelping about the lack of "neutrality" of the article but was unwilling to actually contribute anything to the article other than editorializing. In my view, the article gives too much slack to the conspiracists. You need to study how they operate. They start with a basic premise, that the government is lying. Everything after that goes back to that premise. Any question given a reasonable answer is challenged on the grounds that it's NASA's answer, and NASA is lying, therefore the answer is invalid. It's a classic case of circular "reasoning". They have never found any actual evidence, no "confession" or direct physical evidence, to support their notion that the historical record of the Apollo flights is fraudulent. So they spend their time looking for "clues" that support their premise, discarding anything that appears to be in order, zeroing in on oddities and claiming that as "evidence" that the Apollo program was a fraud. If you've ever seen that 2001 Fox documentary, you could see what I'm getting at. The moon hoax "theory" is a combination of poor reasoning, ignorance, and willful distortion. Wahkeenah 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About unanswered questions, the website that has the "unanswered question about surface gravity and the neutral point - it has some more "unanswered questions", but many are so strange that it is hard to believe that they are serious. (1) Apollo 6 didn't make it into orbit, etc. But Apollo 6 did make it into orbit... (2) In 1969 the US launched a monkey, and it didn't live for 8.5 days, do how could they keep men alive for that long? First, I'm not aware of the US putting up a monkey after John Glenn's flight, but even if a monkey dies - so what? Prior to Apollo, Gemini 5 stayed up for 8 days, and Gemini 7 stayed for 14 days. After Apollo, we showed that people could live in space for months (at least). But it is hard to think of these "unanswered questions" as serious. Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you post them and then shoot them down, the cons will claim you're trying to make them look foolish (like we have to try very hard). And if you don't post them, then the cons will claim you're hiding something. It's win-win for them. Wahkeenah 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Real life favours the 'NASA story' and that can't be helped. Can we take down the NPOV tag yet? --Guinnog 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look NPOV yet to me. Trepan 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You could try fixing it, or you could list your proposed fixes here for discussion. Wahkeenah 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trouble, I expect, is how to neutralize an article whose premise is a fraud. Wahkeenah 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We have another controversial topic which for the time beeing seems to be NPOV despite trolling, ridicule and such on the talk page, a conspiracy theory held by a small minority. Talking about the 9/11 inside job theory in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories Still the article is very tidy and informative IMO. No need for a intro like "nearly all experts have rejected the theory as baseless" or other biased POV's. Axlalta 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching that one. Or maybe I could right a parallel piece about how Pearl Harbor was also a D.C. based conspiracy. You think that's a joke? Afraid not. That was a popular underground opinion for years, mostly among isolationists and Republicans and FDR-haters. Wahkeenah 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice it uses the term "conspiracy theory" several times. That verbiage is also used in this article, and that one user claimed that the term was inherently POV. Wahkeenah 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Glancing through it, there also seems to be plenty of point-counterpoint, not just giving the conspiracists their say without responding. That's what this article does also. However, some of the editorializing is a bit like a sledgehammer. Wahkeenah 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We should stick to the topic on hand. Trepan 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic is whether the article is neutral. The user above says the 9/11 article is neutral. Yet it uses the term "conspiracy theory". So is it really any more neutral than this one is? Wahkeenah 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the 911 page. This page is not written from a neutral point of view. It is far too opinionated. It should present the facts, not try to make up our mind. Trepan 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the last guy's complaint, but he wouldn't do anything to help the article. So what's stopping you from trying to fix the problem? How about you list the Top 5 specific things that you think should be changed. Wahkeenah 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The last guy? You bully people who try to npov the article till they leave? Sure - I'll have a go - all instances where the article draws it's own conclusion on the facts, all of the nonsense sections like 'burden of proof' and 'conspiracy theory'. Trepan 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read some of his rants and you'll understand better. He wouldn't discuss anything, he just kept changing, reverting, arguing... and it turned out he didn't believe in the moon hoax "theory" either, he was just getting his kicks from arguing, and that's why he was banned by the Admins. So, since you seem to have serious complaints about the article, you need to offer concrete improvements, which you've started to to do. However, please explain why you think this does not qualify as a classic "conspiracy theory"? Wahkeenah 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the term "conspiracy theory" was a neutral, describing term, until I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1 The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors. It is a negatively biased term which should be avoided in articles which aim to have a NPOV, including this. If it was a neutral term the chapter "Conspiracy theory" would also be totally unneccesary in this article. It would be like having an article about "Spaghetti" with a chapter explaining that it comes under the term "Food". Axlalta 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the term "conspiracy theory" as being polite. In the past, these things were called "crackpot theories" or "crackpot ideas". People who believed in them were called cranks or crackpots, not "conspitacy theorists". I think CT is pollitically correct, even. Bubba73 (talk), 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to weed it out of all other articles that talk about things being "conspiracy theories". Or, as a compromise, rather than restating what it is, there could be link under "See also" to the "conspiracy theory" page. Wahkeenah 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is bad form, but I hope this comment I left on For Great Justice's talk page sheds light on this issue:

As a onetime wrestler in the pit of the Conspiracy theory article, I recognise For great justice's point, here; it comes up daily over there. It's not 100% true, but it ain't 100% false either. Conspiracy theory does certainly mean a narrative with a particular kind of credibility problem, ie, if someone supposes that narrative to be true, they're right to be offended by the label (but perhaps wrong to leap to the offensive, themselves). The question is whether or not we can justify its use over the objections of the true believer. If it's used carelessly, it's simply a pejorative term - For great justice's right as far as that goes. But if it's used in defined circumstances - ie, when a particular belief has been demonstrated to have certain regularly occurring features which each subtract from the credibility of the belief - then Conspiracy theory may be legitimately ascribed to that belief. The true believer may object, but then, they would, wouldn't they? 'Hope that helps.

Adhib

There are many reliable sources that say we went to the moon. There are no reliable sources that say we did not. It's not neutrality to pretend otherwise. This page is not about whether we went to the moon, and it's not a forum for presenting arguments on both sides. That question doesn't have two sides. If there are to be two sides presented on this page, they are the scholars who think the hoax accusations are primarily a sociological phenomanon, versus those who think it's primarily psychological. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• You might as well take it down. That one guy posted it, but then wouldn't do anything to "neutralize" (or "neuter") the article, so it might as well go. Wahkeenah 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic show

Everyone should see this show. It airs again: Monday, July 17, 8:00P; Monday, July 17, 11P

The Soviets Never Reached The Moon

I find it strange there's no reference to the Soviets never reaching the moon. I added this reference and it was promptly deleted. If we can put in that the Soviet never cried fould we can also put in that they were never able to make it there (which brings some doubt as to whether we were able to since they beat us into space and logically would have at least eventually had the capability if we did.) User:165.200.82.195 14:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that they never reached the moon is well-known, and has nothing to do with whether the U.S. reached the moon or not. Wahkeenah 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• I take it back. I reworded it a little to make the point clearer. Wahkeenah 16:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it once, because it is irrelevant as to whether or not Apollo went to the moon. If my neighbor never made it to Disney World, does that mean that I didn't make it there? If you study history, the USSR had many of the early space successes. But by the middle of Gemini program, we were ahead. They were planning for a moon landing about 1974. Their big N-1 rocket blew up a couple of times, and they canceled the program. They never announced that they were going to the moon by a certain date, or were going to beat us there. Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Russians had the same means and the ambition to go to the moon as us. If your neighbor had the same means and ambition as you to go to Disneyland and you did go, most likely they would as well- especially if they were jealous of your trip and had pride at stake. It's not concrete proof that you lied about going there because you claimed you did and had motive to lie about it while he couldn't make it no matter how hard he tried, but it's still a point worth noting. User:66.41.190.30 00:59 - 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your initial assumption would be incorrect. The U.S. economy was and is much stronger, and their technology and luck proved to be inferior as well. As Bubba points out, the U.S. started out behind, and then caught and passed them by 1964 or 1965. Their timetable for a lunar landing was 1974. Maybe they would have made it. But they had some launch-pad disasters, and they gave up. The U.S. could have given up after the Apollo I fire, but there was a national priority (i.e. budgetary money) to fix the problems and continue. If the Saturn V had exploded on takeoff of Apollo 8, that might have killed the program. But it didn't, and it didn't. Wahkeenah 01:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're right. I think the anon user was trying to make the point that if they didn't make it, how did we, which is invalid logic. However, he did put me on to the idea that since the Soviets didn't make it, their jealousy of the U.S. would have been part of their motivation to blow the whistle on us if they suspected it. Maybe that's overkill, and it's certainly not the point the anon was trying to make. You could take it out again if you think it's redundant or perhaps too speculative. Wahkeenah 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is already covered on the Space Race article, which is wikilinked in the Motives section. There's not much more to say beyond that. MFNickster 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Leadoff photo

The first photo, the one that the flat earthers use, shouldn't be the first photo... there are many more logical reasons to presume the landings were faked - not that i think they were - than this one, which is utterly daft. Saccerzd 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's one of the most famous images from the Apollo era, and it also illustrates the "Where are the stars?" question, one of the many spurious arguments used by the conspiracists. However, if you have a better suggestion, feel free to bring it up. Wahkeenah 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind could call this article neutral

Nobody in their right mind could call this article neutral: "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless," "hoax proponents tend to respond to them by changing the subject, or finding a new audience," "Hoax accusation opponents maintain that a key feature of all arguments questioning the moon landing is the unstated assumption that the burden of proof lies entirely with NASA and its supporters. [1] Hoax proponents' presentations often consist of questioning technical minutiae with the result that debunkers must research and answer all questions that the hoax proponents come up with, failure to do so being taken as proof of a moon landing hoax." "The accusations are a type of conspiracy theory, because the hoax argument centers on claims that conspirators in the possession of secret knowledge are misleading the public in pursuit of a hidden agenda," etc.

The whole article reads from the point of view that the landing did occur and those who question it are wrong and illogical. This is not neutral.

Why would anybody even object to the Neutral POV tag being placed on this article is beyond me, it is so obviously biased. Fromos 22 June 2006

• You have a point, and you need to propose specific changes, which you have started to do. There is indeed too much editorializing. But you should thoroughly list your proposed changes here rather than starting another futile edit war as other complainants have done. For one thing, almost every statement you cite as being POV is demonstrably true. That doesn't mean it couldn't be re-worded to come across less whiney. Wahkeenah 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, too much editorializing. On the other hand, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight this says not to give undue weight to small minority opinions. I don't believe that it reads from the POV that the landing occurred - it fairly examines each of the cliams of the hoax proponents. In other words, it doesn't assume that the landing occurred. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. The article does not necessarily prove the landings occurred, it merely demonstrates that the hoaxsters' claims don't wash. As I've said before at least once, I started to watch that 2001 Fox special with some interest, to see what they had. When I saw their so-called "evidence", I knew this "hoax" claim was the real hoax. Wahkeenah 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but Wahkeenah, has no-one ever suggested providing an Apollo hoax hoax page, telling the story of how Apollo hoax believers have been gulled? Adhib 11:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And I say again (and again) that those who complain about the "biased" nature of the article just want the one side presented without responses, giving the false impression that their questions have baffled the scientific community. The one-sided-claiming-to-be-neutral approach is the typical conspiracist agenda. Wahkeenah 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, neutral does not mean making each side sound equally plausible. It means holding each side up to equal scrutiny. If we simply list arguments and counter-arguments, then the article becomes it's own subject. Algr 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that before. That's a generality. You need to define precisely how you think the article should be re-written. Wahkeenah 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See, here's the problem... you get these guys coming here and whining "It's POV! It's POV!" But their idea of "neutrality" is to present the questions without the responses. They don't want a "neutral" article. They want an article that presents only their side. If you've got a resolution to that problem, by all means present it. Wahkeenah 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no resolution to the issue so long as Apollo deniers reject (or ignore) the possibility that their argument might fall under the vital prohibition Bubba reminds of in the definition of NPOV - ie, our duty to ensure that we do not give undue weight to crackpot ideas. The Apollo moon landing hoax accusation is just such an idea.

The only good reason I can see for including it in wikipedia is to consider it in terms of its being an interesting sociological phenomenon. As the article stands, for me it's too accommodating to the deniers, treating their story as if it required logical interrogation. To me, that's the wrong mode of response for myths and legends - an encyclopedic response to the story of the Gorgon Medusa would not be to set out the impossibility of having hair made of snakes, but to investigate what those elements in the story signified for those engaged in that particular bit of "oral history". We can make some statements about that - ones which don't mistake the item under scrutiny for something that it's not. Adhib 11:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're right on the money. Conspiracy theories in general are a sociological phenomenon. That's the reason cons get so upset about that label, because it says something about them, it hits too close to home. It personalizes it. It implicitly calls them crackpots and looneys. Thus it is also shaky ground given the wiki POV policy. When and if we go back to the moon and find the old relics, that will shut up most of the cons, although there will always be a few disbelievers no matter what the evidence. They will eventually fade just like the Flat Earth Society did. Meanwhile, I think it is fair to present the questions and answers. It serves an educational purpose in terms of better understanding the Apollo missions. It is important to maintain an open mind until the facts become clear. When that 2001 Fox con show aired, I was curious to see what they had. I was willing to accept the possibility that the Apollo program was a fraud, if they had some evidence. I quickly realized how fraudulent that show was, I knew that the whole idea that we never went to the moon had to be nothing more than the product of ignorance, and as I have since come to believe, willful deception; the hoax story is the real hoax, and many who seem otherwise intelligent have bought into it, as they did not live through that time and thus did not follow it day by day to understand its continuity; and have not studied it sufficiently to realize that the hoax claims are a con. I also strongly suspect that many of them don't even care about the facts. It's just a game. Now, do we need a separate "the hoax is a hoax" page? Probably not. We don't need any additional lightning rod pages. :) Wahkeenah 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting note about Fox is that they aired the Alien Autopsy film as if it were real. Then later they had a show saying that the film was a hoax! Bubba73 (talk), 05:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

please remove word "interested" from intro.

Please remove the word "interested" from the sentence "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless." The second half of the sentence is sufficient to establish which scientists, etc we are talking about, however the word "interested" unfortunately also means "having a stake in the matter"; a party with interest in the matter means something different from a party who finds it interesting. This word casts a shadow of prejudice over the views of these scientists, etc., since it implies that their comments reflect in large part their personal interest in the matter. (Especially since the word "interested" is the first qualifier). Please remove just this one word.

Thank you.

User:82.131.188.6 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's stated that way for a specific reason. It means that nearly all scientists who have been sufficiently interested in the story to state an opinion have drawn that conclusion. Being interested in something is not the same thing as having an interest in it. And in normal English usage, "interested" the way it's stated would mean "being interested". If it meant "having an interest in" something, it would be stated that way. Wahkeenah 14:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assert that "interested" adds something that the second half of the sentence ("who have commented on the accusations") does not. In your opinion can a scientist choose to comment on the hoax without being "interested" in it? Otherwise it's a very weird qualification: Not nearly all interested scientists etc who have commented on the hoax, but nearly all scientists etc who have commented on the hoax...! BTW, "normal English usage" is not "encyclopedic English usage", as I hope you'll readily grant that "interested" especially means "interested party" in an encyclopedia. BTW, even if we take interested to mean "finding interesting" it still casts a aspersions over the sentence, since it implies the group is self-selecting! This is an unnecessary implication: it doesn't matter that a scientist takes an interest in something, it just matters that they comment on it in an official capacity. Of course, the only reason any self-reflecting scientist would become interested in, for example, numerology, so that they could take the time to inform the people who believe in it that numerological coincidences are of no predictive (etc) value. But the point is that it's not just that the scientist takes an "interest" in debunking (the only reason a scientist should be interested in non-science is for the sake of debunking) but rather without necessarily showing interest a scientist can comment on the fact. Can you at least see how "interested" implies a significant and superfluous self-selecting criterion?

User:82.131.188.6 15:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• No. First, sign your post with four tildes, even though you're anon, so it's clear where one thought stops and another starts. Second, you might be right that it's redundant, and is probably one of the many compromises in this article. Rather than telling someone else to change it, you should do it yourself. Then you can wait for the next round of arguments. Third, don't be lecturing me about English "encyclopedic" usage. Some bozo was recently arguing that "proper" English usage would say "The Yankees is" rather than "The Yankees are". Needless to say, he was shot down quickly, by those of us who speak and write "normal" English. If you want what you consider "encyclopedic" English on this wide-open weblog, you'll have to change the rules dramatically. Wahkeenah 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget Flat Earth - consider this model for achieving neutrality

If we're casting around the 'pedia for examples of other articles which manage to handle a fierce controversy in an encyclopaedic way, have we given proper consideration yet to the Holocaust denial example? Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming Apollo deniers are (quite) as emotive and cranky as Holocaust deniers. But the approach that article takes might prove helpful - treating the narrative itself as the primary subject for investigation (when it started, what its features are, who developed and upheld it), and hiving off the arguments within the narrative to a separate space. Even if y'all disagree, at the very least it might be useful to ask Apollo deniers: "In what respect does your method of enquiry differ from those used by holocaust deniers?" That could take us to the heart of the issue a bit more niftily? Jus' a thought. Adhib 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, I'll consider it some more later. A difference, though, is that one claim is that the landing was faked, the other is that the holocost never happened or was greatly exagurated. My initial response is that it might be good. However, several years ago I went to a debate about creationism versus evolution. The creationist spoke first. The evolutionists presented the case for evolution, but they didn't respond to the creationist point by point. I thought it would have been better to respond to each point. Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These are both valid comparisons with this issue. In all three cases, people falsify the truth for politically driven reasons. --Guinnog 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just political, it's of a religious nature, or nearly so (fully so, in the case of the evolution debate). Wahkeenah 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In this sense, politics and religion are as one. --Guinnog 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Telemetry Tapes Missing

"In what respect does your method of enquiry differ from those used by holocaust deniers?"

Well, maybe by showing that the telemetry tapes are missing: Telemetry tapes missing (video) Anon2

And now you've come to mention the holocaust: NASA/Nazi scientists (video) Anon2 01:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps the sentence you've quoted didn't mean to you what it meant to me - I was specifically asking how the methodology by which Apollo deniers construct their argument differs from that used by Holocaust deniers. This was not to request another round of empirical evidences - a committed denier can extend the set of all possible disproofs ad infinitum as each previous disproof is shown to hold zero credibility - but rather to point out that the Apollo denier's method, their way of approaching the issue, is startlingly similar to that of Holocaust deniers who, one year, demand an explanation of the concentrations of Prussic acid salvaged from the rubble of the gas chambers, and the next prefer to concentrate on documents 'revealing' emigration numbers not adding up, or whatever. That is, they (you?) light upon whichever scrap of evidence seems most likely to confirm their pre-existing beliefs, today, and only stick by it so long as there's nothing more credible available. In this, the method is quite unlike a scientific method, in which one constructs a hypothesis and then seeks ways to disprove it. So I'll ask again - in what ways do the methods of enquiry of Apollo deniers differ from those of Holocaust denial? Surely there must be something, folks? Or else, why are we even giving this stuff 5 minutes of serious treatment? Adhib 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When we went to Disney World, every five minutes I wrote down the milage, engine temperature, and oil pressure. Every time we stopped for gas, I wrote down the number of gallons bought, the price, and the tire pressure. Now that paper is missing. Therefore that proves that I didn't go to Disney World! Bubba73 (talk), 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Disney World, right. Anon2 20:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Horrible argument by Bubba73. LOL. Comparing going to the moon with going to disney world? One is the greatest supposed achievement of mankind and another is a family trip to florida. Seriously.Noodle boy 10:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A federal agency loosing important information? Unheard of! Algr

It never happens at the Veterans' Administration, for example. Wahkeenah 06:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This would be more like Lewis and Clark coming back from the Oregon Trail and syaing they'd "lost" the maps and journals. Trendline 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that I don't see the bearing of missing telemetry tapes. If they're missing, hoax believers will say that something is wrong. If they're not missing, hoax believers will say they are fake. Telemetry is just data on mechanical issues. As Krantz said, even if we had the tapes, we probably don't haqve anything capable of reading them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel confident to speak for hoax proponents. I don't suppose you can quote any of them to support your accusation? Trendline 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoax believers say all of the evidence is fake. If any of it is real, then the whole hoax theory goes out the window. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. it may only be Apollo 11's telemetry tapes that are missing, but I haven't been able to confirm that. When I googled about this, "Apollo 11" came up in almost all of the hits. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, even though the Saturn blueprints are not missing (contrary to the urban legend) - what if they were missing? Would that mean that the Saturn V never existed? You can see a Saturn V at (1) Kennedy Space Center, (2) Marshall Space Flight Center, and (3) Johnson Space Flight Center. Even if the blueprints were missing, there is plenty of evidence that the Saturn V did exist - photos, film, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stick to the issue

It seems to me that authors are confusing two issues:

• describing the existing debate, which is out there.
• winning the debate, here on wiki

Please folks, let us focus on the first. Give a fair, unbiased description of arguments, and especially, events, such as publications of books and films. You will find you will only be able to do so, if you let go of your own opinion of whether Apollo landed on the moon - or not. At least for the time you're editing. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• It has become clear that it is almost not possible to separate the two. Wahkeenah 11:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More problematically, Xiutwel, there is disagreement over whether there is a debate, at all: Apollo deniers say that the topic is controversial - whereas the majority of us find even that claim false, just as we would for Holocaust deniers. There's no 'debate' about the fact of the Holocaust, only a confusion on some people's behalf. So to engage in a 'debate' with Apollo deniers may already be to be mistaking the nature of the conversation one is engaging in. Adhib 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the reason NASA stopped talking about it. It was like spitting into the wind. The hoaxsters, of course, argue that NASA's refusal to debate these yahoos any more is "evidence". Wahkeenah 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Xiutwel is right. Stop arguing about it. You must describe what other people say, not write your own opinions. Also, you are ver close to loosing the argument based on Godwin's Law. Trendline 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wahkeenah 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Trendline," I raise the Holocaust denial example, not to smear Apollo deniers as potential Nazis (though, now you mention it .... No, I really don't see any need to go there), but to recommend a potential editorial solution to the problem of there being some facts which a few people (who insist on contributing to the 'pedia) find themselves readily confused about. Their confusion does not constitute a debate - it's an artefact of a certain species of credulity, one which has its basis in poor methodology. To treat their poor grasp of reality as a debate is to grant it a status I'm yet to be convinced it deserves. Adhib 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to be able to label anyone you disagree with as confused. Trendline 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, in my experience. Those I disagree with because they have a serious, considered, coherent belief system which is not in accord with my own - those I find it eminently possible to do business with. It's the ones whose belief system lacks all seriousness, method or coherence that make shared tasks such as the 'pedia so onerous. Perhaps I misconstrue Apollo deniers, and there's a coherence there I'm missing. Somehow, they've managed to keep it to themselves, here. Do you fancy addressing the methodological issue, Trendline? Adhib 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, since it's not my point of view that matters, but those involved in the controversy. I think the problem that you're talking about is that the public does not have access to all the facts. It's like the police finding a body, and immediately saying 'there's nothing to see here, we don't have a full explanation of what happened. The reason people think there is a problem is because of a series of inconsistencies in NASA's story. The fact that critics can't yet piece together exactly how they pulled the hoax off is not the point. Trendline 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The "series of inconsistencies" you allege in "NASA's story" is different from the "series of inconsistencies" deniers have singled out in the Holocaust story how, exactly? If your group of "those involved in the controvery" (my "tragically confused" group) are right to demand that their position be treated more seriously than that of Holocaust deniers, there must be some qualitative difference between the two sets of allegations, ie, between how the case is assembled by each. Until such distinction is made, Apollo boosters are quite right to consider both as examples of a particular species of confusion that arises when a certain type of enquirer gets out of their depth in a complex field which has emotional or political significance for them. Adhib 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison to Nazi groups is inapropriate, and weakens your position. I will not engage any further with people who insist on lowering the level of the discussion to slinging accusations about holocaust denial. If you have anything about the moon hoax you want to discuss, let's talk about it. Trendline 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of facts available to the public, you just don't want to believe them. The point is not to compare Nazis with hoaxsters, only to compare their "reasoning" methods: They start with a premise, a specific agenda; then they select specific apparent oddities, and also willfully distort evidence, in order to build a false case based on their premise. Wahkeenah 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So you have a question about methodology, not Nazis. Let's stick to the point, and avoid completely stupid and emotive analogies. Trendline 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Emotive only to you, because you don't seem to quite understand what the writer of those comments (which wasn't me) is getting at. However, I can't argue that comparing it to the Holocaust "reasoning" is a bit of a hot button. Maybe a safer analogy would be those who believe in the Bermuda Triangle "mystery", even though there really is no mystery. Wahkeenah 05:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for allowing two issues to get muddled, here. Please allow me to separate them out, clearly:

• (a) There is a recognisable pattern to the way certain disreputable 'alternative' histories' are constructed - ie, their methodology. The pattern includes features characteristic of the process by which conspiracy theories are created, typified by the production of a set of discrete empirical 'challenges' which, though individually rebuttable, may be extended by the diligent and resourceful 'sceptic' to a potentially infinite series. Conclusion: if you wish to argue for the revision of the mainstream history of man's space exploration, to claim that Apollo was a hoax, it would be prudent to distinguish your method from that preferred by producers of such discredited stories.
• (b) If you are interested in neither 'side' of the Apollo 'debate', but simply seek to find a better editorial solution to the evident problem of including it in the encyclopaedia, there are models for solving the problem available from wikipedia's successful treatment of other such 'alternative history' narratives. In one case, whose specific features have no necessary bearing on this topic, the working solution is to devote the "x accusation" article to an account of the narrative itself as a cultural object, charting its emergence and development. Discussions integral to that narrative are then decanted into a separate article, entitled "Examination of x discussions". This editorial solution is proving stable in the highly contested example cited.

Adhib 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate for a discussion forum - this page is not for the two sides to debate, but for us to document what the sides say. Your idea might be welcome on the Bad Astronomy forums though. Carfiend 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Carfiend. Ideally, what we should be discussing here is best editorial practice (to which my 'b' is addressed). I'm not convinced this page should simply document what the sides say - there's demonstrably a significant undue weight issue there. Adhib 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that undue weight does apply here. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)" That's fine - the Apollo page does not even refer to this (although it probably should), but links in the See also. It goes on to say "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.". So I think you're fine here with as much detail as we can give. Carfiend 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying there's a place for all this philosophizin. I'm just urging my fellow editors to consider the model established in one relevant case, by which the material is primarily considered encyclopaedically, as a cultural phenomenon with certain features and a specific history, with its internal 'controversies' hived-off to an "Examination of the claims of ..." type element.

My reasoning is, roughly, that without such editorial packaging, people seeking to have their alternative opinions taken seriously will forever stumble onto this page and consider (perhaps rightly) that it is the place wikipedia provides for doing just that. I know I have been guilty of that at times in my contributions to the 'pedia, and I assume that few of us could claim complete selflessness, either? So it matters that wikipedia adopts appropriate forms to channel such impulses in such a way that they are accommodated, but do not undermine the credibility of the resource. Adhib 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

research: Donald Rumsfeld

I have seen Donald Rumsfeld, present White House member, admitting the Moon landing was a hoax.

I'be also seen him suggesting he was joking.

Both were in the same TV-program: Opération lune (2002) (TV)

Please, someone upload this video onto the net, and please, someone bring in Rumsfeld for questioning. :) Maybe that way we can shed some light on the issue. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You could post that next to the famous vid-cap of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Both of those bits would add equally to this article's value. Wahkeenah 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA says that they have a "vision of sending men to the moon"

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=4FBD8386-9129-4D08-AE1E-C0102CC592B2&f=imbot_us_m_2534&fg=copy

"Ares is a name that refers to mars and it connects to our vision of going to the moon mars and beyond."

Scott Horowitz, Nasa exploration systems

Freudian Slip? I think it's painfully obvious that those in the know are aware of the technical hurdles of landing men on the moon. This reminds me of watching NASA chief Dan Golden say in a TV interview that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention, or reference to the Apollo missions 37 years ago. Another freudian slip? lol. Noodle boy 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, they have a vision of merely making a successful shuttle launch. As memories of the shuttle program begin to fade, it's beginning to look like that was a hoax, too, ja? Wahkeenah 10:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, although it is interesting that when they try to launch shuttles into earth orbit, it seems much harder than it was to 'go to the moon'... Trendline 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think it was easy to go to the moon, you haven't ready much about the history of Apollo. And the specific problems which caused two shuttles to explode weren't issues with the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo launches and landings as such. There were no side-by-size stages in which the flame from one could pierce the other; and there were no tiles on the capsules which could be banged into and dislodged by foam from a rocket. The point being that the shuttle and its accessories are rather more complex machines than Mercury-Gemini-Apollo machines were... which stands to reason, as they are part of the continuum, the evolution, of the NASA programs. Wahkeenah 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Radiation inconsistensy in text

"Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. [15]"

"The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of 36 of the Apollo astronauts have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. (see Ms. Irene Schneider on The Space Show). (Plait 2002:160-162)"

This is strange and dubious. On the one hand it's suggested that the dosage is the same as an ordinary XRay exam. On the other that the fact that the astronauts developed cataracts was caused by this radiation. Since XRay exams are so common, many people should develop cataracts due to them which would pretty much render the fact that the astronauts have cataracts as irrelevant when proving that they did go to the Moon. This kind of reasoning, linking an health problem to the presence on the Moon is only valid if that health problem is unlikely to be caused by something else. Saying the dosage was the same as an XRay makes this link tenuous at best.

This needs further explanation (I think I know why this could be true, but would rather have someone with a more in depth knowledge to clear this).

cvalente 11:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is ridiculous. I think i'd rather listen to what MIT professors have to say then some dubious claims made by internet hackjobs. Pro Apollo sycophants seriously need to look at the issue more objectively.

"Solar Flares are produced by "storms" in the solar magnetosphere. These eruptions yield very high radiation doses within very short time periods (hours to days). There is a correlation with the 11 year solar cycle. The largest events occurring in the months following sunspot maximum. Solar flares are cataclysmic releases of energy resulting from processes that are poorly understood."

We went up to the moon during the peak of solar flare activity. Somehow, a single X-ray doesn't correlate with "very high radiation doses" quoted by the MIT professor.

http://paperairplane.mit.edu/16.423J/Space/SBE/introduction/SpaceEnvironment.pdfNoodle boy 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning that "more people should develop cataracts from X-rays" is also dubious. Your typical X-ray is of the chest, not the whole body, i.e. not including the eyes. However, someone with more knowledge of the subject should be writing this material about X-rays. Meanwhile... "Apollo sycophants"? As compared with "hoax claim sycophants"? Wahkeenah 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I put in most or all of the references to Plait, and the second paragraph in this section reads as if he made the statement about the cateracts. I don't believe he did, but I'll have to wait until I get home to check. Incidentally, no major flares occurred during an Apollo mission. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the link could be possible even with similar dosage if the radiation had very different characteristics. Regarding The reasoning that "more people should develop cataracts from X-rays" is also dubious. Your typical X-ray is of the chest, not the whole body, i.e. not including the eyes. It's a good argument, but the thing is you end up getting some radiation on parts that are not being examined. Doing several exams during ones lifetime may (I don't have the actual data, so this is but a guess) result in the effect described. Another thing, commercial flights also cause passangers to absorb some radiation, though not levels as high as pop culture seems to promote. Being well traveled people I suppose the astronauts have several thousand hours of airplane travel time. This is most likely be the equivalent of getting the uniform dosage you (rightfully) mentioned. I still think this link is tenuous at best. cvalente 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Film clip?

Someone added something about the various moon landings being "a" clip from a movie. You moon hoax believers might want to refine my edits a little more on that one. Wahkeenah 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that, plus I am not a believer of the bullshit, I believe that we landed, however I'm just filling in the dirt for both sides. And I have heard that the moon landing hoax believers say it was probably a series of clips from a movie that was filmed but then abandoned during it's editing process. Yet again, it's not something I believe, but it is an interesting information to put here. Falconleaf 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• It couldn't possibly be "a" clip from a movie. It could be many clips. I'm just saying it needs to be worded better. Gofer it. And wait for the next round of the Edit Wars. Wahkeenah 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone source that? I've never heard a suggestion that it was from a movie. Trendline 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to read more about this. It's one of the hoaxsters hypotheses. Wahkeenah 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but can you provide a reference to a hoax advocate who makes this hypothesis? Thanks! Trendline 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones?

"This view is by no means shared by all hoax proponents. Many hoax proponents have argued that America lacked the technology to soft-land on the moon." Trendline 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one wants to back this statement up, I'll go ahead and take it out. Trendline 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and implicitly argue that the hoaxsters agree we had the technology to soft-land on the moon, I've got no problem with that. It further undercuts their "theories" about the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything, just taking out unsourced speculation. Trendline 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with taking out unsourced speculation, and I appreciate your efforts. However, you give the impression of someone who has not studied the hoaxsters' arguments very much. You should read all of the stuff on this page and in some of the archives. You will then get a different picture of how the hoaxsters think. Everything Bubba says about them is true. Their belief in Apollo being a hoax is like a religion, in that no amount of evidence confirming the Apollo flights will sway them. Some of them, I think, even if you personally flew them to the moon and showed them the Apollo remnants, would say the trip they just took had been faked. Wahkeenah 05:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but our task here is to report the controversy using neutral, sourced references. Thanks! Trendline 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read all the references listed? --ScienceApologist 16:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I can't find one where people deny that soft landing is possible. Trendline 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Read some of the archives from the hoaxster cons. There might be some references listed, although it could just be their interpretations. Wahkeenah 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Science Apologist

I added a Hoax allegation link, to "hoax allegation links." I added a neutral BBC moon hoax link to the neutral links section. You would be hard pressed to find a more neutral point of view than the BBC link I posted. In fact I would encourage you to follow their standards regarding NPOV. If you would like to revert please have a cogent reason for doing so.24.7.34.99 10:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is not 'neutral' (read "pro NASA") enough for SA! Trendline 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Noodle boy, you added a vanity site. That type of promotionalism is simply not allowed. The BBC site wasn't precisely "neutral" as it entertained the hoax ideas far more than a neutral treatement would. --ScienceApologist 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is known for its scrupulous journalistic standards. They too are part of the conspiracy to smeer NASA now? It seems like only NASA is 'neutral' enough for ScienceApologist... Trendline 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

SA. Is that the best you can come up with? A BBC presentation of the moon hoax article being a vanity site? Who's vanity is being promoted may I ask? If you engage in harmful reverts yet once more I will report you for vandalism.Noodle boy 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the site I was referring to. --ScienceApologist 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link will be re-added. Your accusation that it entertains the hoax idea is ridiculous. It is a page about the hoax and it presents both sides of the argument. Please do not engage in wikilayering, as it is against wikipedia's policies.Noodle boy 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

SA - please don't revert war. The BBC is a respected news source - the link is relevant and should stay. Carfiend 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC writeup adds nothing to the article. All it does is restate the arguments already presented on various pages. However, we need more redundant external links on this page, so we might as well keep it. Wahkeenah 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, that BBC article tilts toward the hoaxsters. "The Apollo astronauts claim their flags had horizontal poles across the top, which kept them extended" ??? It was reported at the time, and besides that, a four-year-old idiot could verify it from the photos. Wahkeenah 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reporting unverified claims

If someone claims something, without providing evidence, we should report that they say it, but not state it as fact. NASA says that they have the blueprints, or, at least, a website says that they say they do, but who has seen them? Trendline 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

www.moonhoax.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. I don't believe we ought to use as a source for the statement, "Dr. David Williams...and...Gene Kranz both acknowledged that the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes are missing." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're both on video saying it, so I don't know what there is to dispute. Especially since we want to have anything that NASA says not require any evidence. The link to moonhoax contains a summary of the evidence, including links to the videos. Trendline 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA is on video saying the tapes are missing. Pretty hard to argue against that.Noodle boy 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you expect the tapes to still be around? These are telemetry tapes, not voice tapes, and they're telemetry tapes from a spacecraft that hasn't flown for over thirty years, and hence of very limited value to future development... I'd be surprised if they were thrown out, but odds are they got stacked away somewhere and forgotten about because no-one went looking for them again.

They are probably stored in the same warehouse as the Lost Ark. Wahkeenah 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that Apollo-deniers seem to believe that NASA are smart enough to fake a moon landing and convince the vast majority of people on the planet that it was real, yet dumb enough that they can't fake telemetry tapes to go with it. This idea that the conspirators are simultaneously super-smart yet super-dumb seems to be a common feature of conspiracy theories. MarkGrant 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the logic runs that the more fake materials you produce, the more likely you are to introduce errors. If a lot got 'lost', that risk is reduced. Carfiend 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if logic were brought into it, this page would not even exist. Wahkeenah 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your responding to everything with snarky sarcasm isn't very constructive. Carfiend 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had been involved in this page as long as I have, you'd be a little "snarky" also. Wahkeenah 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(forgive the interjection, but W, what makes you assume he hasn't been? Adhib 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

Not under that user name, anyway. Wahkeenah 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite. I didn't mean to sound rude. Carfiend 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No hay problema. :) Wahkeenah 05:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah gets snarky when his NASA pay is late Anon2 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm still waiting for that royalty check for the filming we did in an effort to fool all of youse. In fact, I'm thinking of going public with this. (BANG!) Just kidding! Thankfully, NASA believes in warning shots. Wahkeenah 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing data

Someone reverted my formatting changes, calling them nonsense. I put them back, since NASA admits to some charges, but denies others. The responses should go alongside the specific charges, it's confusing to have them combined. Trendline 02:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The early tapes of The Tonight Show are also missing. Maybe the shows never actually happened. Wahkeenah 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are no blueprints of the Saturn V then it must have never been built. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a logical falacy Bubba. If there were no blueprints, then it would lend support, but not proof, for the hoax theory. Carfiend 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubba has shown time and time again he is incapable of logical thinking. He compares the moon missions to a trip to disneyland. By the way Trendline, I reverted the article back to your last edit. If these guys continue to vandalize the main page, they should be reported.Noodle boy 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have been smacked by the wiki authorities for 3RR violations in the past. Wahkeenah

I've seen a Saturn V with my own eyes, vast numbers of people worked to build the Saturn V, hundreds of thousands of people saw the Saturn V lift off from Florida, and we have vast amounts of film and video of the Saturn V flights. Does even the wackiest Apollo-denier seriously claim that the Saturn V didn't exist? MarkGrant 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. There is no mention of the Saturn V except in response to the criticism that the Apollo 11 tapes and blueprints are missing. It looks like no one disputes that the Saturn V was built, just that it was used to go to the moon. Carfiend 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If the blueprints for the Titanic were missing, would that be an argument that the ship didn't exist? --Guinnog 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged video of the Titanic under 12,000 feet of water was actually filmed in the same tanks as the ones used to fake low-gravity during the Apollo missions. If you look closely in one frame of Ballard's Titanic video, you can almost see Edwin Aldrin waving. Wahkeenah 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the Saturn V blueprints exist, that doesn't even prove that a Saturn V rocket was ever built - just that there were blueprints. My family has had blueprints for a house for 2+ years, and there is still just a vacant lot! Bubba73 (talk), 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In short, the existence or non-existence of blueprints for anything connected with Apollo (or anything at all) is irrelevant to whether the Apollo program was real or not, and thus is irrelevant to this article. I recommend references to blueprints either be deleted or else amended to point out that it makes no difference to the truth or falsehood of the hoax conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the blueprints of the Titanic were not so much lost as destoryed during the blizt.Geni 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet they're just using that as an excuse. >:) Wahkeenah 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance really, but it would certainly be odd if White Star Line had lost the records. It would raise questions. Wahkeenah - might I suggest that more time spent investigating what has been lost and what can be found might be more productive than sarcasm? It seems that we don't have a good account of what documents are available and what are not, regradless of the implications for the argument, this would be good to have. Carfiend 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to investigate anything. It's just yet another red herring raised by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 20:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're not interested in getting the facts straight (in terms of what is claimed to be missing, and whether it is or not), that's fine, but I'm not quite sure why you're editing this page. Calling people names gets us nowhere. Carfiend 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done plenty of editing in the recent past, trying to neutralize and de-flame the article. Now I'm kind of playing watchdog. The problem is that the cons keep waving these red herrings, based on little or no research, and expect us to track them down. It gets tiresome being their "go fetch" dogs. Wahkeenah 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need to establish whether:

• Anything is missing

• If anything is missing, it applies to this article.

I'm not convinced of either at the moment. Can you provide referenced info to answer these points? --Guinnog 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a general claim in the article that documents are missing, but it's not clear to me exactly which documents hoax proponents claim are missing. We need to figure that out, and be more specific. For the ones that they say are missing, we need to find out which ones NASA (or a contractor etc) says they have, and which ones they agree are missing. For the ones they say they have, we need to find out which ones are actually verified as existing. I think that' what you are asking - as for the specifics, I don't know yet, but I'll help you research! Carfiend 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, you could ask whoever posted that generalization to research it, else delete it. Wahkeenah 04:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not that person, but over the weekend I emailed the Goddard archivist mentioned to try to find out exactly what is/was missing, and see if it has been found since the video was made. So far I haven't gotten a reply. I also emailed the guy who wrote this (an external link) to see if those tapes had been found, and I haven't gotten a reply from him either. These guys must be hiding something big! Bubba73 (talk), 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not even a "Thank you for writing to us" form letter? Shazam! Wahkeenah 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so far, but it has been only one business day (but about 3 calendar days). About three years ago James Oberg said that he wanted to write the book even without NASA's support if he could get funding. I also wrote to ask him how that is coming (he has answered me in the past), but so far nothing from him either. The conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger! Or perhaps any email that mentions a landing hoax goes into the crank file. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya think? :) We used to call that electronic discard pile the "bit bucket". I'm guessing most of the hoaxster cons are too young to know that term. :) Wahkeenah 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that one user embellished my point that the existence or non-existence of blueprints has nothing to do with whether Apollo went to the moon or not. So, at this point, what value does the information about blueprints add, except maybe to pre-empt any questions? Wahkeenah 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole thrust of the missing data stuff is that every time you 'fake' a piece of data, you risk introducing errors, so it's easier for it to be missing. This relates most obviously to the telemetry tapes. There don't seem to be any, which is kind of odd. If there were though, that would be very compelling evidence for the landings, since they would be extraordinarily difficult to fake. Much more so than a photo album. I think the hoax proponents want to show that a large portion of data that should be there is not. Carfiend 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

However, there could be little scrutiny of those tapes more careful than that of the engineers at the Mission Control Center, whose primary job was to scrutinise that data for the duration of the flight. For NASA to have hoaxed Apollo 11 with poorly faked telemetry data would almost certainly require that all the Mission Control engineers be part of the conspiracy.

As I've mentioned before, I don't understand why anyone is so surprised that the tapes can't be found. NASA has vast amounts of archival material, and the telemetry tapes just aren't very important to anyone but the Apollo-deniers. Mark Grant 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're sliding into having the debate here on the talk page, when the purpose of this article is to report what the two sides say. This isn't Bad Astronomy! 63.227.210.34 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do the Apollo-deniers actually say about the 'missing' blueprints and telemetry tapes? In my experience they throw out a lot of supposed 'evidence', but rarely actually explain what the 'evidence' is supposed to prove. If they don't make claims related to that 'evidence', then it's rather hard to report on counter-claims that would explain why they're wrong. Mark Grant 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's just another hoaxster cons' trick. Their purpose is to infer that the allegedly missing data is further "evidence" of a "conspiracy". They think they've got something here, because if it's missing, then obviously it can't be produced, and they can list that as an "unanswered question", even though its absence, like that of blueprints, proves nothing. And if it did exist, or somehow turned up, they would then say it was faked. So, the cons "win", either way. Therefore, it's inherently prejudicial, and has no place in the article, unless someone can make a cogent argument that it "proves" something, as opposed to just reporting it standalone. As far as letting the hoaxster cons study the telemetry tapes, those characters can't even tell if a flag is waving or not, so what chance would they have of being able to properly interpret a bunch of 0's and 1's? Wahkeenah 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that the hoax proponents claim that the tapes are missing. NASA also says they are missing. The Hoax proponents draw one set of conclusions from this, those who don't believe the hoax theory another. We should simply report this, and try to establish the status of the various tapes etc. Carfiend 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but first we'd need to tie the Apollo-deniers down to an actual verifiably and publically stated conclusion. From what I've seen and read they just seem to say 'the apollo 11 telemetry tapes are missing, woooh, scary...' and never actually say what they believe that means. They also seem to like referring to the telemetry tapes as 'science data', when in reality they're primarily engineering data which is of little value when the last Saturn flew over thirty years ago.

Incidentally, there's a 1967 article on NTRS from Goddard about the difficulty of dealing with the amount of telemetry data they had to process: 35,000 new tapes every year even before Apollo 11 flew, at $15 a tape (at a time when $15 was a sizable amount of money). They also discuss potential changes that would only require storing the digital data extracted from the tapes in future, and not the tapes themselves. Mark Grant 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been various analogies drawn here. The attitude of the Holocaust deniers is a bit of a touchy comparison. I was thinking that a better analogy would be the O.J. Simpson trial... or any trial in which someone "gets away" with something. The hoaxsters don't have to "prove" anything to their audience, all they have to do is try to introduce what they would argue is "reasonable doubt". I wouldn't be at all surprised if the tapes were wiped at some point, just to be re-used. It would be nice if there was a record of such. But it wouldn't matter, because no matter what the answer, the cons will say it supports their viewpoint. In the absence of any statements by anyone, you are left with the hoaxsters statement that the tapes and blueprints are missing, and NASA's response that they are indeed missing. Yawn. Wahkeenah 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This may shed some light on the missing tapes: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net.nyud.net:8080/Apollo_11/tapes/Search_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf - apparently the original Apollo tapes, including the TV pictures, were sent to the National Archives, then to the Goddard space center, where they can no longer be found. There's a serious attempt underway to find them before the last machines that can read them and recover the original video signals are retired. Of course, when and if they are found, I'm sure at least some Apollo-deniers will claim that they were removed to give the hoaxers time to create better fakes. Mark Grant 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, having read that whole PDF now, it seems to be a very good summary of what happened to the telemetry tapes after Apollo 11. We should link to it and add a summary of their summary to the section on missing tapes (don't have time to do it myself right now). Mark Grant 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, maybe they really are stored in the same warehouse as the Lost Ark. Wahkeenah 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

German magazine?

What purpose does this serve? "The German magazine Der Spiegel speaks of "...those myths in which Elvis is alive, John F. Kennedy fell victim to a conspiracy involving the Mafia and secret service agents, the Moon landing was staged in the Nevada desert, and Princess Diana was murdered by the British intelligence services."" - while it's a pop culture ref in a magazine, I don't think it really makes any significant contribution - so what if a german magazine says that? What does it tell us? Certainly little about opinion in general. Anyone want to defend it staying? Carfiend 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

totally irrelevant information. It should definitely be removed. Also, it violates NPOV.24.7.34.99 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it helps put it in perspective. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? It's hard to tell whether this is representative of German press coverage, or is an outlier. I don't see how it really establishes more than what the person who wrote that article thinks. It doesn't even give us the editorial perspective of the magazine. Carfiend 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Der Speigel's quick way of lumping various conspiracy theories together. I notice they left out the Holocaust denial, although I'm thinking there may be a German law against denying the Holocaust, so including Holocaust denial would be pointless. Wahkeenah 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what authority does this article in Der Speigel have to tell us anything more than what that article writer thought at the time? We could find a magazine article quote for more or less any pov we like, it's not really an authoritative source, is it? Carfiend 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, that author is every bit as knowledgable about Apollo as the moon hoaxster cons are. However, I would not necessarily argue in favor of keeping it here, because it's merely one of a gazillion sound bites. It would be more appropriate to put it on the page about conspiracy theories. Wahkeenah 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take it out, since it stands out to me as a random quote without any real justification for why that particular quote from that magazine adds anything to the argument being made. Carfiend 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it to remain, as it's a verifiable quote from a reputable source which perfectly sums up how the majority of informed people think of this matter. In fact, all three conspiracy theories mentioned there have more actual evidence to support them than the moon landing hoax does. Only the Princess Diana one comes close in its pure urban myth-hood to the idea that many knew the Apollo program was a hoax, all went along with it, and none, nearly 40 years on, have come out and said so. When you consider that these people would have included scientists from all countries, including many which were openly hostile to the US and would have exposed the fake if there was one in a heartbeat... All in all this is a very good and very fair article. If anything it is too open to the idea that there is any truth in these unverifiable and unverified allegations. --Guinnog 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I take your point, but I don't understand how you know that this is representative of what (germans? everyone in the world?) people think of this. It seems like pop commentry, and out of place in the section it's in. What about moving it to the public opinion section if you really want it? Carfiend 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the assumption that those other items in the list are all bogus. I don't think many seriously question whether Elvis is dead, and even if he were alive, it wouldn't really matter. The Mafia connection to JFK remains a possibility, because they certainly had a motive to shoot him, although the vast Oliver Stone fantasy conspiracy is unlikely... and it is still unclear whether Diana's wreck was caused strictly by a drunken driver or by interference from other drivers. So on that basis alone, its presence is questionable. Wahkeenah 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Surveyor

Someone had deleted the statement that Surveyor had landed on the moon. As far as I know, the hoaxster cons do not dispute that Surveyor landed on the moon, and according to one user in this section, they also don't dispute our ability to have had the technology to soft-land unmanned missions to the moon in general. If the moon landings were a hoax, then obviously this photo wouldn't have been of the actual Surveyor, but of a mockup that the astronauts were handling. Maybe someone will want to fine-tune the wording on that point. Or maybe not. Wahkeenah 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have to question the inclusion of "(Obviously, hoax proponents would say that this is merely a mockup of Surveyor 3)." Without a reference it seems to me that's more a statement of opinion than fact, though I would like to know what the Apollo-deniers really do say about those photos. Mark Grant 12:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we actually need a section on the different opinions of hoax proponents - there seem to be three distinct theories afaict.

1. The missions were faked. Errors were introduced into the evidence by accident. 2. The missions were faked, but various NASA whistleblowers introduced errors into the evidence that they knew would be discovered. (DaviD Percy et al) 2. The missions were real, but elements were faked to cover up what was found on the moon. (William Brian).

Anyone else think this would be useful? Carfiend 15:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted my "(Obviously, hoax proponents would say that this is merely a mockup of Surveyor 3)." Maybe that could be worded better... but if you let it stand as is, then the article is inherently biased, because it asserts without challenge that we did, in fact, go to the moon, and thus the entire premise for the article is null and void. Which would be fine by me. I will re-word it, and you all can edit it further if you like. But if you delete it again, and leave the original caption stand, then don't go yelping about how "pro-Apollo" the article is. Wahkeenah 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was me. POV is POV, even in a picture caption, and even picture captions should be encyclopedic. As someone who is definitely not a Moon-hoax conspiracy believer, I don't think we should be answering charges which haven't yet been raised by the believers. Accept my apology if the text contains a discussion of this point and I missed it, as I may have done. Even then, the caption needs to be written very carefully, with reference to the specific allegations that the article discusses. The picture, obviously, is fine, as is your logic in writing the caption. Just the actual form of words that I quibble about. --Guinnog 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-worded it, but I think it's too wordy. Maybe you could improve upon it. I just think the point needs to be made, subtly at least, that if the picture is true, then the entire page is bogus (except to that small portion of hoaxsters who think we actually went to the moon). Wahkeenah 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that leads to another issue: That there is more than one moon hoax "theory". I haven't read the article in toto for awhile, but I'm thinking that's only addressed in the negative, by disparaging that fact, and that's a source of some of the recent complaints about bias. Rather than forcing the obvious down the readers' throats, maybe the article could be more specifically sectioned into what the various "theories" are, which should maybe stifle the complaints about bias, while letting the reader drew the obvious conclusion that even the hoaxster cons can't agree on what the con is: (1) We didn't go at all; (2) We did go, but only unmanned; (3) We did go, manned, but some facts were hidden; (4) whatever else. Wahkeenah 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted it again before reading this. I also trimmed some awful POV out of the popular culture bit which I hadn't checked in a while. How come that REM song isn't there? Much as I hated them doing it, it is a lot more significant than the references to obscure video games and soap operas that currently constitutes most of the section.

You're so right in what you say by the way. That's the thrust of the "Burden of Proof" section. Maybe we could work the logical incoherency you are trying to highlight into the text here? --Guinnog 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tried again. Check it out or reword it. It is inherently biased to let the original caption stand alone, even if I believe it represents the truth. It occurs to me that sectioning the page would make the article almost totally about those who think we didn't go at all, but I also suspect that represents the large majority of the hoax believers, so maybe that would be OK. I think you would find rather few who think we went to the moon and found moon-creatures there that we didn't want to talk about, but I haven't seen any figures on that. Wahkeenah 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Only because those moon-creatures then took over the earth and don't like their existence to be known about. Hang on, there's someone at the door... aaaargh!!!! --Guinnog 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that a moon-creature, or was it the killer rabbit that can only be defeated by the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch? Wahkeenah 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it was only the meter man, luckily, as the Holy Hand Grenade is on loan to a friend at the moment. And that is a much better caption. --Guinnog 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoax believers arguments

I added some words to what another user started. I'm not altogether happy with it. It might be better to be in outline form: Total hoax (totally faked); Partial hoax (only some of it faked); Coverup (no hoax, but some of it censored); or whatever. Wahkeenah 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like what you've added - what's the difference between one and two in your mind? Is it that in one nothing leaves the ground? Carfiend 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, or at least that nothing leaves earth orbit. Wahkeenah 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Someone added citation requests for the missing data - this was cited, but someone removed them saying moonhoax was not a good source. While it may not be in general a good source, I think it is a good source for what hoax proponents believe. Carfiend 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between reporting facts and reporting opinions here. If we report that the missing data is a fact, then moonhoax is not a good source. If we report that "moonhoax says that data is missing" then it is a good source. Only question is if moonhoax's opinions are notable enough to be talked about in this article. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The site hosts videos of the NASA folks saying the tapes are missing. I guess they could be faked... Carfiend 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely, but the PDF file I posted a link to up above would appear to be a much better source for information on the tapes. It explains what happened to them and where they're supposed to be, rather than just claiming that they're missing. Mark Grant 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI Slashdot

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/07/13/1654200.shtml

Yeah, that's where I found a link to the PDF. I'd found a reference elsewhere to the tape they'd been given which was believed to have Apollo 11 video footage on it but turned out to be some old test data, I hadn't found the PDF before now. I've added a brief summary of the contents of the file to the missing data section, and a reference link. Mark Grant 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny! That tape with the lighting boom on it is 'old test data'! What's that? A Coke bottle you say? 'old test data'! Funny! In all seriousness, actually having this data would be powerful proof, since it would be virtually impossible to fake it all correctly. Shame it doesn't appear to exist... Carfiend 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page size

I think it's getting past time this talk page was archived again, but I have no idea how to do it... Mark Grant 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. When you figure out how, let us know. 0:) Wahkeenah 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go... if I screw up we'll have to revert it :). Mark Grant 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, anything that hasn't been updated in a few days is now archived here. Mark Grant 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)