Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Introduction

Is just me or the introduction in wikipedia in spanish is better than the actual:

Las acusaciones de falsificación en los alunizajes del Programa Apolo constituyen una teoría de conspiración que afirma que los alunizajes del programa Apolo jamás ocurrieron, sino que fueron falsificados por la NASA. Prácticamente todos los científicos, técnicos e interesados en la historia de la exploración espacial han rechazado estas afirmaciones calificándolas de infundadas y de no poseer carácter científico alguno [1] . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.175.73 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody

The section "Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody" is causing so many problems that I think we should either delete it or move it to its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has come up before. Now 10 days or so with no objections, so I moved it to Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody. My reasons (1) Several complaints about the article being too long, and this is a good way to reduce the size somewhat, (2) adds essentially nothing to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Title Change

I think this would be appropriate. As the title is, "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations," it leads you to believe the article is about hoax accusations and the people who are/have made them. Instead it's seems to be more of a line-by-line dismissal of those accusations. It's one of the most biased articles I've seen on Wikipedia. It's really no wonder that the pro-hoaxters have all but abandoned it. This article treats their point of view so poorly that it completely misses the point of the title. If I'm looking for "Apollo Moon Hoax Accusations" (just the word "Accusation" clues the reader that the article is probably going to be dismissive or excessively critical of the subject... "Apollo Hoax Conspiracy" would be more neutral), I'm interested in those accusations. I know it's a minority perspective, but that's exactly why I'm reading it. At that point, I'm not interested in "Responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations" or "Evidence Debunking Moon Landing Hoax". Those responses should either be given it's own article or at the very least, a separate section. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. It's a source of information. If I'm reading, "History of Medicine," I'm not looking for a line-by-line essay on why why medications don't work or why modern medicine is flawed. If it's "Astronomy in Ancient Mesopotamia," I'm not looking for a article detailing why ancient astronomers were wrong about the way the universe works.

In reading through the article, I think a more appropriate title would be something like, "Why I think Anyone Who Doesn't Believe We Landed On The Moon Is An Idiot", because that's exactly what this article conveys. In reality it should be completely rewritten. This article is seething with contempt. You're writing about someone else's reasoning and understanding. Be respectful. You may not agree, but you've taken on the responsibility to describe their perspective. Ynpragne (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynpragne (talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. "theories" would be more neutral than the hostile "accusations". ʄ!•¿talk? 08:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way can an admin or somebody change the capital letters in "Moon" & "Landing" to lower case?
It doesn't look right, thanks. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we tried conspiracy theory in the title, but people objected. Bubba73 (talk), 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moon is supposed to be capitalized when talking about Earth's Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At present, the article is still quite biased against Nasa. At present it has a "motives for a hoax" speculating hypothetical reasons why Nasa would want to have a hoax, but there is no corresponding "Motives to claim a hoax" section questioning the motives of those who insist that a hoax has happened. Algr (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ynpragne, a person must be an idiot to believe the Moon landing was faked. All points made by any person who believes it have been disproved with evidence and logic. No one in their right mind could possible believe the Moon landing was faked after they look at the facts. The reason people do believe it is the horribly biased and fact-smeared FOX special on the conspiracy theory. So-called "experts" were called it to support "evidence" of the "hoax." It was so smeared, I could see that any person who believes what they see on T.V. as fact could believe it, but no one should. This article shows the reasons people "believe" the hoax and then disproves them with facts, evidence, and logic. Not biased, at least in that respect. It is biased against NASA in the respect that Algr notes.PokeHomsar (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Well, Ynpragne, a person must be an idiot to believe the Moon landing was faked. All points made by any person who believes it have been disproved with evidence and logic." I'm not sure how to even respond (although I'm the one who threw in the word, "idiot"... so I was asking for that). It's obvious that some people have questions and those questions haven't been answered to their satifaction. Disproved with evidence and logic? To your satifaction perhaps, to someone else there might never be enough evidence to convince them... and it certainly isn't going to happen on Wikipedia and Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. Anyway there is far too much material in this article who singular purpose seems to be to prove, not that the moon land wasn't a hoax, but that all of those who believe it aren't in their right minds.

Example: "The Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations have been the subject of debunking and, according to the debunkers, have been falsified. An article in the German magazine Der Spiegel places the Moon hoax in the context of other well-known 20th century conspiracy theories which it describes as "the rarefied atmosphere 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."[23]"

First of all, in the first sentence, is it saying that the debunkers are saying the "accusations" were falsified? That doesn't really make any sense. Maybe the evidence presented was falsified, but the accusations? Immediately after this is a quotation from an opinion piece from a magazine comparing the moon hoax theory to a number of other conspiracy theories. Why is this here, except to invalidate this perspective without any evidence. To put in in context? It could have just as easily compared the hoax theory to flat earth theory (which I'm sure many hoax proponents wouldn't agree with) or instead it could have been compared to the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy (which has all but been proven to be valid). Ynpragne (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

   Falsified in this context means proven to be false, not faked.  --86.27.132.159 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Americans believe we made it to the moon. There has been no new evidence or amazing break throughs that shatter NASAs hoax nor do they prove that the moon landing was fake. In fact there is no evidence at all that the moon landing is fake. What there is are a small group of people picking apart the real evidence. Look its pretty clear that we went there, we got the proof, and in a court of law it would be enough. People from other countries on the other hand should know just from reading the title that Americans don’t take the hoaxes to seriously. It should be clear that it’s a hoax, that’s what the evidence says and so I humbly ask that the title be kept the same. Anything is possible, but you have to look at the facts. I think its important to show others who may not have resources that we have, or the education, lets just make it clear. Not a hoax. Xxsicknessxx (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first post here. This article is biased, and is mistitled. I came here looking for what the hoax theories are, not the rebuttal of those theories. The rebuttals really need their own article. -Greg K 4/1/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.21.129 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The title was changed recently. The hoax theories are in there. To make the rebuttals a separate article is not appropriate because it would be a POV fork. Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's currently an ARBCOM case about the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles (here). That would have an impact on this article as well, so I strongly oppose any name change until at least after that ARBCOM closes. -- Kesh (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. At one time "conspiracy theory" was proposed to be in the title. Now it just says "theory". Bubba73 (talk), 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't biased, it's just accurate, which is something conspiracy theorists aren't. They're not smart or qualified people, they are people with no basic understanding of science and nothing better to do with their time. Any professional scientist will burst out laughing if you told them an Apollo hoax claim, before they point out to you that 384 kg of Moon rocks were returned. There isn't a discussion to be had, this isn't about being biased, it's about being factual, scientifically accurate, and pointing out that the hoax allegations are incorrect science. That's all they are. If you have a problem with the debunkings in this article, please, go ahead, point them out. You won't find anything. The article is scientifically sound. It thoroughly refutes the allegations made by non-professionals (Sibrel, Kaysing, et. al) and notes the many factors which prove Apollo to be real. Hoax believers can say what they want, but their claims are simply wrong science, and every alleged 'inconsistency' is exactly what you would except in the lunar environment. They just don't understand science. This article is a tribute to the over 450,000 people who worked to put 12 men on the Moon. Let's not allow amateurs to put in fake science. @Greg K: If you've come for the allegations, you ought to know their respective debunkings. That's like saying "I know every object falls at a speed relative to its mass, but I don't intend to prove it". --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but let's be fair, guys who believe in this stuff have really good reasons to believe in it. And if you look at the article carefully you will see that there arefar too many incidents, misunderstandings or unlikely stuff that anyway happened. Therefore, as anyone's opinion should be respected, this article should behabbe as an informant, not as a way to express a certain individual's (or group of them) opinion, even though they repressent a mayority. That said, it is terribly wrong to consider someone to be an ignorant due to his or their's ideologies. For example, if I don't believe in God and have really good reasons of why, or if I have good reasons to say that anarchy wouldn't work, should I say in a Wikipedia article point by point why anarchy and theism are idiotic and absurd theories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.223.205 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear guideline about this. Please read WP:FRINGE. It basically says that in matters of a scientific nature, where fringe theories are involved, Wikipedia takes the "Mainstream" line. So, in this case, it's required that we do not represent the fringe theory as if it were true. We state the mainstream view - and for the fringe theorists we say things like "so-and-so claims such-and-such"...not "such-and-such is true because so-and-so says so". We only say "such-and-such is true" if we have references from mainstream science to say so. In this case, (for example) what NASA says is considered "true" and what the "it-never-happened" guys say are "claims". That's a necessary part of retaining some kind of sanity in a project which is supposed to be a truthful, mainstream encyclopedia - not a platform for people with crazy theories. In the case of the moon landings, it's VERY clear where the mainstream is. The situation with religions is different - and WP:FRINGE has a special clause about religious matters. Personally - I'd treat any claims that religions make about scientific matters (the origin of the universe, for example) as fringe theories - but that's not currently Wikipedia policy. Politics (anarchy, etc) is not a scientific matter - so it's not related to this problem. SteveBaker (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the least biased article I've seen on the subject. Most of them either characterize NASA a vast conspiracy, or characterize the moon-bats as, well, moon-bats. This one patiently lists all the so-called "incidents" and then coolly and calmly shoots them all down. This article cuts the conspiracists a lot more slack than they deserve, and it does it as well as it can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion is a tricky area, because it involves faith on a large scale, and it depends on the situation. If you have a major church denying evolution (as has been known to happen), then they have to be given their due. If you have a major church claiming the earth is flat (as they once did but no longer do), that falls into the fringe area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, because in some articles detailing issues like, for example, ancient cultures and their religions, said instruments of faith are treated as mere ways to canalize the ignorance of the ancient civilizations, and the article of the aztecs seems to pay a lot of attencion to the numbers of deaths in rituals, saying that 2000 in four days is a plausible number (note: it isn't). This articles barbarize ancient cultures. Meanwhile, we have Budhism, that has a burocratic heaven, and suddenly that belief is far more important that a beautifull, well crafted pantheon of the Greeks or the Precolumbine American cultures like the Aztec or the Mayan?

Excuse me, I went out of topic, I just wanted to probe that neutrality in a free encyclopedia is an ideal and it is impossible if we consider a society ignorant of the fact that people can learn from beliefs that are not their own. Going back to the landing, I consider that even when people could give concrete awnsers to the problems that originated the theory of the hoax, the theory has firm bases. I won't bother to list them, but let's say, the lack of stars and the fact that USA had a profit in going there first, and that filming a movie was far cheaper than launching the ship. OK, there are explanations, but it doesn't mean that the theory isn't based on partly solid grounds, and if you look back to the same page where you directed me, it says every point of view should be portraied fairly, wich doesn't happen in the article, considering that 6 percent of the United States population did consider it to be a hoax and 5 percent didn't know. Darn! Look at the artycle on Loch Ness Monster and it has much less personal opinion than this one, that's almost funny!

Solution that I propose: make another article called "defects of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax theory", where the failures of this theory are portraied, that way everything goes where it must go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.223.205 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a POV fork. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevent Wikipedia policy is WP:Content fork - and the short version of it is "NO!". Splitting a document into two separate articles that each present only one half of the debate is STRONGLY disappoved of. SteveBaker (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And it's also been shot down here before. The article is fine as it is. Baseball Bugs

^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) (I'm shortening the tabbing because it annoys me) Then can somebody please tell me what the fudge is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terrorism" among many other articles that I won't bother searching for right now but definetly are there happily existing? I'll tell you why: because they are not neccesarily a part of a dissagreement, as it is a part of what as the page you were sending me to says is the origin of forking. What I say is right is that, for all points of view to be treated fairly, there must be an article that follows this format, but not necesarily this titles: Introduction; Historical context; Different postures of theorists; Predominant claims(with everything that should be inside); Criticism(including a link to another article and a synthesis of the content); Accusers; In popular culture. That's my idea of the organization of a good article, besides, thiss one is very long, it could have something cut of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.223.205 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because some other article has it wrong - that's no justification for us getting it wrong too. Actually, I don't think that article is a POV fork. Just like this one, it describes commentary on some historical event. Criticism of the war - hoax accusations of the Moon landings...kinda similar. What we DON'T have is a separate article refuting the criticism of the war on terror. If you read that article carefully, you'll see that it does state the Bush government's justification for the things it did - just as here we list NASA's statements regarding the hoax theory. I don't think there is all that much difference. The main thing I see as different is that there are many criticisms of the war on terror that have gone unanswered - so some of their claims stand. Here, there are counter-demonstrations for every conspiracy theory. That may simply be because there is some justification for criticising the war on terror - when there is really nothing good to be said about the claim that NASA never went to the moon. Anyway - just because you can find another article that (arguably) breaks Wikipedia's rules - that's not a justification for breaking the rules here too. I know of plenty of articles with no references and poor spelling...that doesn't mean we should all go out and create unreferenced articles with bad spelling! SteveBaker (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The article is long because the conspiracists have a long list of minutia that they try to promote as adding up to a conspiracy. And if you leave any of their goofy ideas out, you'll be accused of censorship. So it's lengthy, for a good reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gus Grisson's Death

I was shocked at the obvious bias present in this article and it has considerable lowered my opinion of neutrality and integrity of Wickipedia. This article gives disproportionate attention to debunking and reads as a soap box with an agenda. It is a really shameful way to get a one sided view across and should be corrected as soon as possible. I came to this section to find out about the claimed murders of the Apollo One Astronauts and was surprised by the fact that Gus Grissom's family view is not even mentioned. Nick Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.75.15 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Deaths of key Apollo personnel". Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is to do with the whole article not just a section of it. It should be re-written with neutrality. Shameful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the basic tenants of Wikipedia is that it uses reliable sources, see WP:WS. There are no reliable sources saying that the crew of Apollo 1 was murdered. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a blog. It is not a personal website. It is not an internet newsgroup. Bubba73 (talk), 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by this article Wikipedia has failed to meet those tenants. As for specifics I came to this article to find out what the theories concerning the Apollo missions and reliable sources have nothing to do with the Wife and Son of Gus Grissom claiming he was murdered. It is their view and a fact. I came to this article for views and opinions that cannot be justified by reliable sources. I did not expect a lengthy debunking exercise and this piece certainly not balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at the Gus Grissom and Apollo 1 articles. If there is anything to it, it will be in those articles. Bubba73 (talk), 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on this poor article. As for the other articles concerning Gus Grissom, no mention is made of the families opinions concerning his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time I've heard of it. With no source for that claim, we can't include it. -- Kesh (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They have been interviewed many times in print and Television saying as much. I am surprised you would not know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, can you provide some sources to these interviews so the rest of us can read for ourselves what was said? -- Kesh (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of this. But from what I recall the family's claims were more along the lines of accusing NASA of criminal negligence in placing Grissom in a dangerous capsule. They may have even used the word "murdered" in the heat of the moment. This has subsequently been lifted out of context to create claims that he was killed as part of "the conspiracy". But I believe this to be a total misrepresentation of the family's opinions, which are unrelated to this article. Of course, if there's any reliable cites that say differently... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain Wikipedia's policy on this kind of thing:

Accusations of bias and lack of balance are things we can never win at. Every individual sees themselves as the fulcrum about which things should balance - since other individuals with different views place the fulcrum where THEIR views are, true balance is ultimately impossible.

Wikipedia requires us to verify everything we say that might be disputed - and in the case of "fringe theories" (which this - no doubt - is), we're required to take the "mainstream" view and to prove that this is the mainstream view. In the case of the moon landings - the mainstream view is that they happened exactly as NASA claim. In the case of Grissom, again, we're going to take the mainstream view.

That doesn't mean that we won't say things about the opposing view - we absolutely will. But (like everything else) there has to be solid documentary evidence that we can quote and reference. So - the mainstream view is without doubt that Grissom was NOT murdered. So we're going to say "Grissom died in an accidental fire" - and we're going to say it as if that's the truth. But, if there are adequate references, we can add that "Grissom's family claim he was murdered" or "Journalists for such-and-such magazine claim that Grissom was murdered". We WON'T say "Grissom was murdered" - because that's not the mainstream view and we'd need "mainstream" level proof of that. So, if (for example) there was a court case and the findings were that he was murdered - then that would then become the mainstream view. If you came up with a peer-reviewed scientific paper by a respected scientist in a respectable professional journal that said "researchers have discovered the following evidence that the capsule fire was not accidental" - then we'd write that "the situation surrounding Grissom's death is unclear". But just finding a conspiracy theory on some guy's web site - then, sorry - that's not a sufficiently good reference for such a controversial statement.

So what you see as "unbalanced", most people regard as "truth". You can change that IF you can come up with mainstream references. Failing that - you have to recognise that you are on the fringe - and sadly, you're really not going to see our writings as balanced. But that's how it is - we have to pick something and say it's the truth - no matter what we say, we can't please everyone. If you judge that Wikipedia is unbalanced - then so be it - but I maintain that the policy we have is the most sensible under the circumstances.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the most even-handed article on the subject that I've seen. The Grissom situation is a good example of how the conspiracists work. First, they ignore the mountain of evidence that demonstrates how looney their theories are, and focus on things they see as "anomolies" and try to make that the story. Second, they either deliberately or ignorantly (or both) twist the original fact in the direction of their theory. It sounds like that's what they did with what the family said. Understandable emotional reactions about negligence evolve into "murder" as just another part of a (non-existent) conspiracy. I liken this stuff to the ones who used to talk about the Bermuda Triangle. That nonsense faded away as it became clear that it was largely a hoax. Likewise with this one, someday in the future. The interesting thing about this is the psychology of it. It's promoted by people who have a need to feel like they "know something" that the general public doesn't know. Often it's led by someone who wants to take revenge on somebody that fired him, such as happened with Kaysing. The only "conspiracy" is on the part of the promoters of the conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Apollo Moon Landing hoax conpiracy theories" so it should highlight the points that are brought up to prove the conspiracy, not highlight disproving it. I think this article is extremely one-sided, but it's just like Wiki editors to prove the popular belief and not the unpopular one (like the Jesus Tomb article). Chexmix53 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would skew the balance of the article. We've been all through this before, ya know. The conspiracists can't stand having their theories challenged by facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - how could a COMPLETELY one-sided article be considered balanced? If you just show the theories and not the reasons why they are clearly incorrect - you'd have the most UN-balanced article imaginable. This article should be listing ALL of the notable theories - and for any that can be disproven, we should show that proof. If it turns out that there is a counter-proof for every theory - that's just because the theories we have listed are all bogus. If there are some theories that are both notable and irrefutable then you can state them here and no counter-proofs will be possible...but we have to show BOTH sides of the story or we really would have an unbalanced article. SteveBaker (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've had this argument here before, and it turns up from time to time. The bottom line is that the conspiracists want their ideas unchallenged here, because it lends false credence to them. If I come to an article like this, and something like the "waving flag" nonsense is stated with no explanation, I might think, "Hey, there may be something to this." That biased approach is how the conspiracists spread their ideas around. When the bright light of day, i.e. critical thought, is shone upon those ideas, they collapse. And that's why the conspiracists frequently try to argue against covering the debunking side. In the case of this article, the reader is free to believe the explanations or not. Without the explanations, the article would be biased in the extreme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Film reference

At the end of the film In the Shadow of the Moon, one of the astronauts (Collins or Aldrin, I think) refers briefly to the hoax theories by saying, in effect, "if we were going to fake it, why would we fake it six times?" I don't have a copy of the film available, so I don't have a full reference or an exact quote; if someone else could provide that, this should be in the article. (My own addendum to that would be, "and why would they fake a failed mission"? I note that there is no mention of Apollo 13 anywhere in this article.) --Russ (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The DVD is to be released Feb 12, 2008 in the US, and ~~I'll probably buy~~ I've ordered a copy. It has great reviews on Amazon. I've heard the quote about faking it six times, but I don't have a reference. This should provide one. But the reason they faked a failed mission is that if they had seven missions go perfectly, that would look suspicious, so they put in a failed one to make it seem genuine. :-) But I wonder about Apollo 8 and 10, where they also just (susposedly) flew around the Moon without landing - were they fake too? Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a better theory: Apollo 11 and 12 (both in 1969) were faked to meet president Kennedy's goal of doing it before the end of 1969, and they couldn't do it for real yet. Apollo 13 (April 1970) was the first real attempt, but it failed. It almost got the astronauts killed, so they faked the rest of them. Yea, that's the ticket. :-> Bubba73 (talk), 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The DVD release has been put off until March 15. Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Duke says "We've been to the moon nine times. Why did we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" Bubba73 (talk), 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

What happened tothe archive here at talk? 65.26.54.207 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - they are all red-linked now! Bubba73 (talk), 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The page recently was renamed from Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, and the archived talk must have gotten left behind. I don't know how to get it back. Bubba73 (talk), 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this page. I can fix it, it'll just take a few minutes… -- Kesh (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Archives are fixed. I've also taken the liberty of archiving some more old discussions to a new archive, and cleaning up the ArchiveBox a bit. I'd like to go back and rename the links to actual dates, but not sure if I'll have the time today. -- Kesh (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Okay, I think that'll do it. Please let me know if anyone finds any problems, but I think the archives are sorted out now. -- Kesh (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know how to do it. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to answer this one? (alleged evidence re: ATS-3 photos)

Needless to say, the fact that there were unmanned satellites at geostationary orbit taking photos of the Earth as early as 1967 doesn't prove anything about whether the Apollo Program was faked, but I'm genuinely curious-- where's this guy getting his information?

This one was taken from Apollo 16 (although this guy disputes that claim) http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft173%2FMichaelstmark%2FA1aboEARTHFORWINDOWDEMO.jpg&searchTerm=michael%20stmark&pageOffset=0

Here's another site that has some pictures from the mentioned satellite: http://www.donaldedavis.com/2003NEW/NEWSTUFF/DDEARTH.html

18.202.1.65 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article, not for general questions about the topic (see the top of this page). But look on my talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. This article is on the CONSPIRACIES so I think it's completely relevant to have a discussion on more conspiracies, especially considering every time these pictures are posted on the internet, they mysteriously disappear. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If these wonderous pictures are copyright-free (which most NASA photos are, for example), you can post them to WikiCommons. Once they are there, the only way for them to "disappear" is for a Wikipedia admin to remove them - and they can't do that without justification and an opportunity for discussion in which the reasons for deletion would have to be clearly demonstrated. So if images do "disappear", it won't be "mysteriously" - and you'll be able to find out how and why they vanished. Sadly, if you did that, there would be one less conspiracy to revel in. SteveBaker (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Change

"Theories" in the title should be capitalized as in is the last word of the title and is grammatically incorrect at the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't match with our naming conventions. -- Kesh (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. And "Landing" probably should not be caps either. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of contents

Number 5 (hoax claims examined) should really be at number 3 on the page. It's what most people (myself included) would be coming to the page for. Most importantly it makes no sense to have the critiques presented before the actual theories themselves. It's like discussing the effects of some event before describing the event itself, or describing all the covers of Let it be before describing the original. Kansaikiwi (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was to take the article from the more general to the specific, as the examined section is long and detailed. It shows up in the table of contents, so it's not difficult for someone to find. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but is logical order not more important than small before big around here? Seems an odd rule to go by that's all. Kansaikiwi (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First they are defining what the hoax claim is and what it's about in general, before they get to the specific minutia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed title

This is not an article about "theories" in the mean sense (see WP:WTA#Theory) but it is an article about the conspiracy theories of the moonbats. So I moved the article to a better title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 13:39, May 15, 2008

That WP:WTA#Theory is a great description of what a scientific theory is. "Science is just a theory." :-) Bubba73 (talk), 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The title should conform to whatever the standard is (if any) for other wikipedia articles about conspiracy theories, such as JFK, 9/11, and so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I just moved the latter to conform to the standard. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just see if anyone objects. Bubba73, a major contributor to this page, retitled the opening paragraph to match the article title, so I think that implies acceptance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I naturally accept it. I'm pretty sure it was titled this once before, but believers in the conspiracy theories objected to it being called a conspiracy theory. I believe that both user:Carfiend and user:Gravitor have been banned. Bubba73 (talk), 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And user:For great justice. is gone (his talk page is still there). Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about FGJ. Yes, all three of them were banished into the Wikipedia Phantom Zone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It looks like the archived talk pages did not get moved. Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get those fixed later tonight, can't really work on it right now. Still surprised no objections have been raised yet about the name change. Maybe the regulars are in later time zones or something... -- Kesh (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For some strange reason, the primary pro-hoax editors all left WP or got banned (must be part of the conspiracy to shut them up). For many months there has only been an occaisional pro-hoax edit, usually vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they got tired of being outwitted at every turn. I say again, this is the most neutral article on this subject that I've seen. It doesn't attack anybody, it just systematically destroys the so-called "evidence" for a conspiracy. And the reader is free to believe or not believe the debunking. Speaking of which, someone slipped the word "attempted" in front of debunking a few minutes ago. Whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Archives are fixed. -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that piece by piece the neutrality of this article is being eroded. It's clear that the label 'conspiracy theory' is a POV taunt. You must feel very proud of yourself, sitting there every day, putting in more and more POV phrases, sniggering into your sleeve as you glance around furtively to see if anyone caught you. Well - you've been spotted. Gutrot (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's a more neutral article on this subject on the web, please cite it. I'd like to see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Polls

Alot of space is given to polls that is really irrelavent. Numbers can tell many different stories, but these polls do not get us anywhere closer to the truth. What someone believes and what actually happened are two very different things. The polls only verify a belief and get us no closer to discovering the truth of whether or not man landed on the moon on July 20, 1969. This section could be pared down or even eliminated without changing the article's meaning or intent.208.254.130.235 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the poll results are very important to the article. They do tell us what the American people believe on the subject. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The polls are part of the reason the article exists. If only 7 people believed the flights were a hoax, there would be no need nor justification for having the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the 7 people were right, then the polls wouldn't mean squat. Polls are manipulative. If I were to poll 1700 people in Clear Lake, Tx in 1969 the answer would have been close to 100% belief that we made it. Also, the location of the poll plays a significant role in determining its outcome. Percentages run to 100 which minimizes their true value when weighed against the actual figures they were derived from. The 6% quoted doesn't sound like a lot, but break it down and you will find that 6% of the US population is the populations of NY City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Dallas. A "measly" 6%. Imagine 30%.208.242.58.125 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the polls is to illustrate in part that there is some notable interest in the topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion motives

I remember one poll on TV Station Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. The reporter asked one women "Did any man visited the moon?". She answered "No, it was attempt to convince us that there is no God. No man can approach the God". I have seen also one letter in mystical newspaper "Tajne" published in Belgrade in 1987 where the author accused Satan for making people to believe that the mankind left the Earth. I think that such opinion is actually very wide, probably the most common motive for the hoax accusation, however, it is hard to add it to the list of suggested hoax motives, without violating NPOV or taking non-reliable sources. (I tried it in October 4th 2007, without success) Anyway, the whole topic is about speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.173.212 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required, and it's true that there is no shortage of ignorance in the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag at 2:38

This IP edit [1] claims the flag appears to wave at 2:38 into some video. It's certainly not "waving" in the video cited, so I reverted that comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The flag does move in the Apollo 15 video when an astronaut passes by it. But it is not moving otherwise. Two possible explanations for it are (1) the astronaut may have touched the flag, but it appears that he did not, and (2) electrical charges could build up on the astronaut and cause it to move as the astronaut passed. I think this is discussed on Clavius.org. Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in the Clavius,org main website, but I think it is in the forums. It is in this forum: [2] Bubba73 (talk), 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it move, so I don't know what else to say about it, although I think I was correct to revert that IP address' comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It does move a little, just after an astronaut passes between the camera and the flag, going left to right. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This may seem like OR, but hang a flag and walk past it. I doubt that you'll get any movement out of it. The electrical charge could account for it, but wouldn't the flag be grounded, being attached to an aluminum pole stuck in the soil?208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bubba73 pointed me to the right video. I still take issue with the posting "However the flag does seem to wave 2 minutes 38 seconds into the video after an astronaut passes in front of it, which implies a surrounding atmosphere." The flag moves or oscillates a little bit after the astronaut moves in front of it, that much is factual. Saying that it's "waving" is a POV interpretation, and the part about an atmosphere is POV analysis or personal conjecture, of a moment that could have several possible explanations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, the movement there doesn't imply an atmosphere. Bubba73 (talk), 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user re-posts, I will pare it down as per the above. And if the devolves into an edit war, I might retreat again, for the same reason I stopped watching the page for about a year. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Invisible flame

We say that "Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust", but to me that doesn't explain why there is no visible flame. Why would there be no incandescent glow from the exhaust? Shouldn't it be very hot? --Doradus (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

File:Titan 2 launching Gemini 11 spaceship.jpg

Titan II

Well, since it is nearly transparent there isn't much to see. The image on the left is a Titan II, which I think uses the same fuel. Compare that to the Atlas on the right. The flame coming out of the nozzles on the Titan is almost transparent. On the Moon, there is also no atmosphere to be heated to glow. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the first launch I saw was an Atlas, with its bright flame. Later that day I saw a Titan II, and I was impressed with how it seemed to be rising on nothing (even watching through a telescope) . Bubba73 (talk), 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also - as with the issue of exposure settings when photographing stars from the moon - we have to remember that the lunar surface is being lit with insanely bright sunlight - much brighter than it ever is here on Earth because we always see it through a thick layer of atmosphere. The light-colored lunar soil makes that even worse because it reflects more of the sunlight back towards the camera than is typically the case on Earth. So the camera would have been using a minimum aparture and it wouldn't have picked up any feint glow that there might have been. Really - unless something is very bright indeed it's not going to show up well in those lunar photographs. It's this kind of "missing" detail that makes it all the less likely that the moon shots were faked. Someone FAKING that takeoff would have been sure to use some kind of impressive special-effect. The LACK of that (along with a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why it's missing) is what makes the lunar footage so convincing. SteveBaker (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the sunlight on the Moon is that much brighter. I seem to remember that it is 1/3 stop brighter in camera terms, which is about 25% brigher. Also, the Moon soil is relatively dark - the albedo is 0.012, about half as bright as an average scene on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

Joe Rogan "brings up many facts to disprove the legality of the moon landing" in his comedy acts? What does that even mean? Why is it in this article? 71.56.118.116 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Dre

Good point. It's out unless someone can provide a source for (1) confirming that he does and (2) confirming that his opinion is based on anything other than trying to be funny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Stars (again)

It is often cited (eg. in the article) that there are no stars on the photos from Apollo 11.

That's not true: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5968HR.jpg This photo was taken from the shadow of the lander, so exposure times where higher.

You can make out more than a few if you mess with the image in an editing program. I think we might be looking at Virgo and Leo, but I'm all but certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.197.64 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Examination of Apollo moon photos shows a long-exposure UV photo from Apollo 16 that shows stars. It also shows one from Apollo 14 where you can see Venus (I know, a planet not a star) when enhanced. I'll have to look at the one you mention in a photo editor. Bubba73 (talk), 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When we left Earth

Just to let people know about the TV program When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, which started on Discovery channel tonight. The Apollo program is on next week, so that will be relevant to readers of this article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You should also see For All Mankind and In the Shadow of the Moon videos. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Photographs and Films Section

There are quite a lot of pictures down the right hand side of his section and unfortunately it extends further than the body of the text, leaving it looking a bit untidy. The pictures are important in demonstrating the points made, but I was just wondering if there was any way to tidy it up? I'm pretty new here so I don't know how to move stuff around etc so I just thought I'd bring it up. Cheers Nmcc89 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the photos in that section smaller to help. But it may be better to put them in a gallery at the bottom of that section. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few adjustments, putting the stars photos down the LHS (you can see the stars in the picture now!) and then the rest in a gallery below. The gallery could have bigger thumbnails but i couldn't find any way to do that. Nmcc89 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Use of Weasel Words

I believe weasel words have been used when, in the last section, the article states:
"Moon hoax proponents devote a substantial portion of their efforts to examining NASA photos. They point to various issues with photographs and films purportedly taken on the Moon. Experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counter-intuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that whistleblowers may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA."
I believe using the phrase "Experts in ... [verb]," implies that all experts believe a certain way. I think this can be fixed by providing references to experts (with respective justification for use of appeal to authority) or by removing/changing the sentence to "A possible response is..." or something similar.
I just noticed it, and thought it might help the credibility. Thanks much.

More irrefutable proof.

Ha! So what have all you sceptics got to say about this damning evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k&eurl=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117433

SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

amazing, with all the footage, never seen before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.157.15 (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)