Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

/Archive 1 | /Archive 2

Question

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

Think back to your junior high school science class, when they demonstrated how a feather and a marble fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Lightweight objects such as feathers... and dust... are actually suspended in air to a notable degree by the mass of the air. The moon is not quite a vacuum, but it's close. In a vacuum or near-vacuum, you don't get a "cloud" that causes the atmosphere to slow and disperse dust. The dust would fall immediately, both faster and likely at a shorter distance, on the moon than it would on the earth. Ironically, your astute observations about the behavior of the dust lend further support to the credibility of the lunar voyage. Kudos! Wahkeenah 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, consider kicking dust in a space suit. It is more confining than ordinary clothes. Also, consider that if you rip it, you'll probably die, so the astronauts might not have been kicking the dust with their full force. Second, if you speed up the film 2X, it DOESN'T look regular. Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

One sided?

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

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

proper place for conspiracies to run free

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

Transcript from Conspiracy supporting website

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houston: Repeat your last information!

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

Houston: Repeat, repeat!

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

Houston: Have you picked up anything?

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

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

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

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

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

DarthVader 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• It came from someone's fertile imagination. Wahkeenah 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is listed at this website. It is fake. I recorded the entire Apollo moonwalk, except for about 5 seconds that it took me flip the reels. The entire actual transcript is available and the entire video of the moonwalk is available, and there is nothing remotely like that in any of them. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, ja? And I'm guessing there was nothing about Mr. Gorsky, either. >:) Wahkeenah 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, answer me one question, though, if you can... right after the famous "one giant leap for mankind", did Armstrong say something about being able to kick up the surface dust easily with his boot, or something along those lines? I don't recall it at all, I just read it someplace once, and whoever wrote about it said it was a much more interesting comment, a more spontaneous and human comment, than the rehearsed sentence he spoke initially. Wahkeenah 04:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The actual Apollo 11 transcript is here, and here is that part (skip down to 109:24:48), 20 seconds after the "one small step", he said "Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles." Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Yes, that's the quote I recall. Armstrong threw the obligatory bone to the headline writers, then began the job of exploration and reporting details. And, of course, one of them took a photo of a footprint, to reinforce the verbal description. As I recall, there were some fears about how thick the dust might be. The LEM had something like footpads, but until the guys actually got there and stepped into it, no one could be sure what its consistency was. Regarding Mr. Gorsky, I'm surprised none of the moonbats has cited that... which apparently came from the fertile mind of Buddy Hackett, or someone like that. Wahkeenah 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The famous photo of a footprint is not the first footprint. Aldrin took it of one of his footprints later. Before Apollo 11, I think four unmanned Surveyor program craft landed there, with footbads, so it wasn't completely unknown. Bubba73 (talk), 05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right on all counts. Unless the Surveyors were faked also. I wonder what the moonbats have to say about that? Here's something I would like for the doubters to ponder, if it's within their meager capability. Their doubt seems to spring in part from the fact that they weren't around during the 50s and 60s and early 70s. It's easier to disbelieve a news event that occurred outside of one's lifetime, because there is no personal frame of reference. Now, they should think of some current news event, to which they have no personal connection, i.e. no verifiability, but do not doubt that it is true. I must then ask them, "How do they know it's true? Well, the answer is common sense tells them so. Wahkeenah 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How about George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) where he claims Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa? Surely that's true, after all, the government said so! 67.40.249.122 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a spurious analogy. Wahkeenah 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

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

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

• There is no "theory" about the moon landings being faked, just a bunch of questions that have already been answered but the conspiracists won't accept the logical answers. And your specific questions have been asked and answered countless times. The flag was NOT "waving in the wind", it was bouncing around while they planted it in the lunar surface, and once that task was done, the flag became motionless ever after. The video of Armstrong walking out of the lunar module was from a TV camera mounted on the lunar module itself, aimed at the ladder on the side of the lunar module. Wahkeenah 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the video, the flag is waving only when the astronauts are shaking it. Shortly after the astronauts let go of the flag, it stops "waving". Just like quoting out of context, proponents of the hoax hypothesis only show clips of the flag "waving" while the astronauts are moving it. If you look at the entire video (as I have done), which can be purchased at Spaceflight films you can see that shortly after the astronauts let go of it, the flag stops moving. At one point, the Apollo 11 flag is in the scene for more than 30 minutes, and it doesn't move a bit during that time, or any other time - except when the astronauts are handling it.

There was a TV camera mounted on the outside of the lunar module that showed Armstrong. You may have noticed that there are TV cameras in banks and other locations that do not have a person operating them. This is a similar principle. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to explain too much to the moonbats, it will force them to think logically, which could strain their brains. Wahkeenah 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Because they're going to do it "for real" this time. :-) At that time, there was a crash program to go to the moon. The Saturn rockets were already in development at the time it was decided to go to the moon. The old technology would be considered too dangerous today. The major funding for going back to the moon won't be available until the International Space Station is finished and the Shuttle is retired. Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm guessing User:195.93.21.69 and his a-none friends were born during the Disco era. I can't account for their lack of common sense, nor their ignorance of history. But I know that we went because we were in a race with the Soviets, and there was a drastic sense of urgency about it that pushed the envelope as far as it could be pushed. I wish they were old enough to have a clue of the sense of panic that hit this country when Sputnik was launched, and when the Soviets launched a man into space, and so on. JFK issued a challenge, and we met it, because we believed we could. Remember, that challenge was issued before Vietnam, before the rioting, and so on, before so much of our national self-doubt set in, when we believed we as a nation could do anything we set our minds to. Once we won the race to the Moon, all interest in lunar excursions (along with the funding) quickly evaporated, as most Americans thought the money was better spent at home, and on more "practical" uses of space, like the Shuttle program and unmanned interplanetary probes. There was, in fact, no longer any reason to go to the Moon. And there still isn't. The lack of urgency is giving the government plenty of time for a lengthy, expensive project with lots of employment, and we might actually get there again eventually, and then it will be like last time: we'll get there, and say, "OK, now what?" Then we'll remember why we cut the Apollo program short the first time around. Wahkeenah 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, president Kennedy set the goal when he had been in office only about four months - still quite early in his administration. The USSR had: the first satellite, the first living being in space, the first person in space, the first person to orbit, and the first person to be in space for a day, first (unmanned spacecraft to the moon), first to see the back side of the moon, first to another planet (Venus), and probably more. This was all before the US put Alan Shepard on a 15-minute sub-orbital flight. It was clear that the USSR was going to have more "firsts" before we could catch up. JFK was looking for a goal far enough off that we would probably be able to do it first, and he announced that goal shortly after Shepard's flight. Incidentally, the USSR continued to have "firsts": first woman in space, first with two manned spacecraft up at once, first space walk, first spacecraft with more than one person. Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

- Multiple AOL Migs (FKA 195.93.21.69).

• I don't know what that means, but it sounds offensive. Go wash your mouth out. As usual, you and your kind miss the point. Yes, it was dangerous, but it was all they had. And they were on a military mission, and risks were there, willing to be taken. No guts, no glory. And as we all know, there were deaths and the threat of dying from these things. And, indeed, the Shuttle has now become nearly obsolete. It has become a dinosaur, like the the Concorde. And you would have us go back to the Saturn V? Oy! Wahkeenah 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Saturn was very good. Our only series of rockets that have never had a failure: Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V. I think that the most dangerous part of the Apollo missions were the lunar landers, by far.

Columbus sailed across the Atlantic (or did he???) in three small sailing ships without radio, radar, GPS, or a navigation computer, and he didn't even know how far across it was. That would be considered dangerous today. Bubba73 (talk), 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they faked the Columbian voyages in order to promote the 1893 World's Fair. Actually, we were always here. We imported the Indians in order to promote Westerns. Little Big Horn? Wounded Knee? Never happened. Totally hype. Wahkeenah 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Saturn was very good" - so build a half dozen more of the things and while you're at it, knock some Intel-Pentium-enhanced Landing Modules together and hey presto - the moon in a couple of years. But seriously, thanks for responding - sometimes it can get really lonely on the ward.

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

-Migs

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

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

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

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

Well said. Back to whether the missions to the moon were dangerous or not, three planned missions were canceled: Cancelled Apollo missions. They were cancelled after 90% of the money had been spent and some of the hardware was finished. Why cancel fake missions? One of the reason for the cancellation was that it was thought to be too likely that there would be fatalities (i.e. too dangerous), see Astronautix Apollo 18. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said indeed. And to put it another way, by that time, the benefits were no longer seen as outweighing or justifying the risks. In essence, they had accomplished most everything they were likely to, yes? Wahkeenah 02:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:67.40.249.122's recent changes

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

It's really not a re-write. I have corrected some factual errors, added a picture, removed some particularly egregious language. Rather than reverting a bunch of errors back in, please let me know which edits you find objectionable. I find it hard to believe that the procedure for this is that I have to run all my edits past someone who will not speak to me except to abuse me first. Yours, 67.40.249.122 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. The NPOV policy says to not give undue weight to the opinions of a tiny minority. WP policy is also to us reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't think removing factual errors and wild speculation, along with leading and misrepresentative statements is giving undue weight to anyone. Representing the facts is a duty that an encyclopedia has - we don't need to engage in partisan misrepresentation. It undermines our case, and the encyclopedia as a whole. I removed some unsourced material, I'd invite you to take a look at the changes below and tell me which, if any, you disagree with. 67.40.249.122 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Occams' razor

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

It looks to me like you changed a good deal more than you describe. While making an improvement in the presentation of Occam's razor, you recast the description to be more favorable to proponents of the hoax, subtly shading the meanings to make these fringe theories seem more reasonable than they are. How about:

Occam's razor – is one story simpler than the other? Is an elaborate hoax and cover-up involving the collusion and lying of thousands of individuals simpler than the mainstream opinion that NASA's space program sent men to the Moon?

Tom Harrison ^Talk 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not reitterate the entire edit, I summarised it. As it is written the description is unfair. Where does the figure of thousands come from? Who claimed the conspiracy requires thousands? Why use the term 'mainstream' - it is simply argument by appeal to authority, adding nothing to the case.. Why the use of the word 'elaborate' to describe the hoax, but not the space program? 67.40.249.122 06:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Occam's razor asks for the simplest explanation that explains all of the facts. The hoax theory doesn't explain all of the facts. Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said - I didn't write this, I merely corrected the description of Occams' Razor. I'm not claiming that the rest of the text is innerrant, merely that I corrected an error, and that correction should not be reverted. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom - why did you remove the word 'elaborate' from the space program without discussing it? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nasa's rebuttal

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

In James Oberg I just added an external link to an article by jim on this subject. As far as I know, the book has not been written, and NASA didn't anounce its publication, just that it was planning to be published. Some of this information might be put in this article, but not too much, since it is long. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - my edit was simply to add the fact that NASA announced the book. The article previously only menitoned that they announced that they would cancel it - leaving the reader to wonder when, if at all, they had announced their intention to publish it. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a short note to the James Oberg article - I hope you feel it reflects the facts! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

AGREEMENT - Wikification of names

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

Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and "speak for everyone" - I see no opposition to this. Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! Progress! 67.40.249.122 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A vast number, or a substantial number

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

A flurry of conspiracy theories

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

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

I feel that it is reasonable to point out that Watergate and others were, in fact, secret government conspiracies to decieve the public. I do not beleive that that lends undue credence to the Moon hoax, but it does place the resiliance of the idea that the government might be lying in some kind of context. 67.40.249.122 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, Watergate was never a conspiracy theory - it was known to be a conspiracy from the moment the burglars were caught. Secondly, it was not a widespread conspiracy throughout the government. It wasn't started by the government, it was started by the Committee to Reelect the President. Of course, this type of thing probably did lead to people believing in government conspiracies. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree that we should mention it as a contributing factor to the climate of distrust of government, or do you want to exclude it altogether? 67.40.249.122 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Copyedit

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

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

Do you have a source for your claim that it's more factually correct? It contradicts what little I know of current resolving power of scopes, as rehearsed earlier in the talk, here. Pending your cite, I have replaced your 'improvement' with a third version. Adhib 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with your text - the parts that I objected to were the bits speculating about what hoax proponents might do. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you're happy with my text, and thus deem it fit to stand. However, my question here was: where is your cite for the 'improvement' you made? "The main reason .. seem to be" - text you inserted to 'fix' a speculative claim - looks like it was purely speculative (not to mention factually incorrect). Can we now establish some agreement that your edits are not as down-the-middle as you initially represented them to be? Adhib 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal

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

POV

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

Not dignifying a response

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

This isn't an actual conspiricy, it is a conspiricy theory - pure unfounded speculation. Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My edit demonstrates that the 'authorities' would behave the same towards unfounded speculation as to a genuine conspiracy. It adds no undue credance, merely removes an unfounded implicit claim that because the authorities don't respond to it we know it is a conspiracy theory. Sure we know it is, but not because the authorities deny it. Arguing from logical falacy undermines our credability. 67.40.249.122 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

credibility. First spell it, then claim it. Adhib 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my typo - you don't, I presume, argue in favor of arguing from logical falacy? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I do not know what a falacy might be, you must be presuming correctly. Adhib 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Spacecraft testing

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

AGREEMENT - Wikification

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

Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume not. Feel free to correct me... 67.40.249.122 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, no opposition. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviets

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

So what if it might have been easier to fake it? You're assuming that everybody always does the easy thing. JFK said "We choose to go to the Moon, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " No one said that it was going to be easy to go to the moon - and it wasn't - but we did it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not me who's assuming it, this is in the context of the article having raise Occams' Razor (and then mis-defining it), and claiming that one thing is easy, while the other is hard. I did not write this segment, just copy edited it to make it a little more reasonable. Hoax proponents are not quoted as saying that faking the landing was 'easy' - it undermines our case to claim that they are. They do argue that pretending to go to the moon was easier than going to the moon. I don't need to agree with them to represent what they say without distortion. 67.40.249.122 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

...but it helps. Adhib 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant. I don't think you are arguing that we should misquote hoax proponents to make their case look more flimsy are you? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It becomes relevant if your 'corrections' bend the stick too far the other way. Which, in part, they did. But as below, the filip you gave to the debate has resulted in a stouter article, so this is just some meta-kvetching on my part you're welcome to ignore. Adhib 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sibrel

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

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

Falsifiability

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

changed 'story' to 'explanation'

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

Gallup polling

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

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

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

A small minority of people will believe anything, no matter how wrong it is. But just because a small percentage of the public belueves something, doesn't mean it is wrong. The people that don't believe in evolution do that for religious reasons, not rational reasons. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The Gallup poll result, and the explanation from Gallup, and the poll showing how many people believe in evolution, tell us nothing about the truth values of those things. Both merely place belief in this in the context of belief in other things. If we're going to show how many people believe one thing, it is helpful to have a comparison of how many people believe in another as a reference point. 67.40.249.122 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You're putting words in their mouth. The poll is about "non-theistic" evolution particurlary. Many people believe believe that god caused evolution. Also, there is evidence to be condidered, for both evolution and the moon landing. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not putting words into anyone's mouth. The poll is about non-theistic evolution, that's very clear. The evidence is considered at length in the article - this section is about public belief - it's helpful to compare belief in this with belief in other things, to get a picture of the kinds of things that have this sort of level of public belief. The claim is made that the number is so low that it can be assumed to result from people saying yes to anything that they are asked - it undermines our case to apply that criteria selectively.

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

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

AGREEMENT - Scan coversion?

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

Undoubtedly. Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool! 67.40.249.122 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREEMENT - Moon's gravity?

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

I don't think your edit is really any better. The whole thing is to explain why the descent engine was at low thrust. I propose something like:

• The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. In addition, the Moon's lower gravity means that only 1/6 as much thrust is needed, compared to Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good - I agree - yours is better! See how easy it is? 67.40.249.122 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The empty LM weighed 14,700kg. There was 10,150 kg of descent stage fuel (which was almost gone) and 2350 kg of ascent stage fuel plus 150kg for the crew. So the weight was down from 22,800kg to about 12,700kg or so. This is about 2,100kg on the moon. The thrust if the descent engine was 4,500kg-force. So it was throttled down to a little less than half thrust at the time of landing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I think it's better to speak of it's mass falling because of fuel use, it's weight is, of course, different on the moon, but for different reasons. There are two separate processes going on here, firstly that the mass is going down because of fuel use, secondly that whatever the mass was at any given time, it weighed about 1/6 of what it did on earth. 67.40.249.122 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what I tried to do above when I proposed making the gravity part a second sentence. The moon's gravity doesn't really matter much in the discussion, except that it means that the thrust would be only a fraction of what would be needed on Earth. Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Can we chalk this one up as 'solved'? 67.40.249.122 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. In addition, the Moon's lower gravity meant that only 1/6 as much thrust was needed, compared to Earth gravity.

It still seems incomplete to me. The idea is that the thrust is a low lower than you would imagine from our experience on Earth, and that isn't tied in anywhere. Also, there was a small crater - Armstrong mentions it and there is a photo. Bubba73 (talk), 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - so make a suggestion - I don't think we disagree on any point of importance, it's just a question of finding a wording that works. 67.40.249.122 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first line says that no blast crater is expected. I think that should be "large". Secondly, it needs to mention somehow that what you would expect on the moon is a lot different from what our experiences on Earth would indicate. Third, I think that the engine was cut off shortly after the long poles detected contact, which was a few meters above the surface. This needs to be refactored.

---

1. No blast crater appeared from the landing.

• No large crater should be expected, based on the different physical conditions on the moon. Factors that affect the formation of a blast crater are:

• • The force of the downward pointing engines - the Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI (By contrast, the thrust of the first stage of the Saturn V was 459 PSI, per area of the engine bell.) In addition, the Moon's lower gravity meant that only 1/6 as much thrust was needed, compared to Earth gravity.

• • Gas pressure of the exhaust at the point it makes contact with the ground - unlike on earth, where rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches due to the atmospheric pressure (the thin out as the rocket climbs) in a vacuum, exchaust gases rapidly disburse, leaving no pressurised 'plume'. For this reason, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The lunar module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater.

• • Direction of movement of the lander immediately prior to impact - the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".

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

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

Sure - feel free to change that text in-line, or on the main page though, I don't think there is anything controversial here, it's just copyediting. 67.40.249.122 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kubrik

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

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

Let's see your proof. Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That 2001 was in post production in 1968?! 67.40.249.122 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the Kubrick claims. "It has been claimed" is not enough, where was it claimed? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I think you misunderstand. I did not add the Kubrik section, I changed the bracketting so that it made sense. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Bill Wood also claims that NASA heavily subsidized Kubrick when he produced 2001, and that 2001 was used to develop the special effects needed to fake a lunar landing and its purpose. Wood claims Kubrick worked on 2001 with the help of NASA experts Fred Ordway and Harry Lange. Please don't ask me to defend this - I don't believe it, I just think we have a responsibility to accurately quote what is claimed. 67.40.249.122 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the 'documentary' Dark Side of the Moon also claims this. 67.40.249.122 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to use reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think books by conspiracy theorists are reliable sources for the purposes of discovering what conspiracy theorists claim. We're not saying it happened, we're saying that the authors claimed it. That seems a pretty reliable thing. 67.40.249.122 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the change in the position of the brackets that I made? I'm in no way speaking for the rest of the section - I don't care what you do with it! 67.40.249.122 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Earthrise photo

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

I moved the photo to be alongside the toc - it takes up less room, and can be bigger. 67.40.249.122 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the Flat Earth Society's claim that the Earth is flat have to do with the claim that the moon landing was a hoax? Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They claim that the landings were faked, because the photos show a round earth. From their perspective, if we had really gone into space, we would have come back with photos of a flat earth, ergo, the space program must have been faked. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some flat-earthers claim that the Earth is a flat disc. So it could look round in a photo from space. Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Flat Earth Society make the claim that the photos showing what looks like a globe proove the moon mission was faked. If you want to source that claim about the disc, I certianly wouldn't oppose putting it in. 67.40.249.122 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

More falsifiability

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

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

AGREEMENT - Apollo 8

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

Does anyone object to this? I feel like we should be able to agree that this should be wikified? 67.40.249.122 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

mechanical remains

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

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

claims

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

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

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

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

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

How is that different from what's above? 67.40.249.122 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Polite request

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

I just have one question...do you think there was a government coverup that lied to the world about the lunar landings?--MONGO 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, I don't, but that doesn't mean we should write an article that sounds like propaganda. We should avoid loaded terms, weasle words, wild unsourced speculation and putting words in people's mouths and misrepresenting them, even when we disagree with them. Perhaps especially when we disagree with them. That's not giving anything undue credence, it's just doing duediligence on writing the article. 67.40.249.122 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the NASA official story inaccurate or propaganda? How is it propaganda?--MONGO 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The writing style of the article sounded like propaganda. It used leading and weasel words along with unsourced and vague attributions. I make no representations about the NASA story. 67.40.249.122 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did this propaganda support the Official NASA details of the event?--MONGO 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, it was pretty badly written, and unclear in many places. Regardless, we should not editorialise needlessly, we say this is a fringe theory, that hardly anyone beleives it, we don't then need to go an make up unsourced claims - it undermines our case. 67.40.249.122 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: "We should avoid ... wild unsourced speculation" . It seems to me that the whole hoax allegations are the wild specuation. It is "sourced", but not from reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's why the title is 'hoax accusations'. I didn't write the article though. The source for the accusations seem to be pretty reliable. Some folks made some accusations, we reference the books and interviews etc where they made them. What's unreliable about that? We're not claiming that they're true. 67.40.249.122 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what is "unreliable" about showing that the claims are wrong? Can you show an instance where the counterarguements are "wild speculation"? Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes - as above - the claim that the hoax would require the complicity of 'thosands of people'. Perhaps, but no source or calculations are given for this. Is this a random authors' guess? Or does it come from someone who has made a reliable estimate? We don't know, because it's not sourced. 67.40.249.122 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just ordered Bad Astronomy, When I get the book, I'll try to give page numbers, if that will make you happy. Bubba73 (talk), 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to put it in if a hoax proponent, or a sceptic who has made some reasoned calculations, can be quoted. I hope you understand my discomfort with just plucking these figures out of the air. 67.40.249.122 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

when you say "skeptic", do you mean a skeptic of the moon landing or a skeptic of the hoax specuations? Bubba73 (talk), 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - they should both be held to the same criteria. In this case I am reffering to a skeptic of the hoax claims - a landing believer if you like. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that there were thousands of people working on the Apollo project? Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that my views of the Apollo project, or my original research about how many people I think would have had to have been complicit are relevant. I don't think yours are either - we must reference the claim. To entertain this line of argument for a moment though, I think what you're saying is that if X people worked on the project, X must be complicit. It just doesn't follow. Many of the people involved worked on tiny parts - the ones who built the lander, for example, might have built what they thought was a lander, it might even have been designed to work to the best of their knowledge - it might have sat on the launch pad, or even have been launched, without depositing people on the moon. The argument would be that only a relatively small number of people would actually have to have been complicit, the rest would be doing their job, building parts for a space program that looked like it was going to the moon. Please don't ask me to defend this position, I don't believe it, I'm just pointing out why we need to source claims. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP guidelines say that we don't have to source common knowledge (i.e. thousands of people worked on Apollo). However, [this], which was already in the references addresses it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Not sure. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser -- Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this, and now realise the accusation that you're making. Do you consider my cleaning up this article to be vandalism? If so, I would ask you to highlight which edits you have a problem with. I find it hard to find edits I have made that could by any stretch of the imagination be called vandalism. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep your hair on, old fruit. I make no accusation of vandalism here. It was simply that, in the short time I had available for the 'pedia yesterday, I found that in answering your deluge in two small places, on both occasions I found myself referring back to previous debates with a particular hoax-booster - your edits mapped his concerns more closely than coincidence would immediately suggest. Then I realised that there were some funny regularities in the types of spelling mistake you both make. It might simply be that you are both talking sense, and thus have very similar concerns; and that you were both educated in a way that prioritised content over form. But I thought I'd check if there might not be a more intimate relationship between the two contributions. Adhib 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

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

Yes, Quid pro quo.--MONGO 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that you can accuse me of not discussing in good faith - the only things that I have reverted are reversions without comment on the talk page. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the Wikipedian who protected the page - it seems that only one single sentence has been added to the article so far despite 20 hours of editing: [1]. I don't plan to get involved with the eidting itself, but I'll promise to check back in a few hours and see how things are going. --HappyCamper 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - can you please check which version you protected though - the picture appears to have vanished, and I don't think anyone opposes it - it just got caught in the crossfire! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"it's important that folks discuss changes on the talk page, not simply revert without discussion" Should we then go back to the version of yesterday, before 67.40.249.122 rewrote the article without visiting the talk page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea - I think the important thing is not the protected version, but the proposed edits on the talk page. The version yesterday contains many factual errors that I've listed here - you seem pretty reluctant to engage on most of them - if I can make a suggestion, could you go through the list of edits on the talk page, and let me know which ones you oppose, and why? A couple of your changes in the article (made without discussion) were just plain wrong, so I think discussion is important! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the recent reverts you made without discussion, and we can go from there! 67.40.249.122 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my idea: Why don't we instead start with the page as it was here, and you can explain the changes you want to make. As we achieve consensus for each change, it can be added with everyone's support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my idea. Why don't you stop trying to revert (it's protected now anyway) and discuss the changes that I have already proposed on this page? I don't know why you are not interested in doing that. They are the changes that are in the live version anyway. Rather than re-introduce typos, factual errors and pov, just let me know which ones are offensive, and when we reach concensus, we can put them back. I've already done what you asked, and I'm waiting for a response. Don't worry about it being on the m:The Wrong Version, the changes are on the talk page. 67.40.249.122 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be more useful to start with the last version that enjoyed consensus, and make changes to that version. I can't see why you would object to that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise - the version right now is not the one I would prefer either, but I feel that you need to make a gesture of good faith and address which of the changes you object to - I assume that you don't want to put typos and factual errors back in. Please, stop complaining about the m:The Wrong Version, and let's get down to the task of improving the article - all the changes are listed on the talk page. I'm finding it frustrating that you show such little interest in discussing the issues, and such overwhelming interest in the version that's protected. The sooner we figure out which edits you object to, the sooner we will have a version we both agree with. 67.40.249.122 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's go through them in order. For example. First on the list. Do you want to replace the incorrect definition of Occam's Razor? 67.40.249.122 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. There's no point in both of us repeating ourselves. Maybe someone else has some ideas. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks for removing that. Still, I think taking a break from the discussion is the best thing I can do now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but sooner or later, if we're going to make progress on this, you're going to have to let us know which edits you don't like. See you later, 67.40.249.122 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Oh no! m:The Wrong Version! Protection isn't an endorsement of any certain version. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0 - please feel free to weigh in, my complaint was not with the version, but with admins changing it to their preffered version after it had been protected. It seemed against the spirit of HappyCamper's attempt to bring them to the discussion table. 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that two other administrators edited the page after I protected it. This does not seem quite right. Well, in the interests of fairness, I will revert back to the version that I protected - and this will be the only edit I'll make in the article. I will come back to this page in a few hours or so, as this seems to be a brewing edit war. I think I'm going to drop a note on WP:AN too, as it has made me feel a bit uncomfortable at the moment to have come across this. --HappyCamper 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That page is one of the funniest pages I've ever read. Thanks for making me feel happier today. :-) DarthVader 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I hold out hope, but frankly they seem not to be interested in discussing the edits, only in reverting them. After having asked me to list the edits on the talk page, most go unanswered while the reverting goes on. Thanks for your help though! 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to post it, HC, but I was watching this edit warring brewing and had thought myself about protecting the page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Well, nothing much to say on AN/I - everything seems to be good. Katefan0, have we met before on Wikipedia? Your name sounds so familiar...and the fact that you knew that I'm also known as HC for short...O Wikipedia! Sometimes I just have to wonder!! :-) --HappyCamper 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

67.40.249.122: the sheer number of your edits are hard to keep up with. I was trying to reestablish a base point and I saw your edits as attempts to minimalize the mainstream view of these events. If you can take the points a bit slower, I think most folks will be glad to address your concerns.--MONGO 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I listed them on the talk page - I was hoping that people who had issues might list them there, so far, little interest, and little in the way of coherence from people who did respond. Now that it's protected, I'll be certain to be slower (in fact, if anyone had asked, I would have, I didn't realise that was an issue). Why don't you have a look at the edits listed on the talk page, and tell me whether you agree with them or not, and, if not, why not? My frustration so far is that nobody has been able to explain what is wrong with the edits, simply that they want to revert them! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a productive exchange of comments. Everyone seems to be willing to listen to each other. In light of this, I'm going to get rid of the protection, and we'll take it from there? That sounds good I think. --HappyCamper 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dislike long sub-headers

I dislike long sub-headers, for example:

Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program

can be changed to

Deaths of key Apollo personnel

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

I certainly would not oppose this. 67.40.249.122 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

refactoring - fine - but the list above is no longer 'mine', it contains the items that we agree should be integrated into the article when it is un-protected. If you want to keep it separate, that's fine, but I'm worried about it becoming confusing. 67.40.249.122 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but if there isn't any objections I'll do it tomorrow whether its protected or not. And if other things have been added to the RC header, now I'm the one who is confused :"D. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm removing the protection now. Just see the comments above? I haven't seen such honest and clear comments on a talk page in a very long time. I'm actually excited to remove page protection now! --HappyCamper 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

For sure, which reminds me I should check on another conspiracy article I've been meaning to wikify, but so far I've been staying away from it given the passion good faith editor is showing to the subject. But he ends up making the Kennedy assassination theories read like an essay or police report. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The last time I looked in on that (several months ago) it was in pretty good shape. The last time I looked at Roswell UFO incident (two months ago) it was in terrible shape. Bubba73 (talk), 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough ...

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

Transmission Issues #5

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love this article

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

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

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

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

Interesting Video

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

I think that the claim in there about showing the Earth from low orbit through a curcular window can be disproven by comparing the geographical features. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be too difficult finding a cloud ridden piece of land on the entire world's geography, althought you are right about it disproving the original idea. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There looked like there was a piece of land in the photo to me. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - if they were in low earth orbit, you would see the view of the earth changing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Low Earth Orbit. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true. Compare that to video taken from low earth orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Also, the circular port was on the order of 10 inches in diameter, and you could get on the order of 8 feet away from it, if that far. If the Apollo was in low earth orbit at, say, 200 miles above the surface, the view would be of about a 20 mile area of the earth. That entire view would pass throuh the porthole in about 4 seconds. But it doesn't. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Link Inclusion

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

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

Hoax

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

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

Why you can't rebuild Saturn rockets

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

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

NPOV petard

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

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

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

ElectricJoe, This issue has been dealt with by wikipedia policy makers already. See the pseudoscience section of WP:NPOV. What we have to do is just report what they believe and note that it is definitely not the mainstream view. Worrying about 'impressionable people' isn't our concern. WP is a reporter of information, not a guardian of truth.

And more generally, I think the 'conspiracy theory' section is written in a far too condescending tone. It is written as if the reader needs to be educated on how to determine the veracity of claims in general. For instance, I think the whole first paragraph that seeks to educate the reader on how to test conspiracy theories should be removed. I think Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Creationism are good examples of how ideas that have been debunked by the mainstread can be handled well.

Ashmoo 07:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Ashmoo. As the Moon Hoax article is now written it is a terrible farce of NPV standards. If the article is about the Moon Hoax then the article should explain the Moon Hoax, and nothing else.

The first time I heard about the Moon Hoax I thought, "Why on Earth would someone think that?" And that is the point of using Wikipedia, to learn what a subject is all about.

The 5 W's: Who, What, When, Where and Why are here and accounted for. Unfortunately so is a lot of other personal beliefs that clutter and confuse the article. This article can be easily and quickly streamlined to an efficent NPV article by removing all the counter claims against the Moon Hoax. This article is, after all, about the Moon Hoax, not whether it is true or not. Readers will need to form their own opinions, not have one handed to them. I plan on removing all the rebutals and streamlining the article to the 5 W's unless someone can explain why all the rebutal clutter is needed.DartFrog 04:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be new here - welcome. There are many Wikipedia articles that present both sides of an issue. Refer to Wikipedia policies, such as Wikipedia:NPOV. In particular, the Pseudoscience section says represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories, and the "Comparison of views in science" section: A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. There are probably other relevant policies too. Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual error regarding Antarctic meteorites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falsifiability

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

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

Please give specific examples. The problem was the previous version gave way too much credit to hoax conspiracy theorists and not enough credit to the points that the conspiracy defies falisifiability and that the lunar reflectors are an excellent counter to the hoaxers' claims. --ScienceApologist 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I reviewed your changes and accept them. I am definitely on your side in this btw, but had to take some time out there as I was enraged by IWorkforNASA's rudeness. Guinnog 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I copyedited this since it is now misleading the other way! For great justice. 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just beware -- always remember to never say "always" or "never"... or "ALL". Wahkeenah 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the relevance of this section anyway? I mean, this isn't a scientific experiment, it's a conspiracy theory. We don't note that the JFK assasination is not falsifiable - beyond the observation that the experiment to go look for footprints has not been done, what's the point? For great justice. 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to make major changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1992 Ralph Rene wrote “NASA Mooned America”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Briefly, I am against these changes. The article could be restructured. However, I think many people looking this up on Wikipedia will be trying to understand what the arguements and issues are. If all of the counterarguements are taken out, little information is given to the reader. We shouldn't have another article that gives the counterarguements because that would be a POV fork, which is against Wikipedia policy. Also, Wikipedia policy says that the majority mainstream scientific viewpoint should be given in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about more of a format like this :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Green_Cheese_Model_of_Lunar_Composition. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing only 14 mentions of hoax arguments to show what the idea of the hoax is. I have not explained any of these in detail because the article is not to prove that the landing is a hoax.Only to present the hoax. I have also not presented the scientific counter points beause, again, the article is not to prove that we did go to the moon. The point is to present the hoax. I can add a larger paragraph pointing to mainstream thoughts on the hoax, but, if we were to venture too far from the task of presenting the hoax theory we would surely be leaving the realm of informing readers and instead be engaging in a debate. Arguments that we did go to the Moon have their own forum under Apollo 11, NASA, etc. There we present that we did go to the moon. On the hoax article we report the hoax. Seems simple to me. More thoughts? I don't want this to be difficult. Any one who is adament that the hoax be thoroughly rebuked should edit the Apollo articles to reflect that we did go to the moon.

DartFrog 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the material you are taking out belongs somewhere in WP. Putting it somewhere else is forking, which we shouldn't do. I don't think it makes sense to put the refutations of the hoax allegations in the articles you mentioned, because they would seem to come out of left field. For instance "we went to the moon because the flag isn't actually waving, there are no stars in the photos because... " This is my opinion. Bubba73 (talk),

I wouldn't advise treating it that way either. I would deal with the landings own points if I wanted to show that the landing was real. I would not engage in an endless display of one-up-manship. The flag waving is a simple claim and does not need addressing. If you do address it you open the door for a counter rebutal. We can already see this happening in this article. I don't care if this article leaves people wondering if we went or not. I want people to understand the hoax. They can make up their own minds. (By DartFrog, I believe)

If the article just states that the flag was waving as if it was blowing in the wind and doesn't give the real reason, that it misleading. The pro-conspiracy TV programs show a short clip of the flag waving while the astronauts are putting it up. They don't show it sitting there for 30 minutes doing absolutely nothing after the astronauts leave it (which is actually in the Apollo 11 video). That is basically selective quoting. Also, they show still photographs where it appears to be waving, but you can tell that it is simply wrinkled. It was nylon, not cotton, which is stiffer. Also, the 1/6 gravity on the moon may mean that it is less likely to straighten out. Also, it isn't a standard flag pole - it has a right angle piece at the top from which the flag hangs. To leave this information out would be a mistake, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point, should we go into detail as to why one theory is better than the other? Why is it more likly that ailiens were found on the moon as opposed to why NASA faked it all to beat Russia? Ofcourse not. No one is over at the Flat Earth Scociety article explaining geometry and calculus and how the belief is wrong. To introduce counter arguments in an article intended to explain a subject is violating the NPOV criterian.

DartFrog 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The counter arguments are a key part of the phernomermon.Geni 08:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Listing the arguments without stating the counter-arguments is total POV, and simply spreads misinformation. This is at the core of all pseudoscience. Pseudoscience concentrates mainly on finding as many naive converts as possible, getting them to believe something, and then demonizing the opposition that has to clean up the mess. It is about scoring converts, not finding the truth. Real scientific discussions never simply ignore counterarguments - each side adapts and adjusts, finding evidence and realistic mechanisms for how things work until consensus is reached. An unbiased work must cover both sides of any discussion. Algr 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bubba73's and Algr's concerns are valid. The counter-arguments need to remain in the article to give the reader a balanced and accurate presentation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Common sense?

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

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

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

For instance, my common sense tells me something different about the reflectors than what is in the article: If they were going to fake the landings then they would not have even bothered with the reflectors. How convincing would that be to the average person - very few people can shoot a laser beam at the Moon and detect its reflection. So to me, common sense says that they would not even have bothered with the reflectors to use as a proof of a landing. Bubba73 (talk), 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but unsure what to do with it. The entire concept of "common sense" I think refers to easily confused and incorrect assumptions made regarding this issue, under the guise of "common sense". Perhaps we could put a caveat, one man's "common sense" is another's "common folly". But regarding the footsteps, it is a matter of what would be easier. Putting a robot up there to do it is easier, that's the kind of common sense its referring to. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"... but unsure what to do with it" - me too. As far as it being easier to do it with robots - there is no evidence of that. The only reason to think that robots might have made the footprints is because you can't accept that people made the footprints. And that is going about it backwards. Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

800

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

Buzz

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

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

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

What's the thing that looks like his right hand in each frame? For great justice. 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it must be a hose or strap. In the photo where you can see his fingers at the helment visor, you can also see part of his arm at the bottom of the visor. Bubba73 (talk), 23:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See the front view at Apollo 11. Bubba73 (talk), 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

How about this? For great justice. 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that great! The only thing is that you need to state the origin of the photos and copyright information. Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done that. For great justice. 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Laser reflectors

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

I think the point is simply that the presence of laser reflectors does not proove a manned landing. For great justice. 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I like to stop by now and then, and see what stage this hoax nonsense is in. Surely you must realize that no fact or set of facts is going the change the moonbats' minds. The JFK assassination-conspiracy industry has pretty well run its course, so they had to turn elsewhere for their entertainment. The argument that we might have sent a rocket to the moon (successfully, yet) to plant a laser reflector, just so we could pretend we sent men there, is one of their more desperate notions. Wahkeenah 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, either the reflectors got there on the (A) manned Apollo missions or (B) by robots. And there is no evidence of robot missions to the moon that took the reflectors. If it is either A or B and it is not B then it must be A. Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not at all clear that not having evidence of unmanned missions counts as evidence of manned missions. No being able to proove B does not proove A. I agree with you, but your logic is faulty I'm afraid. For great justice. 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Even things that are scientifically proven aren't absolutely certain. You have to look at the evidence and then draw your conclusion. There is a lot of evidence that the reflectors were left there my Apollo astronauts. There is no evidence that the ones at the claimed Apollo landing sites were left there by robotic missions. People who claim that already have their conclusion, which is not based onevidence. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Laughable theories are easy to rebut

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

The idea here is that everyone who claims there was a Moon hoax belongs to the Flat Earth Society. User:Tequendamia 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, just that the mentality is similar. As far as the ease of rebuttals, this is technically known as "shooting fish in a barrel". :) Wahkeenah 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag

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

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

ha

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

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

telescopes and satelites

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

Flag II

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

Actually - he's right, it's a continuity error, plus, if you look closely on this frame, you can see the wires that Buzz is suspended from coming out of his backpack! For great justice. 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Buzz Aldrin with U.S. flag.jpg

THE SAND LOOKS WET LIKE BEACH SAND [based on what?] AND THE FLAG DOESN'T CAST A SHADOW [wrong!]

You guys are basing your discusion on one photograph, when in reality there was video footage and thousands of photographs. The choice of the photo, demonstrates on which side you stand.--tequendamia 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We can't put all of the photos in this article. Here's a different view (from the LM 16mm movie camera) taken at about the same time, and it shows the flag's shadow. (talk), 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bubba73, let me repeat: are you thick or are you tired? Or a NASA-shill? Anon2 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Different view of the flag, showing that the flag's shadow is out of the frame of the photo taken by Armstrong from the surface; the sand still looks wet [BASED ON WHAT?], not enough sun light to dry it up?

Bubba73

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

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

A useful comparison to odd photos.

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

Lunokhod

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

Feel free to make the changes! For great justice. 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to take pictures

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

• See below. For Apollo 11, only Armstrong held the camera, which probably actually made the process go faster. Meanwhile, what is the basis for their claim about how often pictures were taken? Maybe during the interval that pictures were taken, it was that fast, and why couldn't it have been anyway? Get your camera out. You can take pictures at least one every 15 seconds, even if you've got heavy gloves on. Wahkeenah 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm probably not being totally clear. The point on Apollo 11 is that, although there were two astronauts, only one was taking pictures (all or most of the time), so while it is true there were two astronauts there, the implication that they were both taking lots of photos is not correct. That's the reason I deleted it. As for the 1 every 15 seconds argument, they don't offer any actual proof of that, they just expect us to take their word for it. Given the moonbats' poor track record on evaluating qualitative evidence, I certainly wouldn't trust their arithmetic. Wahkeenah 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read J. Whites analysis. You have a point regarding Apollo 11, but he attacks all the flights i the same way. And all his calculations have the same errors. See: http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html and compare with my comments below. Mossig 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I only needed to read the first paragraph or two to realize the writer is a moron. I'm going to take your word for it and assume that his calculations are bogus, since he starts with a false assumption. If you want to add your comments back to the article, just keep the Armstrong situation in mind, and also see if there is any info on the minimum time required to take a photo. Then multiply that by the number of photos and you might find that the total minimum time required is far less than the total EVA time. Or maybe not. But I have other things to do today besides chase down these bogus leads by lunatics like that one page. I'm reminded of the assertion that "Oswald could not possibly have fired 4 shots in 6 seconds". Well, they tend forget the added time up front for lining up the first shot. Actually, they don't forget it, they leave it out, because it undermines their theory. "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" Wahkeenah 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• On a different note - I think I must have misunderstood you - you're suggesting that Oswald shot JFK?! I don't think even the CIA are claiming that any longer. For great justice. 23:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know that they shot JFK because he knew that the moon landing was going to be hoaxed?  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't pretend to know which person or persons shot JFK, I'm just saying it's possible that Oswald could have done it, contrary to the usual conspiracy theories. I was also convinced from day 1 that he had a part in it, because of what he said to a reporter who asked him, "Did you kill the President?" He answered, "I have not been accused of that, in fact I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question." It sounded like a rehearsed answer. The first part of that, of course, refers to the fact that he was under arrest for Police Officer Tippitt's murder at that moment. I don't think we'll ever know all the facts of the JFK assassination, for the same reason we'll never know all the facts of the Lincoln conspiracy: most everyone is dead by now. Could JFK have been a Mafia hit? Most certainly it could have been. They certainly had reason enough to. Anyway, it's suppertime. Bye. :) Wahkeenah 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo timing

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

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

• Yeh, whoever you are, "implausibly low". Whatever. And the core of their argument is that it is not possible to take pictures that frequently, while offering no evidence in support of that assertion. Wahkeenah 18:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

They also took some panaromas - where you take a picture, change the angle slightly to the left or right, take another one, etc. This can be done fairly quickly, which increases the photo count fairly repidly. Bubba73 (talk), 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not question that. Anybody can today make a test with a digital camera (which are most often slower than mechanical ones) and see for themselves how many pictures per minute can be judged reasonable. What I wanted to add was that the main premise on the argument is built upon a fault caclulation by J. White. As a scientist I think this is interesting, and how arguments should be rebuked. But the hasty deletion by somebody who did not even bother to read up on the issue has made me decide that this article will have to live without my input.Mossig 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it was the assertion that there were two astronauts, and by implication two of them taking photos, which in the case of Apollo 11 was incorrect and misleading. You don't want to be adding fuel to the moonbats' smoldering. Just be more specific. Wahkeenah 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

J. White's reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. He doesn't know how much time was taken up by the other activities. He is implying that you couldn't take that many phtotos because of other activities. Well, there are eight shots taken while Aldrin came down the ladder, and that took maybe three minutes, during which time Armstrong's only other duty was to watch out for Aldrin coming down the ladder. There are about that many shots of Aldrin carrying and setting up an experiment package, and Armstrong had no other duty then. There are several panoramas taken, where several shots are taken in quick succession. I think on all future landings both astronauts had cameras. It isn't like every 74 seconds the astronaut stops what he is doing to take one photo - they are bunched up, with a longer time in between. Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you assume White's 15 seconds per photo for the time when they were taking photos, I don't see a problem. The camera was mounted on their spacesuit so if they were looking straight forward, that is where the camera was looking too. Most cameras have continuous focusing, but the cameras they used had a simplified focusing - four focusing "stops": for near, medium distance, far, and infinity (I think it was). I think the f/stops were simplified too, so you wouldn't have to change them very often. So to take a photo, you might have to set the rough distance stop, probably rarely have to set the f/stop, look at what you want to photograh, press the shutter, and then wind the crank to the next frame. Even fifteen seconds seems like plenty of time to do that. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew you would come up with some real facts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (!) to figure that the astronauts would have done an activity, taken a bunch of photos in quick succession, done another activity, taken a bunch more photos in quick succession, etc. That's especially obvious in Apollo 11 where many of the photos seem to be of just somebody standing there... like on your family vacation. Wahkeenah 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Google videos: What Happened on the Moon?

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

• 'cause they was spam. Wahkeenah 18:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

They is farely typical of what causes a lots of peoples to believe in the hoax. Also, in it we learn that the Yuri Gargain flight was also hoaxed. The parallels with the 1927 Fritz Lang film are too strong to ignore! On the other hand, it does show an astronaut taking a set of panorama photos, and it took only a few seconds to take each one. Go figure. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The main proponent of the Moon Hoax are Bill Kaysing, David Percy, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel. Sombody removed the link to the videos under the excuse that these guys are nobodies. The problem in reality is that they do not want to give any credit to well supported theoris. Instead they claim that the Moon Hoax proponents are like the Flat Earth Society. Well, if you ignore the big guys of the Moon hoax, who are you rebutting instead?--tequendamia 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The main proponent? Sounds like they are sockpuppets of each other, which would figure. However, the reason I deleted it in the first place is that there was a red link to David Percy, so I assumed it was a red herring. I see it has since been filled in with the enlightening information that he produced a video claiming the moon landing was a hoax. Yeh, he sounds authoritative. Wahkeenah 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Videos

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

• NASA- Apollo 11 How did they do it? 8 Min
• What happened on the Moon? Part 1 2hr 11 min
• What happened on the Moon? Part 2 & 3 1hr 29 min
• Did we really land Men on the Moon? 51 min

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

• • I've seen enough of these so-called documentaries to realize they are junk. Wahkeenah 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then at least let people se what you are trying to rebut. If they are junk what are you trying to rebut? They are the main proponents's and their work.--tequendamia 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think links to the videos should be in there, under external links/ hoax allegations. Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Guinnog 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since that guy fixed that red link, he may as well go ahead and re-post them. A couple more flies in the soup shouldn't make any difference. Wahkeenah 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though the videos are ludicrous, we should have them here as they are a prime example of the sort of reality denial this article deals with. Guinnog 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Thy cup of sarcasm runneth over. :) :) :) Wahkeenah 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly we do not have a free link to "Apollo 11 - Monkey Business" where they show footage of NASA using a huge transparency of the Moon and a scale model of the LEM to simulate the moon landing. There is also footage of astronauts removing some whistleblowing footprints with their boots, and etc, etc.--tequendamia 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's too bad. Those "documentaries" and their makers have no credibility, but it is admittedly funny stuff. It's always entertaining to look inside the mind of a looney toon. Wahkeenah 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is really funny indeed.--tequendamia 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaysing was head of technical publishing at Rocketdyne at the time the F-1 engine was being developed. (The first stage of the Saturn V used five of these engines.) In What Happened on the Moon, part 2 we get a glimpse of Kaysing's technical expertise. He said that the F-1 was too unreliable to use and that a different engine (I forgot the name) which was more reliable but had lower thrust should have been used. However, critics might point out that (1) they seemed to be reliable enough on the 13 Saturn V flights, and (2) if a lower-thrust engine was used, it might not have gotten off the ground. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but maybe that explains his motivation - he might have been "dissed" by NASA (even though they were right and he was wrong) so he cooked up this hoax to try to get even, or at least to be a thorn in their side (more like a mosquito bite, at worst). His off-kilter take on things at both NASA and in his (possibly purposeful) mis-readings of photos and data, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, reminds me of something Will Rogers said, along the lines of, It's not what folks don't know that's the problem; it's what folks know for sure and which ain't so! Wahkeenah 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that most Moon Hoax rebuttal sites engage in personal attacks and disacreditation of the messangers, rather than the evidence they show. It is the same thing happening here in this discussion.--tequendamia 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NO, it's that many people who actually know something about rocketry, photography and science have ALREADY discredited their so-called evidence, and now we're just interested in their psychology: What motivates them to make up this stuff? Do they really believe it? Or are they like the guy who promoted putting pants on animals: Just putting a dumb "theory" out there to see who bites? Wahkeenah 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I keep mentioning that guy without giving him proper credit. His name is Alan Abel, and this site goes into some detail about his "Society for the Indecency of Naked Animals". [4] Wahkeenah 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Stars

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

I'm not sure. He says that a shuttle astronaut said that you have to turn out the lights in the shuttle to see stars. I assume that those are stars and not particles floating about. If the cockpit were lit up by sunlight, you definitely wouldn't be seeing stars. However, the Earth does appear to be in sunlight. On the other hand, I can't be certain about that since it is not overexposed compared to the cockpit. It might be a relatively long exposure and the Earth is lit by moonlight, but I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 18:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as we, the Enlightened Ones, don't fall into the same trap the moonbats did, by not quite understanding what they were seeing, and guess-working a conclusion about it to connect the dots, without investigating it thoroughly. Wahkeenah 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are other images taken from the cockpit *including that one). It might be taken in a simulator, since no seats are visible. It is possible that it is a composite photo. Another possibility is that it is a digital photo and either the camera was able to compensate for different brightnesses or it was done later. These are just some possibilities, but I don't know what the answer is. (I've written to NASA.)Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos' chronological order

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

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

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

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

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