Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 6 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-07. The result of the discussion was Keep.

South Korea Probe Image?

Sorry, I have no time to ensure this is correct and so edit the actual page, but if someone could have a look, it would be another third party pictures set from orbit by South Korea, that time: https://universemagazine.com/en/south-korean-spacecraft-photographed-the-landing-sites-of-the-apollo-11-and-apollo-17-expeditions/

I can't see much evidence in a language I can read, maybe someone understanding Korean would be helpful.

YannickPatois (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the nature of evidence

I guess I have to begin by making it clear that I believe Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. If I don't point this out right away, someone will misinterpret the following comments.

This article sets out to provide non-NASA evidence of human moon landings. That means every single item discussed should pass two tests: (1) It should have nothing whatsoever to do with NASA, and (2) it cannot have come about without a physical human presence on the moon. Let's look at a couple of sections and see if they pass these tests:

-Moon Rocks: Yes, there are moon rocks on Earth. But robots from at least 2 countries have succeeded in returning moon samples to Earth. There is nothing about the rocks themselves that allows us to differentiate between a human and a robotic moon mission. Hence this section is irrelevant to the article.

-Retroreflectors: Yes, some have been placed on the moon. Is there anything about them that requires humans to walk on the moon? Nope. Hence this, too, is not evidence of a human presence on the moon.

-Apollo equipment brought back from the moon: Not only does this fail the second test (human physical presence), but it fails the first one (NASA connection). The equipment belongs to NASA and left NASA's hands before ending up in whatever third-party lab or museum it ended up in. A forensic scientist investigating a crime wouldn't be too happy about the chain of evidence being tampered by the suspected criminal (Yes, I watch too much CSI). So all the careful itemization of Apollo equipment on Earth is irrelevant to the article.

These are just some quick examples, but if we go through the article systematically, we'd find many more. Someone above suggested that the burden of proof should lie with the skeptic, not the person making the claim. Aside from the fact that this flies in the face of everything we've learned about the scientific method (!!!), it also misses the point completely. The article is supposed to provide third-party evidence of humans on the moon. That means that the burden must be met not by the conspiracy theorists, nor by the scientists, but by the AUTHORS WHO CHOSE TO WRITE SUCH AN ABSENT-MINDED ARTICLE.

I'll get off my pedestal now.70.29.74.58 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this article is not to "provide non-NASA evidence of human moon landings". It is to report what reliable sources say about the moon landing conspiracy theory. We have a plethora of sources which discuss these facts when it comes to the conspiracy theory, so therefore we present them in the article. The conclusion of the scientific and historical community, based on the available evidence, is that the moon landings happened, which we also present in the article. This article is not, and cannot be, an essay intended to convince the reader the landings occurred. It is only a report of what the reliable sources say. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not what the article's title says: "Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings". Of course, anything on wikpedia should be well sourced, including all the evidence. Jackkky22 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that the criteria the unnamed editor uses are inherently flawed. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Ergo, the existence of retroreflectors brought by NASA astronauts in 1969 and detected by independent observers using lasers in 1969 is still evidence of the moon landing. No rover had as part of its payload a retroreflector until 1970, and we know where those are.

If a rover were used to bring a reflector in 1969, several things would have to be true: they used a way oversized payload to shoot a rover down from Apollo 11's orbiting module, they somehow hid that rover, and they used the rover to manufacture footprints on the surface. All while they were also faking the landing using actors in a studio here on Earth coinciding exactly when they shot the rover down from an actual lunar orbiting mission....

Starts to get pretty implausible, doesn't it? So yes, I think the circumstantial evidence of the retro-reflectors is still great evidence. If people are sent to prison for life on evidence less than this, I think evidence like this deserves to be in this article.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the retroreflectors weren't put there by Apollo astronauts, then how did they get there? The conspiracy theorists don't have an answer for that. They have to assume something for which there is no evidence. (In a court of law, that is "assuming facts not in evidence". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific method does not require anyone to entertain delusions of nutcases nor correct the decades-long failings of dysfunctional education systems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archival of old discussions

I am of the opinion that this talk page is in desperate need of another archiving. It might be useful to give it a timed or content-based automatic archiving mechanism, as is present on many other talk pages. Is anyone opposed? --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Chandrayaan 2 high resolution images for Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites

New data release from ISRO.

The source website requires logging in, but several people re-posted them in the comments here.

A far lower quality screenshot from the same source was already uploaded on Commons with a compatible license. --87.18.96.102 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first Soviet to walk on the Moon?

Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I am a space enthusiast and I have a nagging question that I was hoping someone could answer for me. I was wondering: who was the first Soviet person to walk on the Moon? I've been searching for quite a while and I can't find the answer. Can someone please fill me in?

Thanks! — JasonSnipes (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Soviets - only 12 Americans. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, really? Hold up. I'm confused. This article says that the retroreflectors serve as independent evidence of the human Moon landings. It even includes a quote by James Hansen saying that it's delusional and misguided to think otherwise. But this other article says that the Soviets have also placed retroreflectors on the Moon. So either the retroreflectors prove that both Americans and Soviets have walked on the Moon, or the retroreflectors aren't really proof of human Moon landings at all. How can you have it both ways? What am I missing? JasonSnipes (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: robots.

Slightly longer answer: Read Lunokhod programme. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And see List of retroreflectors on the Moon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]