Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Footnote 50

I would just like to note the footnote 50 doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe we could get an actual refrence rather than a comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itilas (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have been referenced to Clavius.org at one point, but I don't have enough time to check it out right now. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

dust & rover theory

It is very easy to prove that we have never landed on the Moon...to watch all footages where a dust and astronauts do not behave adequatly. The dust feels Earth's gravity while astronauts are lightened by wires. The same is true and with a vehicle...it bounces as if it is driven on Earth. There is no need any other claimes. It's obvious, but you do not be lazy and calculate forces by yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.115.18 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, another 'theory'. Remember the feather and the coin? On the moon, there is no air, so even the smallest dust particle falls at the speed of a coin. Hence the dust falls faster then it would on Earth - whole dust clouds would drop like rocks. As for the rover, if we are lazy, then why don't you show us YOUR calculations? Why do you think you instinctively know how an electric rover on the moon ought to look? Algr (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the logic here

"These hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers, as well as by NASA and its astronauts. According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority" of the US public, some 89 percent, did not believe the landing was faked, while 6 percent did."

What is the twisted logic in this section? Does the "US public" equal to "mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers?" So everyone in US is either a scientist, or a technician or an engineer?Dongwenliang 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are simply two independent sentences that are in one paragraph. It is poor style to have a paragraph with only one sentence. Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So there should be an independent poll to be conducted only in the scientists, technicians and enginners, otherwise this section is not very well backed by the source it refers to. Dongwenliang 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you watch videos of the apollo 11 you can see the flag moving like if there was wind on the moon. that is not possible!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltanew2 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the entire Apollo 11 video at least twice, and I haven't seen what you are talking about. Could you give a scene/chapter and time in the DVD that you are talking about? Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel bad

I honestly feel bad for everyone who thinks that the Appollo program was faked. What kind of sick, twisted person needs to talk themselves into beleiving that Mankind's greatest acheivement never happened?

I know its tough to beleive in the age of shitty 'fun'-tainment news only depecting horrible things around the world but; good, amazing things can happen.

And it would be nice if it had happend, I wish it had, I could pretend it has, and ignore all logic and scientific reason. Hopefully some day the first people on the moon won't be NASA's, I don't like NASA, their irrasponsability leading to the deaths of the crews of Challenger and Columbia. Supra guy 22:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should respect NASA. Any large bureaucracy such as themselves, operating enormously complex systems deserves, if anything, respect for their track record. The organazation has been launching manned space flights for over fourty years with only 17 astronaut fatalities (none of which occured in space). I think that is excellent and it makes me proud. If you can find someone who does it better, then go ahead and say so.

A very simple proof would be repeat. Please re-land on the moon using the exponential developing modern technologies such as computer, communication, mechanical and control after 40 years. I think it is much worse than sick, twisted to cheat all the public in the whole world. Dongwenliang 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Why don't we go and defeat England in the Revolutionary War while we're at it? Zchris87v 09:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How would a repeat prove that it was done in 1969-1972? Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you did that within 3 years then and now you need 20 years to go again(only the planning).Dongwenliang 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about whether or not it was done in 1969-1972. Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just read the article, you will feel bad for being fooled by NASA, the article is full of proofs and pictures to support the theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.244.9 (talk)

Did YOU read the article? It does a good job of demolishing every "proof" that the hoax nuts have ever put forward. It's a tragedy that the only people who keep pushing this garbage don't have the scientific/engineering knowledge to understand the issues.Logicman1966 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let’s spend another hundred billion dollars to have Dong tell us we’re shitting him again. — NRen2k5 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So are they afraid they will go "back" to the Moon and have to explain why there is no Lunar Buggy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you guys don't know that the talk page is not a forum? It's for discussing improvements to the article only. There are many forums to discuss this subject.--N88819 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right - just as the header at the top of this page says. I've violated that from time to time myself, sorry. Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Italics

What's with the excessive use of italics? Is there a reason for them that I'm not seeing? They seem to only distract.

Eric 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is intended to seperate the response from the claim. Bubba73 (talk), 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

"There's the almost endless list of song lyrics and obtuse references to video games, bits of film script and random TV shows. I don't see what any of that stuff adds, but I am not a fan of bloated "trivia" sections in any article." - I respect your point of view that you are not a fan of trivia, but pop-culture references are important to some people, indeed, who are we to judge whether or not pop-culture references are the most important thing? Scholars of popular culture will value the section more highly than the science. This is what NPOV means when it comes to editing - we cannot make value judgments about the importance of factual, verifiable information based on our own prejudices. Gravitor 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For certain classical music pieces, for example the William Tell Overture, the Ride of the Walkyries and Beethoven's Ninth, there are separate "trivia" or "pop culture" pages due to the large quantity of them. There is also a separate page for the Statue of Liberty in pop culture. It becomes a judgment call as to the relative size of that section vs. its importance to the main point of the article. Wahkeenah 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Apollo moon landings in popular culture" article? -- ArglebargleIV 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'Apollo Moon Landing Hoax in Popular Culture'? Otherwise you're going to get a 'huge' article. Carfiend 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could also argue that the hoax page by itself should constitute the "popular culture" page. Wahkeenah 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

lol! There is more than a comedy argument there - I saw in the archive a discussion about framing the article as a "social phenomena". In many ways it would be easier to write in that context, and (if I may be so bold) represent the majority viewpoint of the topic (not trying to troll, just stating it as I see it). For the avoidance of doubt, I am not planning to go there again. Also, an article/list of "cultural references to the moon landing hoax social phenomena" does not exactly trip off the tongue, sadly. LeeG 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just checking the Loch Ness Monster page, and I see it has a separate popular culture page also. I could argue that there is more evidence for Nessie's existence than for the moon hoaxsters' "theory". However, the "social phenomonen" approach was tried before and was shot down by the hoaxsters, as it's one of those things that's patently obvious but also (1) hard to cite calmly-written references for and (2) hard to write about without it sounding like POV-pushing. It's similar to the debate over "conspiracy theory". In fact, it's essentially the same debate: conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists. Wahkeenah 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for splitting off the trivia as an incremental approach towards WP:SS. I'd probably want to augment the origins of the hoax with some of the sources which link the ideas of the hoax to pop culture. This link [1]has some stuff that would be applicable and allow us to include the social phenom thing in the origin section and link off to a separate Appollo moon hoax in pop culture article that would absorb the trivia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Right - how does this look for a separate article "The Apollo Moon Hoax in popular culture". Link it from here with the following introductory paragraph: (on this page)

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax in popular culture

The moon landing hoax accusations have been referenced in many aspects of popular culture, often in the form of parody.

(new page)

Introduction

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations

The Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations are a set of allegations that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. A number of groups and individuals have advanced alternate historical narratives which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:

• The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the Moon;
• NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing[s] did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
• NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.

According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, 6 percent of the US public believes the landing was faked, while what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority", some 89 percent, did not. The hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers, as well as by NASA and its astronauts. These accusations have been referenced in many aspects of popular culture.

In print

• Sir David Attenborough, as part of a special celebrating BBC TV's 40th anniversary said "(Apollo) was an enormous event, of course, and overtook the country and the BBC television center too. We devoted 24 hours of television to it, from the big studio ... And it was thrilling - we cleared all the programs and, of course, the Americans had a reserve spacecraft ready, in case something went wrong with the first one."
• President Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, states (on page 156): "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
• Norman Mailer in 1969 wrote "The event (Apollo 11 Moonwalk) was so removed, however, so unreal, that no objective correlative existed to prove it had not been an event staged in a television studio---the greatest con of the century--- and indeed a good mind, product of the iniquities, treacheries, gold, passions, invention, deception, and rich worldly stink of the Renaissance could hardly deny that the event if bogus was as great a creation in mass hoodwinking, deception, and legerdemain as the true ascent was in discipline and technology. Indeed, conceive of the genius of such a conspiracy. It would take criminals and confidence men mightier, more trustworthy and more resourceful than anything in this century or the ones before. Merely to conceive of such men was the surest way to know the event was not staged."
• The Loony: a novella of epic proportions (published in April 2005) by Christopher Wunderlee is a work of hysterical realism that's primary plot revolves around an astrophysicist's role in assisting NASA in faking the lunar landings. In the novel, the astrophysicist is hired by agents to assist a film crew in making footage "look" real. He is then embroiled in the coverup and is blackmailed to keep the secret.

On film

• The 1978 film Capricorn One portrayed a fictional NASA attempt to fake a landing on Mars.
• In 1971, there was a brief sequence in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever, in which the action takes place in a "Moon" setting where astronauts were being trained. Agent 007 steals what appears to be a Moon buggy from the model set, and drives it off to escape from an enemy compound. This scene may have helped to spread the idea of the Moon landings being a hoax^{, p. 62}.
• In 2002, William Karel released a spoof documentary film, Dark Side of the Moon, 'exposing' how Stanley Kubrick was recruited to fake the Moon landings, and featured interviews with, among others, Kubrick's widow and a number of American statesmen including Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. It was an elaborate joke: interviews and other footage were presented out of context and in some cases completely staged, with actors playing interviewees who had never existed (and in many cases named after characters from Kubrick's films, just one of many clues included to reveal the joke to the alert viewer).
• In the 2004 film Man on the Moon , Richard Fortunato fictionally explores the links between Apollo 11, the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon, a Russian spy in an effort to explain the staged moon landing
• In the 1992 movie Sneakers, the character "Mother," played by Dan Aykroyd mentions "It's the same technology that NASA used to fake the Apollo Moon landings, so it shouldn't give us any trouble."
• In the movie Looney Tunes: Back In Action, as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are in Area 52 they browse the videotape shelf, one of the videotapes searched had "Moon LANDING DRESS REHEARSAL".
• In the movie RV, a character comments that the family's vacation spot is "where NASA faked the Moon landings."

On television

• A television drama called The News-Benders, the key plot device of which stipulated that all major technological advances since 1945 had been faked in some way, aired in January 1968; it postulated a "Moon landing" falsified with models. It was written by British writer Desmond Lowden.
• In an episode of Fox TV's 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 makes a feeble excuse about "solar winds" before killing the man. In the episode "If I'm Dyin', I'm Lyin'," Peter said that his "healing powers" were a fake, "like the Moon landings".
• In an episode of 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!!"
• In "Roswell That Ends Well", an episode of Futurama, when the crew is mysteriously flung back in time to 1947, President Truman requests that Zoidberg, an alien, be taken to Area 51 for study. When informed that Area 51 is the location for the faked Moon landing, he replies, "Then we'll have to really land on the Moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies!"
• In an episode of The PJs, Thurston said that if people can fake a Moon landing, anything's possible.
• In an episode of King of the Hill, conspiracy theorist Dale Gribble suggests that the Super Bowl is pre-selected and is filmed in an unidentifiable location where they filmed the fake Moon landing, months before the game ever began.
• An episode of the Showtime TV series Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on May 9, 2005, dealt with the lunar landing hoax accusations, and took a position thoroughly against such accusations.
• On the June 7, 2006 edition of The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert said "Tonight's guest is a pioneer in Mars exploration. Hopefully tonight he'll explain how they faked a space landing there too." This was followed by laughter from the audience.
• On the July 27, 2006 episode of The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert said "And here's the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum, where you can see the original rocks from the soundstage where they faked the Moon landing. It's a part of Hollywood history." This was followed by laughter from the audience.
• In February 2007, Craig Ferguson commented that the Lisa Nowak scandal was the biggest thing to happen to NASA "since they faked that moon landing thing in the sixties."

In video games

• The video game Duke Nukem 3D contains a level (Episode 3 Level 5) with a motion picture studio containing a lunar landscape set.
• Worms 3D, a video game by UK Software developers Team17, contains a level depicting a movie sound stage 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, fake LEM, lunar lander, and lunar rover.
• In the movie studio in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, there is a fake Moon landing set in one of the warehouses.
• In Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there is a "caller" on one of the radio stations on the game said "Of course we never landed on the Moon, it was just a big hoax". Also the character named The Truth states "we never landed on the Moon" and other government conspiracies after CJ questions the tinfoil in the van.
• In the Nintendo 64 video game Body Harvest the American level also has a room containing a lunar landing set and video cameras.
• The plot of Activision's 1998 computer game Battlezone is based largely on the idea that while the lunar landings did take place, both the United States and Soviet Union had already spent considerable time on the moon and were actively waging war against each other on the lunar surface using equipment based on alien technology and materials discovered there. In the game's universe, the Apollo landings were a hoax of a different kind, using only technology that had been admitted to the public, rather than the highly advanced and secret alien technology.

In music

• The REM song "Man on the Moon" implies that the Moon landings may have involved sleight of hand ("If you believe they put a Man on the Moon, if you believe there's nothing up my sleeve...").
• The Men From Earth song "I Faked the Moon Landing" tells an imaginary story of someone's deathbed confession to assisting with the hoax. Among the many references in the song to popular hoax accusations is the line "that wasn't Buzz next to the LEM / just a guy who looked like him."
• The group Looper have a song called "Dave the Moon Man" on their album Up a Tree. It features a character who does not believe in the Moon landings and repeats several of the major conspiracy arguments.
• The video for the Rammstein song "Amerika" depicts the band on a movie set wearing NASA suits and a theme of the video is the faking of the Moon landing.
• There is a song by metal band Margret Heater called "Apollo Conspiracy".
• Swedish experimental punk band Refused recorded a song called "The Apollo Programme Was a Hoax" for their final full-length album, The Shape of Punk to Come.
• The Beta Band song "Eclipse" ends with a series of lines stating opinions such as "and the roads are not very clean" and "and the food we eat is not very healthy", after which another voice replies "okay, we're agreed on that." The final line is "and the moon is a big ball with nothing on it, but I don't think anyone's ever been there", to which the second voice replies "ok, so we're KIND of agreed to that."
• The Tullycraft song "Sent to the Moon" includes the phrase, "we watched it all with our folks...it was the world's biggest hoax", indicating a possible NASA conspiracy involving the Apollo moon landings.

Other references

• A 2006 commercial for 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 Houston to return to Earth so the scene can be shot in a studio instead.
• Major League Baseball player Carl Everett has said in interviews with Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy that he doubts the validity of the Moon landings. Shaughnessy would go on to nickname Everett "Jurassic Carl" due to Everett's assertion that dinosaurs never existed.

References

any thoughts?

I have a little throught: I recon that facts should speak for themselves. Now, there seems to be some fact favoring the hoax, and some facts against it. Personally, what I think shouldnt mean a anything. That is the whole point in having a encyclopedia. Example: public opinion doesnt prove anything. Depending on how u ask the question, you can completelly change puclib opinion. Secondly, there is a lot of people that treat the subject as - if they themselves were sure of what happened. THIS IS BAD SCIENCE. We are not sure of anything, and that is the point of having all this. I would cut out all sections related to what people think may have happened - we dont get nearer to the truth by adding it. Another thing - with BAD SCIENCE, I can prove whatever you want - really. Just keep this in mind. CFrahm 141.84.69.20 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should take out sections about what people think because the article is really about "hoax accusations", not a hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Condense the "Individuals featured in the controversy" section

Since this section was moved to Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers, there's no need to keep Individuals featured in the controversy as it is, since it's nearly identical to the new article. Can somebody tackle condensing the section? -th1rt3en 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto - here is my suggested replacement for the section. I know we are meant to "be bold" and go ahead and edit, but there's being bold and being suicidal, so (bearing in mind Gravitor's parallel article comment) what do we all think of... (it's about 1/4 of the size)

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers

• Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) an ex-employee of Rocketdyne, (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket). Kaysing's self published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle^{,, p. 157}, made many allegations, effectively beginning the discussion of the moon landings possibly being hoaxed. NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book.
• Bart Sibrel, (dob-), a filmmaker and self proclaimed investigative journalist, created, inter alia, a film in 2001 called A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon furthering the idea of a hoax. Again the arguments put forward therein have been debunked.
• William Brian, an engineer (mechanical, electrical, civil...?) self-published a book in 19XX called "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program", in which he disputes the Moon's surface gravity. This claim has again been debunked by NASA and other parties.
• David Percy, TV producer and expert in audiovisual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is co-author, along with Mary Bennett of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (ISBN 1-898541-10-8) and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon?. He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blower" accusation, arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.
• Ralph Rene is an inventor and 'self taught' engineering buff. Author of NASA Mooned America (second edition ASIN: B0006QO3E2).
• Charles T. Hawkins, author of How America Faked the Moon Landings,
• Philippe Lheureux, French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a t-elle menti!.
• James M. Collier (d. 1998) American journalist and author, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? in 1997.
• Jan Lundberg a technician for Hasselblad.
• Jack White American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
• Marcus Allen (publisher) - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."
• Aron Ranen directed Did we go? (co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco). He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts.
• Clyde Lewis, radio talk show host.
• Dr. David Groves (who works for Quantech Image Processing) and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.

I am unconvinced we need the whole list here - especially with a whole other article to this section. Any comments....? LeeG 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that a few key individuals could be mentioned. Kaysing, certainly, as he seems to be the most often quoted hoaxster. Maybe the hoaxsters on this page could suggest a few more that they consider to be key arguers for the hoax. Wahkeenah 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general list looks good. You're probably right in it not needed everyone. But, at least for now, the above would work well. -th1rt3en 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's important that the list be comprehensive. The ones that have their own article can be cut to a couple of sentences, but I'm still concerned that we should keep the biographic info on the bio pages, and the hoax stuff on this page. I am worried that this is just turning into another attempt to remove factual, verifiable information. Gravitor 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They could all be listed here, as long as it's sufficiently brief. The page doesn't need to become "Who's Who in Conspiracy Theories", as that's already to be covered in the more detailed article. Wahkeenah 20:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I have not been accused of this for a minute, but I am not trying to remove any data or hide anything, I am trying to shorten this article, and have several sub articles where the big sections used to be. Looking at the bio article in isolation I have here an exact duplicate of the information on that page for all names after (and including) Renee. I appreciate from the text that Renee seems to be more than a bit player, so I would propose that we zap all those after that, replacing with something along the lines of "several other individuals make further claims doubting various aspects of the landings. They, and their claims are explored in more depth on the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers page." If that is too much to bear, can we just have names and occupations rather than an information repeat? It's also an opportunity here to expand the bio page for these guys if we have any more information.

I am also concious that the "accused" section is repeated on the other page, my vague plan for those guys (will post some text in a bit) was just to list out name and position at NASA (or wherever) at the time of the landings. Any takers for that? LeeG 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done it - changed the article to be as above. LeeG 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me -- nothing's removed, just moved and summarized. -- ArglebargleIV 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. There's still a generous amount of info in the umbrella article, with much more detail in the spinoff article. Wahkeenah 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good news. There are two more sections that can (to my mind) be spun out in similar manners. The blow by blow debunking, and the cultural references. The first of these is the hardest to do fairly, but has the compensation of being an interesting article in its own right, as I think it's well written and it covers a lot of science, photography and other topics. The first stage of pulling it out would be to have a page dedicated to itself, and leave this article intact until we are happy with that page. Even the title of that page is fraught with problems. "rebuttal of the moon landing hoax arguments" is not a great title. "Examination of claims..." smacks of original research. The next issue would be how to frame the article. It needs an introduction, the text from this article would be fine, and I think it needs a quick bit on Occam's Razor, and the burden of proof, and the two stories bit. That would give it some context. Then do the "apparent anomaly" followed by "explanation" section.

More of an issue is to decide how this page should remain. There is lot of stuff here, and a simple list will not shorten the article, as it needs the explanation attached to it. Could we "group" the accusations as (e.g.) Photographic anomalies - hoax protagonists claim several anomalies within the photographic record that they claim prove the landings were a hoax. Each of these is explained with a basic understanding of the Lunar environment and photography. I'm sure couching it like that will be dubbed as POV pushing, but it's a start, and it's here on the discussion page not the article. I note that two regular denizens of this page are currently blocked, I await their return and input on this (and the last edit) with interest. LeeG 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The cultural references could definitely be spun off, as many other articles do. That part is basically "fluff" that doesn't add any information except as an amusing sidebar, anecdotally demonstrating peoples' reactions to the hoax accusations. They could be interpreted by hoaxsters as adding to the criticism to NASA, while they could be interpreted by conventionalists as ridiculing the hoaxsters. They could also be doing both at the same time. Regarding the question-answer stuff, there is already a spinoff page that goes into the picture-related questions in great detail; again, a situation where it used to be in the primary article. It is hard to label this stuff in a politically correct way, but it's worth a try. I tried at one time, by replacing "accusations" and "claims" with more neutral wording like "challenges" and "responses". As long as the page doesn't have just the questions without the responses, it could be fair. Then the long, detailed list could be in a spinoff. Wahkeenah 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the debunking of the hoax claims should be removed. As an alternative, I think all of the claims could be in one or more sections and the debunking could be in a section (or sections) below that. I think that would make the article neater, but retain the important information. Bubba73 (talk), 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't spot the spin-off photography article. This has spawned articles all over the place - seemingly more than the articles on the landings themselves. That amazes me, but if it makes people read it and learn some real science, then it's worthwhile I guess. It's important that the claims and debunking remain on the same page. I would even contend that this is as good a manner as any to do it, separate sections may make a lazy reader just see one side. I was trying to work out how to reduce the size of this article, and that section takes up vast swathes of it; it's an "easy" way to reduce the page. I'll have another think tomorrow. LeeG 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to think that wikipedia has an opportunity to be one of the few sites (or maybe the only one) that tries to present this topic without going off on a rant in either direction. That's what most of the defenders of this page want, I think. It would be nice to do a brief overview, or maybe just the most-frequent complaints about the NASA saga, with more details on the spinoff page, if it can be agreed on how to do that without the hoaxsters accusing anyone of censorship. Wahkeenah 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

LeeG said "It's important that the claims and debunking remain on the same page. " I agree. Having separate pages would be a POV fork, which is a no-no. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the claims and counter claims together, but I think we can break the various sections out into separate interleaved articles. The current article is way too long and most of the details are "important" (Yes, I used scare quotes) in some regard. See WP:SS for a way to handle long-ass articles with lots of interesting details. Numskll 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version states this about Bill Kaysing: "NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book." And about Bart Sibrel: "Again the arguments put forward therein have been debunked by numerous sources,". I regard these statements as childish POV, and I am removing them (once) as a principled act of making this world a better place ;) Axlalta 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I popped them back as they are simply statements of fact, not POV, and run with the context of the rest of the article. Plus, they have been stable for a long time in this most unstable of articles! LeeG 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How was Armstrong's descent from the ladder captured on film?

There is video footage of Armstrong allegedly descending the ladder to walk on the moon's surface for the first time. But if so, then how was a camera placed there to record him? Did Armstrong climb down, set up the camera, then climb back up, and pretend he was doing it for the first time? Or did the lunar module have a long robotic arm that held a camera out of the side of the craft? EvaXephon 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The famous video of Armstrong going down the ladder was from a television camera on the side of the lunar module. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The camera was mounted on the inside of a hatch door that was opened by remote control before Armstrong exited. The hatch door was designed to hold this camera at the correct angle to capture this image. I was 12 years old at the time and remember this being explained on TV. --rogerd 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguing with Landing Believers is like talking to Young Earth Creationists. There's no reference to evidence by either. Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the descent was filmed in a studio? You can see the 'hot spots' of studio lights as he descends, and the lighting is all wrong for the Moon. I'm not saying that the whole landing was faked, but this piece of footage definitely was - and you can understand why - "a remote control robot arm filmed him"? Please. We did not go 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are willing to believe that a thousand NASA employees can keep a secret for 35 years, and the entire world scientific community can be duped, but putting a camera on a door to capture a planned historical moment is too much for you? Please indeed. Algr 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho Ho! Where did you pull the thousand number from? No hoax proponent talks about that number - that's FUD made up by AstroNots! Gravitor 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Or a hyperbole for the sake of explanation. In any case, the information I can find states it was mounted on one of the legs. Does any one know of any images that show this, or somewhere with more detailed explanation (not that I'm doubting it)? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More details are at Apollo TV camera. Bubba73 (talk), 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't even realize that article existed, thanks. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had to restore the section about the Apollo 11 LM camera. (You might have missed it.) That article used to be linked to in the main hoax article, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I notice that the article itself doesn't have many articles linking in either. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's described to some degree on page 491 of the Neil Armstrong book, First Man. The article cited by Bubba73 gives the same basic info. One thing the book mentions is that Armstrong was so focused on his egress he almost forgot to pull the lanyard to open the MESA and thus activate the camera, and someone at Houston had to verbally nudge him about it. Wahkeenah 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This topic was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_18#Apollo_11. Bubba73 (talk), 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, technically it wasn't "filmed" as such, it was a live TV picture and a kinescope or some such was made from it. Bubba73 can correct me if I've got that wrong. :) Wahkeenah 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The famous black and white video of Armstrong going down the ladder was from the TV camera. The original SSTV was recorded as data, onto the "missing" tapes. After conversion for standard TV, it was recorded on kinescope, videotape, or both. (Probably each network recorded it onto videotape, since they replayed it shortly afterward. But I've also read of it being recorded on kinescope, with is a 16mm camera pointed at a TV,) There is also color 16mm film taken out the right LM window which shows the descent (and much of the walk) from above. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha. So they had a film camera right next to the TV camera, so they could get a live picture and also a more permanent record, especially in case the TV hookup failed. Backups R us! Here's a funny coincidence: The "classic 39" Honeymooners episodes were shot that way, with a live camera and a film camera right next to it... the point of the coincident being Ralph's oft-used but of course never implemented threat to slug his wife: "To the moon, Alice!" :) Wahkeenah 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NASA would gain more credibility if they came clean on this one. The hot-spots from studio lights are clearly visible. The 'original' tape is 'missing' - it's a shambles. Faking this for publicity is not the same as faking the whole mission - it makes perfect sense that they would have made studio shots of these for propaganda purposes. Gravitor 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The original computer data tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk is missing. The original videotapes are not missing. The original kinescopes are not missing. Recordings of the other missions are not missing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't "come clean" if you've been telling the truth all along. Djcartwright 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, the TV camera was on the side of the LM (until they dismounted it and put it on the tripod). A 16mm color film camera filmed the scene from above, through the window of the LM. I'm pretty sure that both videotape and kinescope copies of the TV broadcast were made. When I read about the kinescope copy being made, it described two copies being made so that when the reel of film had to be changed on one, the other was still filming. Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) this link talks some about the video from Apollo 11 on the moon. He mentions that the TV networks used videotape and NASA used telecine, which is similar to kinescope. There are 12 minutes of the broadcast recorded on 8mm film of the SSTV before the scan conversion. Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, only part of the 8mm film is of the pre-conversion SSTV. The US TV networks recorded it on videotape. The Austrailian TV network used kinescope. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard the same thing, not from a conspiracy source, but from a show about the moon landing. I think it is amazing that the original footage of such an important mile stone could be lost. Defiantly a sour spot for those who believe we sent men to the moon and brought them back safely.Mantion 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable, though. Apollo 11 was to be the last mission that was going to use that slow-scan TV format, so no special SSTV-to-regular conversion equipment was made. There are multiple copies on videotape and kinescope made AFTER the scan conversion, and this is what is normally seen. After Apollo 11 it didn't make sense to make any better scan conversion equipment to convert those SSTV recordings, since we had the other post-conversion sources (as well as the 16mm film taken from the LM and the still photos). We watched on a black-and-white TV with an antenna, so what most people saw wan't that high quality anyway. We were happy to see anything. This was years before home VCRs and DVDs too. I can unserstand that someone could look at the reels of tape with the SSTV signal and think that there is no way to read those old tapes now (actually there was) and since we have multiple videotape and kinescope copies made after scan conversion, there is no need to keep it. They probably didn't realize that higher-quality video could potentially be made from it, since they didn't have the computers and video processing we have today. (I didn't even realize it until a couple of months before the news broke last year.) Anyhow, the post-conversion copies that are available are of higher quality than, say, a Youtube copy of a modern TV show. Bubba73 (talk), 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, in a sense, the missing tapes are no more "original" than the tapes and kinescopes that do exist. That is, the tapes and films that do exist are not copies of the missing tapes. The difference is that the existing tapes and films were made after the SSTV scan conversion and the missing tapes were made before the conversion. Bubba73 (talk), 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR

Why is the USSR putting the first woman in space added in this section? Does it require greater technological capability to put a woman in space than it does to put a man in space? 212.140.167.99 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've just read the next part where it says that some of the 'firsts' listed were not advances in technology.212.140.167.99 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, putting a man in a studio in Area 51 was not a huge technological advance, but it caused a stir! Carfiend 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this section in this article at all? what does it have to do with hoax accusations? surely this list should be elsewhere and cited if needed.. 131.111.24.187 08:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's here because its an argument put foward by Bart Sibrel (a promenet supporter of the hoax) - bascially his contention is that the US was so far behind the USSR it couldn't possibly have gone to the moon. The italics section makes it clear that Sibrel's claims are flawed (especially the 5 to 1 ratio which he seems to have made up himself).Teiresias84 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR and such

I would point out to User:Gravitor that I was making clear to stay under 3RR when User:Carfiend reverted me within two minutes. If you note that I was undergoing a rather large edit of the material independent of the revert after that and the database did not catch up with Carfiend's action. --ScienceApologist 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gravitor and Carfiend act as one, thus giving them 6 reverts per day, and the admin is not willing to take any action, so it's well nigh hopeless. Wahkeenah 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, it's fine for you to support edits of users you agree with? More double standards at work. Please, please, don't revert war - the talk page is there for a reason! Gravitor 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not right. They are acting as meatpuppets and perhaps even sockpuppets. I will report them now. --ScienceApologist 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you report yourself, Wahkeenah, Branson3, Lunahkod and Numbskull as well! Gravitor 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add comments: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. I think that the evidence is pretty strong: they act in tandem, tag team, and have very similar editorial styles. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another pathetic attempt to push your POV in the face of a number of users who disagree. Anyone who does not share your POV gets harassed in the form of complaints (that are never upheld by admins), accusations of sockpuppetry (that have been shown to be false). You never seem to tire of false accusations. Sooner or later, you will have to discuss your ideas on the talk page, and make a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Until then, I guess, you could keep trying to fling mud. Gravitor 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Gravitor, today is, to my knowledge, the very first day I have ever come in contact with you and yet you seem to be so familiar with me. Sooner or later you will have to come clean about what your history is. --ScienceApologist 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was using the plural form of 'you' to mean you and your sock/meat puppets who continually push your pov on these pages. My history is very transparent. Gravitor 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your history is very transparent. We'll see what happens, won't we? --ScienceApologist 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as what happens every time you try to use personal attacks to resolve a content issue, I imagine. Gravitor 01:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Owned. Liberal Classic 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A better version

I believe that this version is better than the present one. Please offer substantive criticism of the differences here before we (re)instate that version. --ScienceApologist 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree - it reads better, and does not give undue weight. As an aside I do quite like the vanishing antenna as an example of hoax self-contradictory logic. First hoaxters say that the flag moves, due to the necessary air conditioning in the studio, then that Buzz (or whatever actor that is) had time to walk around, remove his antenna, and go back to the flag (which was blowing in the breeze all that time) and have another photo taken, capturing the flag in the exact same configuration as it was before his little walk. The obvious alternative - it's not catching the light enough to show up (and to be fair it's barely visible on the first photo), and that the flag is immobile because its in a vacuum, is ignored. But I digress. As a further aside the Star Trek smashing pumpkins song has come back - that needs to go too. Reinstate - the suggested version looks better. LeeG 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the disappearing antenna too, but I believe that unless we actually have a citation of a hoax proponent complaining about it as evidence that the moon landings didn't happen we should not include it. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - it should not be there without a cite or it's "Original Research". I just find it amusing. LeeG 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I got to wondering about this antenna thing last night. I was seeking out higher resolution images to see if I could see it in the other photo. In higher resolution, you can see a little bit of the bottom of antenna in the other photo. It may be more visible in the original photo rather than a scan. When looking for hi-res versions of these two photos, I found a link to the two-frame animation. However, the link was dead. But I did a search and found a working link. From viewing that, it is obvious that one photo is much brighter than the other. Neil The photographer must have changed the exposure by two or three f/ stops in between the shots. The antenna may be too small and dim to be seen in the darker photo. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from above First hoaxters say that the flag moves, due to the necessary air conditioning in the studio, then that Buzz (or whatever actor that is) had time to walk around, remove his antenna, and go back to the flag (which was blowing in the breeze all that time) and have another photo taken, capturing the flag in the exact same configuration as it was before his little walk. Hoax believers would probably say that the photos are fake. But what is interesting is why they conclude that. They don't have a qualified independent photography expert examine the photo and prove that it is fake; they conclude that it must be fake because they have already made up their mind that there was no landing. Bubba73 (talk), 14:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is why Loonies believe the fake photos are real - they don't have independent verification of them, the conclude that they must be real because they have already made up their mind that there was no cover-up. Duck! Fisent 04:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Hot Chilli Peppers

Every so often, the song Calfornician gets added to the references to popular culture section. Unless someone can provide a reliable source to say that the lyrics were meant to be a reference to the "hoax" it should not be listed here, as it is much more likely a reference to Star Trek and Sci-Fi.Teiresias84 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"You know it was filmed in a Hollywood basement." 71.185.16.108 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But the Moon hoax was filmed in a Nevada desert, so it can't be talking about the hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mental Disorder

I think there should be a link to mental health sites for the conspiracy theorists. It's sad when people get angry and shocked by things they cannot begin to comprehend. When they make up 'facts' and start 'explaining' why they're right, it merely exposes them to public ridicule. Hanging on to the "man cannot fly" notions and claiming that the US and USSR were in it together is really the same as a wino pushing around a shopping cart full of junk claiming them as possessions. If you really are this troubled by the moon landings, perhaps your judgement in other areas is also poor and could lead to harming yourself or others. Certainly if I ever meet you I'll take my lead from Buzz Aldrin. So get some help, get some meds, have your existing meds checked and just stop listening to the voices. 83.70.35.39 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that little rant, but it really doesn't belong here as this isn't for discussing the subject, but discussing the article. LeeG 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mental health problems are a serious issue, not a rant. I can't see how you could attach a link to a hoax moon landing psychosis. You could certainly attach a link to an article though. Do you see how that works? The link and the article, not the link and the subject.83.70.35.39 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that mental health problems are a serious issue, but I don't think a link belongs here. I think at the very least it would be deemed offensive, and at best would be classed as original research, neither of which have a place in the article. LeeG 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracists are no more mentally ill, on average, than religionists. Some may be, in both of those categories. But there is no correlation. And keep in mind that Buzz Aldrin suffered from psychological problems, and he was on the moon. Wahkeenah 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was a 'Luna-tic' who had delusions about being on the Moon, you mean! A young n***a from da street 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Now, back to the street with ya. Wahkeenah 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo all don't think no n***a's welcome here? A young n***a from da street 02:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the above user and its sockpuppets have now been sent back to the street, i.e. blocked. Wahkeenah 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is incredibly biased towards the points of view of the sheople who believe people actually set foot on the moon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.187.0.88 (talk • contribs).

We don't give undue weight to crackpot theories. (Also please sign your posts using four ~ marks). Teiresias84 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Going to the Moon isn't a "point of view". It isn't an opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

its a fact, thats what it is. if you want to live in your own fantasy world thinking your own way despite clear and obvious evidence, i suggest that you join the flat earth society. they also believe the landings were fakedNicholas.tan 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's as flat as your hat, and that's that. Wahkeenah 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is most certainly a 'mental health' issue. The "hoaxoids" cling to their delusions, and seem driven to inflict those delusions upon the rest of us.

Mental health issues aside, anyone who thinks the US never went to the moon is just crazy. There is one underlying issue in all of this: the Soviet Union. If it was "faked" they would have been all over the US about it. They monitored every second of every one.

One other think that I find rather humorous, a few years back I was watching a show on the National Geographic Channel about the moon conspiracy theories. All the hoax theorists were intervewied outside their double-wide trailors, complete with lawn chairs and astroturf.

stars, again

This photo shows the Moon and stars! However, in order to show the stars, it has to be so overexposed that you completely wash out the sunlight part of the Moon and can see details in the night side of the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did the idea of the hoax come from? Who thought it up? Have they been diagnosed? Duck! Fisent 04:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's all there in the article. Wahkeenah 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flat Earth society was the first widespread one I heard of, and that was at the time. However, even before the landing, some people in my town said that it was impossible to land on the Moon because the Bible says that the Moon is just a light. (And you can't land on a light.) Bubba73 (talk), 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That kind of preconceived thinking explains the hoaxsters' viewpoint to a T. "It can't be done, therefore it couldn't have been done." Never mind that most of them apparently slept through 9th Grade science class. It vaguely reminds me of a Dick Van Dyke Show episode in which Rob Petry brought some old-time radio stars to the "Alan Brady Show". One of them, "Edwin Carp" (Richard Haydn) at first refused to go on TV simply because he thought TV itself was a hoax: "I do not believe it is possible!" Wahkeenah 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes me about 5 seconds to see that the moon here is actually in thin crescent phase - that area to the right is indeed washed out and pure white as expected. Exposing long enough to see stars also exposes details on the dark side of the moon that are lit from earth-shine. you can see this with the naked eye sometimes, but it is brightened in this photo due to long exposure. Algr 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Exposing long enough to show stars makes the daylit part of the Moon very overexposed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your explanations are way too technical for hoaxster types. If they are reading this section now, their brains are probably smoking like Bullwinkle's when wearing the Kurward Derby. Wahkeenah 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another photo of the Moon that show stars, and again the daylit side is extremely overexposed. Bubba73 (talk), 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

on 'scientific method'

Beg pardon, but what is this section doing in this article? My understanding is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to objectively present material, not suggest to readers the method by which such material should be interpreted. Isn't this entire section somewhat misplaced, since it invites readers to evaluate, rather than simply comprehend, the issues at stake?138.23.77.242 14:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)external user(and no, I don't happen to believe the moon landing was a hoax)

Well, this article shouldn't have to explain the scientific method and epistomology. Perhaps that section should be reduced or eliminated. It does tie in though. Bubba73 (talk), 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

flag

This sentence was added to the article: "But the flag was made out of polyester and so even when it was folded it wouldn't have creased". For one thing, the flag wa nylon, but I don't see the point/relevance of this sentence. Bubba73 (talk), 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no wind on the moon, so the flag can't wave. If you look closely, there seems to be a rod that is supporting the flag horizontally on top. What's the point of this article anyway? Yes I know, to show proof that the Moon landing was fake. However, people don't really need to know this. You shouldn't trust the internet unless you have reliable sources such as... Astroview120mm 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moon's gravity

The material under "Moon's gravity" about "sphere of influence" and "neutral point" are really irrelevant, since they are not directly related to the surface gravity of the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to the NASASCAM website

Having read most (if not all) hoax accusation websites, I find the website called NASASCAM to be by far the most informative and I think it should definitely be in the "Hoax allegation links" list. However, some people here seem to not like it and have deleted it several times without giving any reason whatsoever. What's your problem??? Don't you think it's only fair to give a link to the page that makes the best case for Apollo being a hoax in an article that pretends to deal with that? So if you want to be taken seriously please provide some good, valid, convincing reasons for omitting the NASASCAM link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.23.252.113 (talk • contribs).

It's not suitable for inclusion per WP:EL. It is just someone's blog/homepage and not a reputable site. Ben W Bell talk 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not an argument, it's a weak excuse. Who says which websites are "reputable" and which are not? This smells like an attempt to censor pertinent information which could give people second thoughts on Apollo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.252.113 (talk)

It is a policy of this site. --Guinnog 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And it just isn't much of a site: It's just a big load of name calling (laughing stock) and the usual rants we have already discredited here. His first "argument" is that no one at NASA knew what a kilometer was in 1969. These guys will just say anything, no matter how idiotic, in the hopes that they find something that we can't knock down in 5 seconds. Algr 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a dreadful bunch of crap. I wonder how many aspects of WP:EL it breaches? All? --Guinnog 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an argument, moon rock solid, haha. It's the kind of response I expected. Well, many people have by now wised up to the "quality" of this "encyclopedia" and who is behind it. This farce here just serves as further confirmation... you know, it's ... Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.215.39 (talk)

Well, feel free to troll elsewhere. As long as you want to edit here, you have to follow our rules. Simple. --Guinnog 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Man that site is garbage. Footprints in "wet sand", horizon is from "desert photographs". Of course, noone took into account the "wet desert sand" concept, the wadi conjecture. Now it all clicks into place. What next the statue of liberty is not a whore? 83.70.219.86 02:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is so bad that it might be a joke, but I'm not sure. "why is it in color on the ALSJ site, when other pics are monochrome, especially as they were again taken by the SAME camera?" There are some possible explanations (1) a color photo can be converted to black and white, (2) Except for Apoll 11, they took two cameras to the surface of the Moon. They took both B&W and color film. Either type of film would go in either camera. And sometimes they swapped cameras. Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie

Is it just me or is there a twinkie melted to the lander in the Photo of the Earth taken from behind the Apollo 11 Lunar Module? I think that right there proves it to be a hoax.

Retroreflector arrays (opening section)

Such claims are also empirically discredited by the existence of three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Today anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off of these devices, verifying placement of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at the historically recorded Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

Isn't this a "straw man" argument? The fact that a man-made object exists on the surface of the moon in a given place doesn't in any way prove that astronauts landed on the moon and walked around on its surface, which is the main point of the hoax accusations. I don't think this is something that can be disproved in an empirical fashion, short of sending people to the moon to check the evidence for themselves. 217.155.20.163 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this was probably discussed back in the archives. But there is no known way they could have gotten there otherwise. Any other method of them getting there is pure speculation. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So the reflectors could only have been put there by means of a manned Moon mission (as opposed to an unmanned one)? 217.155.20.163 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union landed two unmanned rovers in 1970 and in 1973 on the Moon; Lunokhod 1 & 2. They both had laser reflectors and the distance to the Moon was measured from the Earth. So Apollo laser reflectors are no waterproof evidence for humans on the Moon. Necessary Evil 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for how the US reflectors got there, if it wasn't by manned Apollo missions. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that NASA set 12 men on the Moon, but I think that laser reflectors as an evidence for humans on the moon is pretty lame. I can provide a reliable source for how the Soviet reflectors got there. Necessary Evil 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the introduction of the article should contain a statement that empirically discredits the subject of the article. Such a statement would causes every line of text afterwards to be null and void. Also, because the mirror arrays are in fact NOT adequate evidence to discredit the hoax, that line should be removed from the article's introduction. EvaXephon 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraphs

I removed two paragraphs from the intoduction:

"Such claims are also empirically discredited by the existence of three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Today anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off of these devices, verifying placement of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at the historically recorded Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

However, the Soviet Union landed unmanned Lunokhod rovers in 1970 and in 1973 on the Moon. They both had laser reflectors and the distance to the Moon was measured from the Earth. Laser reflectors are thus not watertight evidence for humans on the Moon."

Two reasons: (1) the material seems to argumentative, (2) retrroreflectors are covered later in the article as well as in Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed these paragraphs, Seemed too NPOV:

1. Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight. By the time of Apollo 11, the US's lead was much wider than that (see List of human spaceflights, 1960s.)
2. Most of the 'firsts' above were done by the US within a year afterwards (sometimes within weeks). In 1965 the US started to achieve many 'firsts' which were important steps in a mission to the Moon. See List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969 for a more complete list of achievements by both the US and USSR. The USSR never developed a successful rocket capable of a Moon landing mission — their N1 rocket failed on all four launch attempts. They never tested a lunar lander on a manned mission.[47]

If you can explain how they're not, put them back in. 139.169.165.199 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a statement of fact to me. The hoax believers make the claim that the USSR was ahead technically, but in the first paragraph, it is undisputed that the US had much more experience with manned space flight at the time of Apollo 11. In the second paragraph, it is shown that the US had technology that the USSR had not developed. Bubba73 (talk), 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A Small Thing To Note

The Moon landings weren't faked. There's one obvious piece of evidence to support this. If the Moon landing was "faked" to raise morale and distract the American public, why would NASA do it over and over again? Spending billions of dollars for no real purpose wouldn't make any sense at all. NASA wouldn't have to do it over again at all if they were "faking" it to boost morale. Also, FOX obviously paid-off people or got people who lied about who they were (like the "expert" photographer who said the cross-hairs thing was proof of a cover-up, which even the most simple of photographers would know was due to an effect called "white-out") just to make money and so FOX could fool the American public.

Or maybe that is exactly what they wanted you to think! Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, if they were faking it then why did they fake Lunar Orbit Rendezvous instead of direct ascent? It would be a lot easier to fake direct ascent - fewer props, fewer operations, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Commendation

Thanks for exhaustingly debunking all these moon landing conspiracy theories. Hand waving and gross speculation from irreputable sources have no place trying to pass as fact on an educational resource like Wikipedia.

Might I suggest doing similar for the 9/11 Conspiracy page?

~~AeroEngie

The one where Bush planted bombs in the levees of New Orleans to root out the African-American population would be a great one, too.

removed sentence

I removed this: " produced the first picture of Earth taken from the lunar surface and the now famous The Blue Marble photograph of Earth." (1) This was not the first picture of the Earth taken from the Moon's surface - there is one in the article showing one taken by Apollo 11. (2) the Blue Marble photograph was not taken from the Moon's surface. Bubba73 (talk), 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vice City "fake moon landing set"

Was actually on the lot of Interglobal Films (a pornographic movie company), in a studio, the idea that the set was meant to be a porn movie on the moon is probably what the developers intended for it to be. (Until a citation is given, this should not be added again though). Anynobody 07:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC input requested regarding animation

I noticed the animation illustrating the lack of difference in an American flag Buzz Aldrin is saluting has mismatched colors and generally "looked edited." The continuous nature of it was something I found distracting while reading the article. I took the two cropped images used as examples and created an animation from them, eliminating the apparent difference in color and added a delay of 12 seconds between salutes.

Each animation has its own good/bad points, so it seems appropriate to leave the choice up to other editors.

Current image, Pros: Features line up, full view of Aldrin. Cons: Colors do not match causing shadows on flag to appear as "waving", causing the overall animation to appeared doctored.

Proposed replacement image, Pros: Colors and shadows are consistent, especially on the flag. Cons: Armstrong's minor movement between the images is not corrected.

Anynobody 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first one, it is clear that the difference is from a different exposure and a slight difference in the location of the camera. The stationary objects match closely. It is from a NASA website. The second one is altered(it looks like you lightened up the dark one). With it not overlaying exactly, I think it is harder to tell that the flag isn't moving. I prefer the first one, but what do others say? We could have both on the main page. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the difference in brightness is not caused by a change in exposure. High-res versions of the two photos are [2] and [3], and in those to they do not appear to be that different in brightness. (Perhaps the person that did the animation got them from different sources or something.) Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the second one is no better than the two individual pictures. Bubba73 (talk), 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone

This edit was reverted with an explanation of "Revert / tone down." Though it could use a citation, why is it unfair to say that the hoax claims are dismissed by virtually everyone at NASA and every world government? I would think that's an important thing to add to determine the hoax theory's prevalence in the world. Cumulus Clouds 03:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Cumulus Clouds. The first time I heard about the hoax theory I thought it was wrong simply because the Soviet Union didn't say anything about it being a hoax. They'd of done just that if they noticed details like transmissions not coming from the moon or if our pictures actually had stars in them. The Soviets, and the rest of the world for that matter, didn't have NASA's talent/funding/etc. but they did have the capability to tell if anything sinister was going on.

Would it be fair to say that few/no countries have asserted a hoax? (I don't know it for a fact, but I could see a third world dictator saying it was a hoax.) Anynobody 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As the bloke who made the revert, I see a bit of a leap in the strength of language between "widely" and "nearly unanimously" (FWIW, I also say that as one of the people who dismisses the hoax allegations). Happy to discuss further but the term "widely" has been accepted by the editing community of this article for a fair while, from memory, and I think should have a little more consensus before changing to something stronger. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, a guy in Germany told me that believing that the Moon landings were fake is almost entirely an American phenomenon. He estimated that less than 1 percent of the people in Europe believe it was a hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it - Americans being more cynical about a great technological achievement of their country than the rest of the world is? Be good if we could get a source on that sort of opinion/percentage and put it in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was just one guy's estimate. I don't know of any formal polls showing that. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Childish fuss

Oh, kids, quit querelling !

Would it hurt to admit that we just don't know ?

It is so obvious to me, after reading this whole discussion, that both sides are just seeing what they want to see, and none of each side's "proofs" fully convinces me, I'm sorry to say...

Sure, conspiracy theorising can be a matter of mental health when it is pushed too far, but so can credulousness. So why don't all of you give each other a break and put the same amount of energy in examining your own motives instead ?

(That would be real progress.)

Now, although I understand, and respect, that for some editors the issue is government conspiracy rather than human acomplishment, I'd just like to add a little perspective to it:

(Not that my own little personal opinion be so worthy, but, heck, this is discussion, right? ;-)

I can't see that it matters much whether we've been to the moon yet, because we haven't done much of it anyway, while i'm sure we could. I also believe we will go again and again, as soon as our retarded economy catches up.

Would a controversy about Colombus having discovered America first change anything to the present develoment of that continent ? If we're to develop on the moon, this whole issue will eventually become a trifle.

Perhaps we've already done it, perhaps we haven't; parhaps we have in time and way different of those alleged, but we can. Since Newton we've known how (or Galileo or some other old guy, my education in history being spotty). All was missing by their time was the power and the shielding. I don't think there is any limit to these nowadays, other than financial (but our economy will change eventually: it has to, since it hampers most good things we'd like to do every day, and now challenges our very survival. Of course this is an all different controversy for which this wouldn't be the right discussion).

Of course, some might argue that when i say "we", it is rather a matter of "them". Well, I really don't know... (Perhaps I've been reading Robert A. Heinlein too much... ;-)

212.68.229.209 08:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake or fake???

I have watched the video and camera set up aside,you would notice that the flag was waving. they might've forgotten that theres no air on the moon.well not unless they bring some... And why is that there was no noise engine on the video when you could hear armstrongs voice loud aNd clear? why is that there were footsteps of armstrong and the machine does not have?? Have NASA answered those questions?

Have you read the article? Skittle 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound does not transfer in a vacuum. The reason you could hear Armstrong was because he was talking on a com inside his helmet. And by machine, were you trying to refer to the LM? But seriously, read the article, please.

large telescope section

(10 this section seems out of place. It is more in line with "7.3 Attempts to view the landing site". (2) it is a bit argumentative in tone and needs to be more encyclopedic in tone. Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal of heat dissipation inadequate to explain the issue

In the section explaining how body heat was disposed of (which claims a circulated liquid coolant warmed a reserve of water which was fed into a thermal exchanger), the following is said:

"The water-based heat exchanger comprised an open-circuit system, its warmed feedwater being expelled in the vacuum through a sublimator unit in the backpack. There was a 12-pound feedwater reserve, which provided some eight hours worth of cooling."

If I understand this correctly, it says that the sublimator physically expelled warmed water - and 12 pounds of water would be 'used up' in 8 hours, leaving the system physically empty if not re-filled.

Given that the crew were in the vaccuum of space for about a week, this system would need to be in operation continuously for around 7 days (in the case of Appollo 11), since there is no particular mechanism for dissipating body heat whilst in the lunar module as opposed to standing outside of it. (Which is to say, there's still no air available to absorb body heat.)

Therefore, each crew member would require: 3 lots of 12 pounds of water per day; for 7 days; approximately 21 x 12 = 252 pounds of water each. There were 3 crew - so in total they would have had to take off with 3 x 252 pounds of water, or about 750 pounds, which is pushing towards half a ton as a minimum. And they would need a tank big enough to hold it.

Is it just me, or is this impossible? Ot have I misunderstood the cooling mechanism posited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk)

The part you cite concerns the time when they were in the spacesuits that they used on the surface of the Moon, the Apollo/Skylab A7L. They were in those suits only for a few hours for each EVA (moonwalk). The water could be refilled from the Lunar Module, I assume. Also see Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is, to refill it from the module, the module would need to contain that much water. They'd have had to take the best part of half a ton of water with them. 81.96.161.52 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't wearing those suits outside for all of that time. Without looking it up, the longest anyone spent outside in those suits was around 20 hours. 20 hours x 1.5 pounds per hour x 2 astronauts is 60 pounds. Bubba73 (talk), 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Total of 22 hours and 4 minutes of EVA on Apollo 17, plus time in the suits before you get out and at the end before you can take the suit off. So around 25 hours, so aoubt 75 pounds of water. Bubba73 (talk), 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment says "...where it radiates heat into space, thereby cooling before being recirculated...." So according to that, only the heat was radiated into space and the water was recirculated. Bubba73 (talk), 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I have an understanding of it now. The Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment pumped water around the body and into the heat exchanger, and recirculated the same water. The heat exchanger took heat from that water and then got rid of it by letting the 12-pound reserve of water evaporate into space (up to 8 hours). Twelve poinds of water is less than 2 gallons, and it was carried in the backpack of the suits they used on the surface of the Moon. They were not in these suits all that long of a time - only a few hours for each EVA. They were in the suits at most 25-30 hours, and at 1.5 pounds per hour for each of the two astronauts, (3 pounds per hour) that is at most maybe 90 pounds of water. A gallon of water weighs approximately 7 pounds, so that is around 13 gallons. Certainly the LM could carry that. Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lunar module ascent stage carried two water tanks, 42.5 pounds each. The descent stage had one water tank, 333 pounds. Bubba73 (talk), 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This misses the point I am making. The human body generates heat all the time. Whether they are in the suits or not, in the mduule or not, they need a mechanism for shedding body heat 24/7. There is no explanation of how this was done during the journey to and from, and the mechnism built into the spacesuit is theoretically viable, and one would assume it needed to be used around the clock. 81.96.161.52 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is relevant to this article. If it was not possible to get rid of a person's body heat, then all spaceflight would be affected, not just Moon landings. Bubba73 (talk), 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant because the argument being "rebutted" is stated thus:

"The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere. There is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere"

The second half of this statment is not addressed, and that is the reason I bring it up. It is explained that the space-suit mechanism can and does work in a vaccuum - but the issue of disspiating heat more generally (ie whilst not in the suit) is overlooked. In effect, these two sentences are linked, but stand up individually. Only the first is properly answered by the "rebuttal". The second sentence is false, but not addressed, so, for the record, how was heat dissipated during the flight itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs)

That is simply physically wrong. Have you ever wondered how heat from the Sun gets here if there is no atmosphere connecting the Earth to the Sun? The Earth was a lot hotter when it was young. How did it cool off? Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If the second part was true, it would apply to all long space flights, not just Moon landings. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ANY warm object/body irradiates heat through infrared radiation. It don't need air for that.

But WE need air for other purposes. And having air and a suit around you, you become a mini-walking-greenhouse-effect. Is this "captured" heat the water system dissipates. Wildie 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hoax claims" section

The entire hoax claims section is written more like a forum post than an encyclopedic entry. All those "responses" should be worked directly into the article rather than appended to the "claims" - right now that section resembles a thread where two people are bickering back and forth.Scott 110 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC) , with the "responses"

Are you suggesting that the hoax claims all be together and then the responses all down in a different but matching section? I could go along with something like that. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, section 5 will contain only the hoax claims, in subsection 5.1 through 5.10 (currently). Then section 6 will contain the responses, 6.1 through 6.10, each corresponding to the respective subsection of section 5. Bubba73 (talk), 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean no offense, but for me this complaint sounds stupid. The entire response section would have to begin each remark with: 'In response to the claim of x,y and z, there is a,b and c to consider. The responses can't exist as their own entity, they are fundamentally direct responses to specific charges. Basically you would have a claims section and then a responses section that wouldn't look any different than the hoax claims section already looks. If you simply put the responses in without starting each one with 'in resonse to the claim...' then it wouldn't make any sense and people would have to keep scrolling up and down to try and figure out which claim the response correlates to. That would be a terrible way to design the article and it makes no sense. The way it is now is perfectly intuitive and it works perfectly. It doesn't look like a forum post and it doesn't look like people bickering. These are direct responses by NASA, various scientists and others to specific claims made by theorists and such. It makes sense to put each claim and the correlating response together. There's nothing remotely 'un-encyclopedic' about the way that it is set up. Most encyclopedias (in fact I can't think of an encyclopedia that would take the time) wouldn't even bother with having this entry in the first place. I have no problem with the article, but if you are going to have it you need to have the rebutals, and these rebutals along with the specific claims which they are rebutting have to be integrated together to be at all coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New section

A new section titled "NASA" starts with "Armed guards are reportedly taking down and shredding old Saturn V posters ...". The source is a blog. Also, is there a reliable source saying that this (assuming that it is true) is somehow related to the hoax claims? If so, how? Do these documents that were on the wall 38 years after the fact somehow show evidence of a hoax? Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has been removed. Not by me, but I agree with the removal. Bubba73 (talk), 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion!

I am a 14 year old wikipedia editor and i need help. I don't know who to believe about the moon landing. Was it real? A cover-up filmed on a set? I don't feel it is right for people to have doubts about mankinds biggest accomplishments. I have always beleived the landing as real, but now i'm nit so sure. Yoda317 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. Read the fonts. Take your own conclusions. Grow up! ;^)

I understand your confusion. I had my owns about all this. But, I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not a forum, this page is for improving the article, not for chat. See yah! wildie·wild dice·will die 11:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Try not to worry about it Yoda317. The issue is not in *nearly* as much contention as an article this length would make it seem. It is a very small, but very vocal minority who have made it such a big issue. You should feel perfectly comfortable believing the Moon Landing happened. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it did not happen. All they can do is introduce doubt into people's minds, which is possible to do with almost anything, if enough people think hard and come up with complicated ideas. Klondike 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is nobody really knows. Extremists on both sides have strong beliefs, and will try to convince you, but the evidence has likely been destroyed by this point. Bob Pervert 16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well -- assume, for just a moment, that the moon landings did in fact take place. If so, then there remains a ton of evidence -- all on the surface of the moon. Lander bottom stages, flags, trash, footprints. So, as it happens, a current Japanese lunar mission (SELENE, nicknamed Kaguya after a fairy-tale princess) is sending 3 orbiters to the moon. I suspect there will be some very high quality photos coming out in the next few months. AND I suspect that some of them will be of the Apollo landing sites -- and will in fact show artifacts on the surface. The primary orbiter will orbit at a height of only 60 miles (100 kilometers.) Since the moon has no atmosphere to speak of, I suspect that high quality Japanese optics will render this whole silly debate moot. SunSw0rd 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it. If the photos show artifacts then the hoax believers may say that the photos are fake or the artifacts don't prove that man was there. Bubba73 (talk), 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

True Believers make up their minds and won't be "confused by the facts" -- that said, I think that rational people will accept the evidence. Of course, there are still "true believers" that think that there are tunnels throughout the Andes that connect to Tibet (amazing how in today's era of digital cameras, even cell phones with digital cameras, there is no extensive photographic evidence of these tunnels -- the hollow earth creatures must eat all the explorers heh heh.) SunSw0rd 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory information

In "Technological Capability of USA Compared with the USSR," it says "At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US." Scroll down, and it says "Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight."

So who had 4-5 times more manned space flight than whom? x_x Ahuitzotl 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the USSR had more five times as much time in space was aparantly part of a claim by hoax beleivers, but I don't know the source. The fact is that by Apollo 11, the US had much more time in space. (Also there is a bit of a difference in the ratio depending on whether you count astronaut-hours or just hours of manned spaceflight, but not much.) Bubba73 (talk), 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is were the hoax believers (Bart Sibrel) made the (incorrect) five to one claim. [4] Cheers. Teiresias84 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference! I added it to the article. I had looked in Kaysing's book, but it isn't there. Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

citation tag

in the intro, why do you need a behind the sentence "These hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers[citation needed], as well as by NASA and its astronauts."? Isn't this common knowledge, like the sky is blue? In addition, having the tag there feels like pov-pushing. Blueshirts 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is common knowledge, and somewhere in the WP guidelines it says that citations aren't needed for things that aren't likely to be challenged. Bubba73 (talk), 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR

I think the example of Yuri Gagarin's flight being of a lower quality (to Alan Shepard's) is a poorly picked example. Yes, on one hand he did need to exit the capsule but on the other hand, he went into orbit whereas Alan Shepard's flight was only suborbital, which is significantly less impressive. Only the third manned American flight was an orbital flight. 85.177.203.91 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I took that part out. I don't think it adds much to the article and it seemed to be a bit of POV editorializing. Bubba73 (talk), 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is too long

Firstly, it's longer than the Apollo article itself - 108kb vs. 43kb. Secondly, its size simply lends credence to the conspiracy theory. I move for the whole thing to be cut down to a quarter of its size to relegate it to the importance and seriousness most people attach to it. It doesn't need to propose and counter every aspect of the alleged hoax or argue them to a conclusion - that can be achieved by linking to external sources. AJKGordon 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point I don't know what to do about it. If you check the history, there were a small number of editors who took it very seriously and put great importance on it. The article has been reduced in size by spinning off about three articles. I'm not in favor of relying on external links because they won't be around forever - at least not as long as I think Wikipedia will be around. Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "ip popular culture" section could be deleted or moved to its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

removed material

I removed the following:

Classical optical theory (see Optics) however is well tested and indicates that the telescopes are not part of the moon landing hoax. The Dawes' limit of the Keck telescope is 0.116/10 meters or 0.0116 arc seconds. The Hubble has a 2.4 meter mirror and a resolution of 0.048 arc seconds. Both the Keck and the Hubble instruments are insufficient to resolve the lunar landing craft, which measure about 0.0018 seconds of arc depending on the variable distance of the moon from the earth. When the Giant Magellan Telescope is finished, it will have a resolution of 0.116/25m or 0.00464 arc seconds. Astronomical telescopes take pictures using charge coupling devices similar to those found in consumer digital cameras. Resolution is per pixel. When we say a telescope has insufficient resolution to see a detail, we mean that it is cramming more information onto a single pixel than that tiny cell can record; all the information is averaged across the pixel as a single color or shade.

What size telescope is required to image the moon lander?

We need to solve the Dawes equation 0.116/x=0.0018 where x is the aperture of the telescope in meters. Solving for x, 0.116/0.0018=64.44 meters. That is 2.5 times the size of the un-finished Magellan. Even so, this level of resolution would achieve one pixel per Moon lander, and would show the Moon landers as bumps with possibly a second bump for the shadow. An even larger telescope would be required to show significant detail of the landing sites and craft.

The argument that imaging galaxies at the edge of the observable universe translates into the ability to image landing craft on the Moon is interesting because it shows how difficult it is for the general public to comprehend the size of a galaxy. The bigger something is, the easier it is to see at a distance. A 100,000 light year long galaxy at a distance of 13 billion light years will subtend 1.5 seconds of arc and be approximately 1000 times easier to photograph than a lunar landing site, even though the lunar landing site is much closer. All of these calculations assume that the earth bound telescopes are operating under optimum conditions and, with adaptive optics, achieving their near-theoretical resolution limits, in spite of challenges presented by the atmosphere.

It is a fine explination of the telescope optics, but it goes into more detail than is needed, and the article is already too long. I replaced it by a short statement with a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reponse to edit comment

An editor commented " Most newer telescopes tout that they're more accurate than Hubble based on adaptive optics. btw. Why the flag? Why not rover?) " As discussed, newer Earth-based telescopes aren't large enough. Many people ask about the Hubble, so that is probably why it is discussed in the reference.

Why the flag instead of the rover? I suppose that the person asking the question in Astronomy probably asked about the flag because it would be difficult to plant the flag with a robot, whereas the rover could possibly be put out there robotically. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible errors in ionizing radiation section

In the section "Ionizing Radiation...' there is an error. The sentence states "Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip."

Three of the astronauts made the trip twice, I think, Dave Scott, Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan. So only 24 out of 27 astronauts were involved in those nine missions. The sentence itself may be a true statement in that it accurately describes Ms. Schneider's report, but she is mistaken about the number of individuals who made the trip.

Further down it says "Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions." This may be true if some of the Gemini missions are being considered "high-radiation", but not likely, in that many of the Gemini astronauts also made the trip to the moon. Including the fire there were 12 manned Apollo missions, 1,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. Apollo 1,7 and 9 did not leave Earth orbit and I do not believe they can be considered "high-radiation", but, as seen below, Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 had identical average exposure.

Average Radiation Exposure For Apollo Flight Crews Apollo Mission Skin dosage (rads) 7-0.16, 8-0.16, 9-0.20, 10-0.48, 11-0.18, 12-0.58, 13-0.24, 14-1.14, 15-0.30, 16-0.51, 17-0.55

(Bailey, J. Vernon, "Radiation Protection and Instrumentation", in Biomedical Results of Apollo, Johnson Space Center.) http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Clint Berry clintb@att.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.146.183 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the astronaut numbers, but according to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". So the truth doesn't matter - only what we can verify that someone said. I'm only half kidding with that. So I think that probably the best thing to do is to make a note that the correct number is 24. Bubba73 (talk), 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific method

Good morning - just wanting to mention I'm a little disturbed by the description of the scientific method given here - ie that you would accept whichever hypothesis fit better, regardless of whether it accommodates all the data. That simply isn't true - we can reject ANY hypothesis that cannot account for ALL the data. That is to say, if there is one data point that the hypothesis cannot account for, we should reject it and look for another. 66.224.185.202 01:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite correct. For instance, the Big Bang theory did not account for all data, but it was not rejected. Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that it did not account for all the observed data, it was not accepted as being true - it was used as a model and constantly changed and adapted. The big bang theory is a set of theories and ideas that are used to create (hopefully) more and more accurate models, but no one will claim that it is 'true' in the formal sense (accept the hypothesis) until there is a model that accounts for ALL the data. 66.224.185.202 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

but it wasn't rejected. You can never be sure that a scientific theory is "true" - you can only show that it is at odds with observed facts and is false. See Karl Popper's falsifiability. If a theory can't be demonstrated to be false, it is tenatively accepted as correct - subject to being proven false if contradictory evidence comes to light. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

202 is correct. I'm not familiar with the details of the Big Bang theories, only one example of data that cannot be explained by a theory is enough to reject it. For example, if you found a place on earth where gravity did not work, that would be enough to discard the current theory. It would not continue to be accepted as the 'best of the bunch'. Bob Pervert 02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what 202 said - that is more like what I said. One example that contradicts the theory of gravity is sufficient to reject it, but it doesn't have to explain everything to be tenatively accepted. Newton's theory of universal gravitation didn't explain everything, but it wasn't rejected. Relativity came along and did a better job at explaining. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, but it is the currently-accepted theory. Dark energy, dark matter, and cosmic inflation aren't explained, but they are part of the current theory. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think that evolution does not explain? While there are some uncertain areas, the difference is that there is no data point that the theory of evolution cannot explain. Were a dinosaur fossil to be found that was signed by God, we could discount the theory based on one fossil (assuming we trusted it). My point is that if there is one data point that contradicts the theory, we must reject it. Bob Pervert 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? There is a difference between a theory not explaining everything and there being a direct contradiction of the theory. Dark energy, dark matter, and cosmic exmansion are not explained by current theory, but they don't contradict it. (And does the theory of evolution explain why we have the number of fingers we do and not more or fewer?) Bubba73 (talk), 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - my concern in reading the section was the implication that even if one theory of other could account for all the data, we must accept the one that best fit the data. My point is that if either theory cannot account for one of the data points, we must reject it. Bob Pervert 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. No theory EVER explained every data point ever measured about it. Theories aren't rejected unless a better theory comes along to replace it. People recognized unexplained issues with Newton's gravity for a long time, but it was not rejected because no one knew if a small addition or a major overhaul was the answer. Only when Einstein showed a theory that made better predictions was Newton overturned. But more often it is the small addition that proves correct. Hawking Radiation totally changes the expected fate of a Black Hole, but it does not conflict with Einstein - it extends Einstein's map into new territory. Another example, once neither Newton nor Einstein could explain the orbit of Neptune. The major overhaul (Planet X) proved to be wrong. The small addition (better measurements of Neptune) provided the answer. Algr 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A theory that explains everything is called "complete", and outside some simple mathematical and logic structures, no theory is complete, and probably not even close to being complete. The theory of gravity you mention is a good example. Another one is that for decades the theory of stellar activity predicted 3 times as many neutrinos as were being detected. Now that has been explained. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good example is the standard model of particle physics. It doesn't explain why particles have the mass they do at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree - what data is the theory of gravity unable to account for? Bob Pervert 14:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - didn't that allow us to reject Newton and embrace Einstein? Bob Pervert 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Newton's theory of gravity is stull used. I've read that they still use it even in interplanetary spaceflights. Bubba73 (talk), 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling the problem here is one of simple semantics. There's a difference between a theory or law accounting for everything, and a theory or law being consistent with everything. Germ theory doesn't explain precisely how dysentery works and how it may be counteracted, but it was never _contradicted_ by the pathology of dysentery. Hooke's law doesn't explain why the USSR collapsed, but nothing about said collapse actually violated Hooke's law. For a theory to be (provisionally) accepted as fact, it must be consistent with all the evidence. 'course, most theories are not consistent with all of the evidence, which is one reason factuality in science exists in degrees. 89.0.142.70 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the above paragraph "There's a difference between a theory or law accounting for everything, and a theory or law being consistent with everything. Germ theory doesn't explain precisely how dysentery works and how it may be counteracted, but it was never _contradicted_ by the pathology of dysentery." That is exactly right, and that is what I have been saying. However, I don't think it is simply a metter of semantics because there is a big difference between not being contradicted and "explaining everything" (even everything in its domain). Bubba73 (talk), 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, 2 things.

1. I happen to think the moon landing was faked. This article is incredibly biased and should be more neutral. The claims held by us who believe it was a hoax are shot down. I don't mind you guys saying your mind, it's your consitituonal right, but to make this article on which says the claims and then shoots them down does not make a quality Wikipedia article. My opinions are not coming into these thoughts, but seriously! I mean, in the abortion articles on this site, there is a seperate section for both pro life and pro choice, and both rarely rebutt each other. Whomever wrote this article is doing so to debunk the myths, which is not Wikipedia's purpose. Please do so elsewhere, and someone please consider what I'm saying.

2. This is not a discussion forum of the article's topic, if you'd read the directions above you would understand that.

Just, seriously...

--Chomeara 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The abortion issue a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. Part of NPOV, WP:UNDUE, says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority. " Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:Fringe. Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But remember this article isn't titled "Apollo Moon Landings", It's titled "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations". As far as the above Flat Earth example, the title is "Earth". If the title were, "Round Earth Hoax Accusation", the article would predominantly about Flat Earthers and their accusations that the Round Earth theory is false. Ynpragne (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to above (thing won't let me attach)

Nothing personal, Bubba. But you were exactly what I was talking about in #2. If you really think this should be proof for or against the moon landing, can't you create seperate articles for it? It's not impossible, and there's probably already one for pro-moon landing. This article should be neutral and allow the reader to decide for themselves. Wikipedia is not a battle ground for debate, it is a place that is a safe and fun learning environment that everyone can contribute to if they please. And the name of this article is the "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" right? Thought so. If this article is going to have a side by side opinion database, leaning torwards negative, by the way, I think you should at the very least, change the title! This is a joke!--Chomeara 02:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed splitting the article before (see the archives) and decided that doing it would violate NPOV and UNDUE policies. As you can see below, I suggested that "Apollo moon landing hoax deniers" might be more consistent. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You linked me to Wikipedia Fringe. This page then linked me to

this: [[5]]. This article, unlike the one linked, is incredibly biased. I understand that the opinion of "landing: not hoax" being much more widely accepted compared to "landing: hoax", but don't they deserve equal attention. Like I said, the Paul is Dead article NEVER mentions why it is fake or stupid. It tells the hoax's story of history, unleashing, and eventually the end of debate. This article just says what we have to say, and then the those who disargee and how they come back. I understand the emitional connection you may have whomever wrote this article, but take it elsewhere, for the sake of a should be neutral Wikipedia article.

--Chomeara 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Paul is dead article, in the first sentence it states that it is an urban legend, therefore not true. The first paragraph (added: the second sentence) also states that McCartney is still alive and well. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be renamed "Examination of Apollo Moon landing hoax accuations", but that is getting a bit long. According to the policy of not giving undue weight to fringe theories, the pro-hoax side gets plenty of coverage. The pro-hoax side is also lacking on Reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you must keep the article the same, I totally support changing the title. That would do it wonders. --Chomeara 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How do people feel about that - a name change? Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many web sites using the Wikipedia software, perhaps also a ConspiraWiki.org, where stupid, anti-Washington conspiracy theories can be described, uninterrupted by boring facts from Bubba73 and his kind. Who's the target group for Wikipedia - it's people who want down-to-earth information on a certain level, not home-made explanations from secondary school washouts. In theory Wikipedia should be written like a university textbook, peer reviewed and in consensus. In reality there are not enough scholars to do the job, so we mortals must do the job.

Obvious ridiculous ideas like Hollow Earth or Flat Earth have the short names, but since so many people believes in the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, a wiki-article with that name, will be taken as an approval from Wikipedia. --Necessary Evil 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Chomeara, you think that the moon landings were faked; based on what evidence? An opinion that is not supported by evidence does not have much value, sorry. This article does an excellent job of listing all the known hoax theories, and providing evidence to refute each one. If you think there is something missing, please let us know. And also, can we please not change the name of this article.Logicman1966 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

It has been mentioned that perhaps the name of this article should be changed to "Examination of Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations". (Or perhaps Apollo could be left out and it would still be clear.) Does anyone have an opinion? Bubba73 (talk), 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An "Examination" sounds like an essay or original research to me. I don't think it matters about the "Apollo". Unless there's hoax theories about the unmanned landings? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Way, way too long article

I come to this article, and this discussion, as someone who has never had any interest in the topic per se, but in space-related activities.

If I may, the unfortunate result of such sparring above results in an enormous amount of evidentiary data being included in the entry, just so each "side" may find more fuel. The result is an entry that is absurdly too long.

No general encyclopedia entry, in any media, should be this long. For a start, almost every subpointog hoax claims (most every item has "bullets under bullets under bullets", for criminy's sake), can/should have it's first sentence follow the preceding sentence, and the rest killed, not presented or rebutted at any length, if at all. The job has been done, by the two preceding sentences, and the point has been "pointed out." Even for some larger sections, it's not made clear why I'm spending brain time reading entire sections, like "Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR."

Plus, is there not a Wikilink to "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings"?

Indeed, the lists of all the points can be shortened, condensed rationals, combined by deft copy editing, and simply be cut, one by one. It is self-satirical to note that Joe Blow once was sure he saw a soda can, with the cherry on the cake being the five lines of follow-up text. Or having each comedic one-liner that editors one by one remember be mentioned, certainly not given a set-up. Perhaps the funniest sentence and entry, to me, and symptomatic of the entire issue, is that we are told that from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness "students remember 3 of the points...."

This is an entry, guys, not a disquisition. Shlishke (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings is linked as a "main article" and also under "see also". Some things have been spun out to other articles. One reason the article is so large that we tried to accomodate some believers in the hoax, and they were very vocal (and gone now). I particularly think the "in pop culture" should go - it is large and causes a lot of problems. (more later...... got to go.) Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please do remove "in pop culture", and from any other articles you see while you're about it. Wikipedia is infested with these sections that add absolutely nothing of any value to the article other than to note that someone once saw it mentioned on TV once. They are invariably totally uncited and only attract further cruft. The only possible value of a "in pop culture" section is when adding weight to a subject that is otherwise light on notability. It certainly is not required here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A little more - the "Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR." was one of the arguements made by Kaysing, so it is one of the major arguements. On the other hand, if one person out of the millions that saw the 1969 broadcast thought they saw a Coke bottle, that is considered evidence of a hoax. We appreciate your suggestions on improving the article. Three or four articles have already been spun off. Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I misread your question about a link to "independent evidence". I thought you were asking why isn't there a link. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, that page was created by a hoax believer, trying to make a point that almost all evidence of the landing comes from NASA or other US government agencies (and that such evidence can't be trusted). Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - the stuff about Krishna was just expanded a few days ago. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shlishke has a fair point, however, the difficulty with popular conspiracies is that they rely in accumulating ever-increasing fine detail. They need to do this because when examined, each level of the supposed conspiracy inevitably crumbles to dust. The only course the hoax proponent has at that point is to burrow further into the tiniest of details in order to discover new "evidence" that might continue to muddy the waters. So inevitably articles like this end up spiralling into increasingly trivial points. And of course, if they're not refuted then they are held up as ultimate proof. It's a vicious circle. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're (Shlishke) missing the point. This article is titled, "Apollo Moon Landing Accusations". It about the accusations. Why do you need to refute anything? Wikipedia isn't the end-all repository of proven facts. It's purpose is to provide information, with outside sources, on the subject described in the title. The title isn't "Perspectives on the validity of the Apollo Moon Landings". If it were, than maybe that would be appropriate. Ynpragne (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives you'll find that we've discussed this problem before, and the fact that the article shouldn't be a laundry list of claim and counterclaim but should be a discussion of moon landing denial as a phenomenon. Unfortunately rewriting it that way has proven impossible because people kept reverting it back to the old laundry list when we tried to do anything about it; that's the reason why I haven't edited it in a long time... occasional short bouts of improvement are possible, but they soon get changed back. Mark Grant (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources discussing it as a phenomenon. They are all either claims or refutations of claims. Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I read through it and did not see any problem. So it's a very detailed annotated list. Seems like a reasonable way to address the topic. Maybe there is a better way to address it, but I would not want to see any of the detailed point-counterpoint removed in a rewrite. Dhaluza (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only alternative I've thought of (and I've said this before) is rather than claim, refutation, claim, refutation, etc, is to put a list of all of the claims neatly in one section and then the corresponding refutations in a section below it. It would make it neater. I do not think that the refutations could be spun off into a separate article because that would constitute a POV fork, which is against policy. The refutations inherently take more space because it only takes one sentence to claim that the Moon is too hot for humans to live or that the radiation would kill them or that the gravity is wrong, and it takes at least a paragraph to explain why that isn't so. Bubba73 (talk), 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Intelligent design as an example of how to discuss such a phenomenon without a huge laundry list of claim and counter-claim about dinosaur footprints or whatever. 03:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Grant (talk • contribs)

That article is extremely good. However, it is nearly 50% longer than this article, and this article is said to be too long. Notice, however, that there is quite a bit written on ID, pro and con. There are court cases, etc. There are constitutional issues and educational issues, textbooks, religious and philisopical issues, orgainizations on both sides; none of which apply to this article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A large fraction of that article is footnotes; and I suspect that with the claims and counterclaims removed, this article would be maybe a third to half the size. The fact that those things don't exist in this case seems to me to be a good argument for removing much of this article. 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Grant (talk • contribs)

Quite a bit of this article is footnotes and external links too. That's one thing - the ID article has tons of reference materual. There isn't much on the Apollo hoax - no court cases, no school boards wanting to teach the hoax as fact, no organizations like Discovery Institute, no text books, no books written about the hoax except a few by hoax proponents, and they list a bunch of claims. Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ID is the Teleological argument, and that article has a section of objections and counterarguements. Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am worried by people who want to remove factual, referenced material, just because they think there is more information than they want. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford to give subjects the level of detail they need. Bob Pervert (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you. Wikipedia:Article size mentions 50KB as a rough upper limit on readable text. The article is currently 108KB, but a good bit of that is in footnotes, external links, and the (in my opinion) unneeded "in pop culture" section. If the "pop culture" section were deleted or moved, and if you don't count footnotes and external links, it probably wouldn't be much over 50KB. Bubba73 (talk), 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the "in popular culture" section be moved to its own article. It is about 14 KB. Bubba73 (talk), 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving pop culture sections to a separate article is a better there than here type of issue, and is somewhat controversial in general. Specific to this case, the moon landing hoax theory is a pop culture phenomenon, so moving it would not be appropriate in this case. The one thing that could be done to trim the article length is to move the detailed examination of the "Hoax claims examined" section to a sub-article, and only include the summary points in this article. Dhaluza (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is a viable alternative and would address the concerns of it being too long as well as the other one about too much detail. Bubba73 (talk), 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Area 51

I'm trying to cleanup unsourced stuff in our Area 51 article. A while ago someone added stuff saying that the Fox "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?" thing specifically claimed Area 51 was where the fake footage was supposedly filmed. I've not been able to find a transcript or copy of the show. Does it actually specifically say Area 51 (Groom Lake), or has the person who added that heard "mystery base" and inferred Area 51? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - it could be either one. Bill Kaysing said that it was filmed in the Nevada desert near Los Vegas, but didn't specifically say "area 51". We He wrote this before Area 51 was widely known. I'm not sure if the Fox special specifically says "area 51" or not. Bubba73 (talk), 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)