Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

When is this article going to stop!!!

Looks something is really wrong when an article about spurious and plainly stupid assertions is as big as the real article, if not bigger.

There are now HD pictures showing the flags, landers and tracks on the Moon surface. If that is not enough "evidence" that men walked on the Moon then really there is no hope for some people. Which begs the question why is Wikipedia allowing such rubbish to be promulgated?? Surely this article is a violation of WP:SOAP and even WP:FRINGE because no one in the mainstream space program even entertained the ramblings of these so-called conspiracists?

Is this article just going to get bigger and bigger, with quotes and references entry from every book written about the hoaxes? It seems pretty obvious to me, from the ridiculous size of this article, that Wikipedia is being used as a mouthpiece for those with fruit-bat agendas!!86.139.149.13 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the matter is a bit more complicated. Assume the case of someone out there hearing about the hoax theories, and he wants to learn more about it -- What exactly do those people claim, what are their arguments, who are the proponents and such? He will turn to WP to find exactly this information. WP limits itself to reporting the reality, but we're not talking about the reality of a hoax, but of a hoax theory. IE, the thing is not relevant because there exists a hoax, but because there exist (real) proponents of the hoax -- much like an article about Christianity doesn't report about the existance of God, but about what Christians believe.

But I agree with you insofar as the size of this article may have gotten a bit out of hand -- probably because many WP authors are scientifically minded and are outraged at the large number of people believing in the hoax. --Syzygy (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disproving crazy people is a lot of work. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and probably impossible. The thing about conspiracy theories is that every time one layer of it is disproven, the theorist simply creates another, deeper, more detailed layer where everything disproved is simply more evidence that the conspiracy is even bigger than we thought. There's no end to this as the theories become ever more complex and outlandish. Which is why there's never likely to be a final edit for this page. Any attempt to cut things down to appropriate size will inevitably be evidence of Wikipedia's participation in the conspiracy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently bumped into one of these idiots in a bar. I was doing a road trip of the USA and happened upon a small town (Roanoke, Virginia) in which there was a (seemingly well educated) person who appeared to believe just about every conspiracy theory there is: "9/11 was a government plot", "JFK was killed by the CIA", and of course the classic "we didn't really land on the moon." As a non-American, I have, of course, heard that these theories are rife among the disaffected of Nowhere, Iowa who spend far too much time on the internet, but I have never actually met one of them in real life. It was hilarious. Nothing we said could shake him from his beliefs. Indeed, he seemed to enjoy his delusions for their own sake, rather than their factual content. It was a real eye-opener in just how distant citizens of middle America feel from reality and from the federal government (which is, of course, out to get them and fritter away their tax dollars!). America really is a weird place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.252.139 (talk)

"Nowhere, Iowa" and "How distant citizins of middle america feel from reality" - wow!!! Where are you from that a city with 300K people is a "small town" - Delhi? What I think is hilarious is that elistists like you think that everyone who doesn't live in NYC, Boston, or LA is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. Whose the delusional fool with the counter-factual beliefs again? Ckruschke (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Easy .. the IP is making an utter stupid generalization and basically trolling here. Just ignore them and let them go back under their bridge. You know the view is foolish. Ravensfire (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know. Couldn't restrain myself... Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

He probably mistook it for Nowhere, Oklahoma.--Syzygy (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

They say that you can't reason someone out of a belief that they did not get into by reason. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And he still gets to vote... HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead astronauts

The article currently lists the claim, made by Fox, that 10 astronauts died during the run-up to Apollo and while the missions were in progress. However, Fox seem to have missed the deaths of Joseph Albert Walker (F-104 accident, June 1966), Russell Lee Rogers (F-105 accident, September 1967), and James Martin Taylor (T-38 accident, September 1970). Walker was selected as a pilot in the first X-15 group in 1960, though retired in August 1963. Rogers was selected in September 1962 as a pilot in the X-20 DynaSoar group, though retired in December 1963. Taylor was selected in June 1965 as a pilot in the first MOL group, though retired in June 1969. Perhaps Fox didn't include these men because they were not on the active lists when they died? Note that they did include among their '10 dead astronauts' X-15 pilot Adams and MOL pilot Lawrence, who were active when they died. Should this information be included in any way? Catiline63 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we even need to spell out their list; it would sufficient to enumerate that most were killed in aircraft accidents, 3 in the Apollo 1 fire, and a couple in car accidents. Tom Wolfe could be cited as to the high rate of test pilot deaths, leaving only one or two about whom there might be specific allegations. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the list should stay as it underlines that Soviet casualties were comparible to US ones. If kept or not, for consistency the Soviet comparsion should be modified to also exclude cosmonauts who were retired when they died. Catiline63 (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Book on Wikipedia

Hi everyone. I am writing a book on Wikipedia, part of which will address how it deals with fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories. I would be interested to hear from both sides. From the defenders of the 'mainstream view' on the Apollo landings, to understand why they work so hard on what seems a thankless task (to me, the conspiracy seems absurd and I find the idea of challenging it almost equally absurd). From the supporters of the conspiracy theory (if there are any) to understand why they edit Wikipedia, as opposed to writing on a blog, or self-publishing, or contributing to a forum. Please freel free to leave a message on my talk page, or email me. Hestiaea (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad Ref

Reference 41 is a dead link
Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBesDx1WQc
76.214.107.102 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly the conspracists actually claimed.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the conspiracy theories is that it is hard to find any descriptions of exactly what varioys conspiracists say did happen. This is not surprising because stating a complete theory would make it so easy to debunk that most conspracists shy away from doing so. Should we not state exactly what various conspiracists have claimed so that the stupidity of their claims is more evident? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How many theories do you want? There may be almost as many theories as the are conspiracy theorists. HiLo48 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never actually heard one complete cogent theory. Are there any? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, to my knowledge no complete theory has ever been produced. Ralph René's book was as close as I have personally seen, and it presented a collection of claims, some of which were mutually exclusive. As a result, we address the claims actually presented in the primary sources and reviewed (discredited) in reliable secondary sources rather than attempting to "string them together" into a narrative. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that not a point that needs to be made then? The biggest weakness of the conspiracy theories is that there is actually no complete theory at all. I do not know if there is a source anywhere that makes this point but it would be worth looking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence is already in the article, attributed to Ramsay: "The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists." VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I missed that. Is there any way this can be expanded upon? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a relevant source that mentions it, yes. The one that is listed, by its appearance on GBooks, appears pretty cursory. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there many complete theories by individual conspiracists even? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page 64-65 of Kaysing's book sort of has a complete theory. Launch prep is normal. Since the F-1 engines in the Saturn V don't work, so maller B-1 engines are secretly placed inside the F-1s. Fake footage of astronauts entering the spacecraft - they go by elevator to a duplicate of the spacecraft. Launch appears normal. The second and third stages of the Saturn V are fake. The fake third stage puts Apollo in a parking orbit. The astronauts are flown to a Moon set in Nevada. Fake signals from Apollo are sent to tracking stations. Apollo capsule jettisoned into the South Polar Sea. Astronauts are comfortable in Nevada, free to wander about Los Vegas with showgirls*, except for some checks with Mission Control. They use the 24-hour buffet at the Sands hotel and watch color TV broadcasts from a private Telstar satellite. Astronauts fake the landing and moonwalk on the set. Simulated reentry of Apollo is really dropped from a C5A. Astronauts are flown to Hawaii, where they enter Apollo and are dropped out of sight of the recovery ship. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• - Kaysing says that there are accusations that one of the astronauts hit one of the Apollo officials in a dispute over a showgirl named Peachy Keen, but Kaysing could not confirm that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Even the best and most complete conspiracy theory is so full of holes that a moon landing conspiracist could find them. Is there no way that we could make this point in the article? Are there any sources that make this point? Martin Hogbin (talk)

False inormation in the article

Not about article improvement, not helpful. Please start a new section if you have specific changes, backed up by reliable sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you would expect, the propagandists would say and do everything to mislead us. They once again proved themselfs to be the proven LIARS we alreayd knew they were since the article wrongly states that the darker picture with the "fall-off" effects is the edited one, which is pure BS. The original photo is the one with the "fall-off" effect which was printed in The West Australian already back in august 2, 1969 (~6 min in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMuTiziCszU) while the lighten up picture is the EDITED version who came out much later. So unless the propaganda trolls cant find a version of THEIR claimed original version dated EARLIER than august second 1969, i suggest them to SHUTUP. Proven fake: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg/179px-Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg Original: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/180px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Youtube is not a reliable source for information about a conspiracy theory. Is there a reliable source available that supports your claim? VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC) The Buzz Alrdin photo is explained at Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Issues with crosshairs in photos. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC) The video shows a guy holding up the actual newspaper from 2 aug 1969 to prove that the "fall-off" picture is how the original one looked like, but then its youtube who isnt a reliable source!? your desperate try for making a point is laughable... but i wouldnt expect more from a propaganda TROLL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC) No, that newspaper doesn't show what the original one looks like. The original is a transparency that is in NASA's vaults. They made prints that were widely reprinted. See this for more information. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Bullshit! excuses from NASA wont make it true! you have the history of that picture in the video i linked to and even the NASA site you linked to shows the fact that the darker picture is the first one, the original from 1969, while the more lighten edited version came out 1975. So why you arguing? you dont have a chance here. As i said, BRING UP a picture dated earlier than 2 aug 1969 or SHUTUP - its that simple! 91.145.38.53, please stop insulting other editors and please sign your posts, just put four tildes at the end . Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I dont tolerating having my talk session closed, this is what the propagandists do? censoring their opponents! Unless the propagandists cant bring up the picture THEY claim to be the original together with a date which needs to be earlier than second of august 1969, i will change the article. False misleading information should never be tolerated! Its already proven that the "fall-off" darker version IS the original. If anyone wants to argue, then bring up! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC) The propaganda liars This article is beyond laughable! Since the propagandists trash talking and like to "debunk" ppl like Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, and Bill Kaysing (with no evidence to debunk them, however) we should debunk the LIARS the propagandists listen to! "youtube is not a reliable source" the propagandists says... still they link to youtube videos themselfs to suit their false propaganda in a desperate act to try prove THEIR laughable points. So if they can link to youtube videos, i will do the same just to prove that THEIR sources are nothing else than FALSE PROPAGANDA. Using proven liars like Jay Windley, Phil Plait, and Svectors youtube series as some kinda evidence is laughable. I think that these trolls needs their own section! lets see what kinda ppl who is behind the sites that the propagandists always links to. Its time to face their claims! Evidence for the fact that Plait and Windley are proven liars*** Phil Plait**: "New CEPHEI is the farthest star you can see with the naked eye" - which this proven liar states in his own youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHGLcNDGvA at approx 3:00 - 3:35 correct answer: Eta Carinae is. Its getting better! Phil Plait also claims that ALL shuttle astronauts has been through the van allen belts!!!!!!!!: "Every single shuttle astronaut who has ever gone into space" - which this proven liar claims in a radio program with Joe Rogan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc at approx 6:00 - 6:13 Jay Windley**: Jay windley in one of his desperate attempt to explain why the LM didnt make any crater on the moon, uses the Boeing 747(!) and the Harrier Jump Jet as a comparison! - and wrongly states that the Harrier Jump Jet engine produces 37,000 lbs of thrust (he will mislead us in any way he can) approx 3:50 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTAK77Df7w correct answer: approx 22,000 lbs of thrust according to Rolls-Royce (the engine manufacture) Further on, this proven liar also claims that rocks DOES NOT melt even at 5700 degrees F, but is getting debunked by geologists. Approx 4:25 - 5:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGh_t_cpEI0 More on, the article also stated that Kaysing was a librarian and NOT a engineer which is wrong. He was a engineer at Rocketdyne, just email them and ask instead of insulting dead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) YouTube is not a reliable source. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) But when coming from a propagandist then it is? watch the videos before you speak, since it contains sources from other videos and programs - such as sources you propagandists enjoy using (i.e Jay Windley and Phil Plait) but now all the suddenly it isnt good enough!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.38.53 (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) No need to call me a propagandist. I'm not expressing any opinion on your views. I'm simply saying that, according to Wikipedia's 100% clear rules, YouTube is not a reliable source. I would not support evidence for any content (or removal of content) here based on YouTube videos. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC) And i simply saying that many of the sources the propagandists uses is nothing else than proven liars which i just happend to give several examples of, pure evidence - with some youtube videos! but then WHERE the video is located is the problem according to you?! come back when you have something to prove instead of making lame escuses! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Not lame at all. What I have told you is a rock solid reason (not an excuse) why your thoughts will have no impact on Wikipedia content if all you have as evidence is YouTube videos. It's an absolute, very long standing rule, not propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Come back when your ready to address the points i made! or with other words, facing the false information these ppl giving to us! ignoring whats inside the videos like you do and instead only focus on WHERE the videos are LOCATED (in this case youtube) proves that you dont have anything at all to come up with. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Mythbusters problem Mythbusters screwed up several tests (on purpose) worth to notice: 1. Aldrin himself claimed to have made his popular footprint in 2 inches of lunar dust, yet mythbusters made their footprint in a very tinny layer of sand, just a fraction of an inch. MYTHBUSTERS BUSTED! 2. David Scott didnt use a rig to drop the hammer and the feather. In a vacuum its impossible to grab something smaller than 1 inch - which was the instructions Hasselblad was given from NASA, so Mythbusters could have prove that it was possible to roll a feather between the thumb and the fingers like we could see David Scott supposed to do, on the moon... instead Mythbusters created more questions by using a rig. MYTHBUSTERS BUSTED! 3. They used cement which has a very high albedo to prove that a astronaut will be lighten up even in the shadow, but they never showed us what the lightmeter said. MYTHBUSTERS BUSTED! 4. "so unless someone finds a shot of the flag flapping without an astronaut manipulating the flag pole, its myth busted" see Apollo 15 vawing flag. MYTHBUSTERS BUSTED! 5. Astronots walking! again they got everything wrong (on purpose, afraid for the outcome) instead of testing with both wires and slowmotions at the same time (which is what the conspiracy claims) they tested them seperately. MYTHBUSTERS BUSTED! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You've got me interested. Where is the evidence that "In a vacuum its impossible to grab something smaller than 1 inch"? That seems rather odd. (And no YouTube videos please.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I'd love to hear the scientific explanation behind that one. Should be entertaining. Especially since astronauts in orbit and in vacuum have manipulated things less than an inch across on many occasions (nuts, bolts, cover panels, the edge of their visors, spanners, the rope holding them to the ship etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Having had numerous discussions over the years with conspiracy theorists, I suggest you just move on...you will get nowhere fast asking for "evidence" from these people. Evidence doesn't factor into their beliefs. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, I've had numerous discussions too. It's fun. That claim just surprised me. I hadn't heard it before. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I suggest you to contact Jan Lundberg at hasselblad and ask him about the gloves, because he say that the instructions they had from NASA especially when making the wheels on the camera was "make nothing smaller than 1 inch". Thats a well known fact and you havent heard it? lol! We have to remember that this was in the 60's. Ofcourse propagandists is doing their best trying to mislead us by comparing with todays space station reparations. Thats todays gloves, vs gloves back in the 60's. I have had ton's of discussions too and it always ends in one way: deleted and censored posts and suspended users when the propaganda trolls are out of words and argument (as they had any in the first place?!) i see the same shit tactic is being used on wikipeda as well, by lame admins. Source please. You're the one trying to provide something, so provide the evidence to back it up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I'll take that one. "Blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer propagandists blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer bullshit." Poor little, tiny conspiracy theorist. Mommy doesn't love him enough to give him attention. Feel free to "silence" (conspiracy theorist talk for "rightly make fun of") this latchkey kid as needed. 68.0.236.131 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Too lazy to contact Hasselblad?! (well thats your problem and not mine) im not the one making any claims in the first place here, you are! what about you to prove that the moon landings took place by provide some independent verifications? source please. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, yes you were the one making the claim that "In a vacuum its impossible to grab something smaller than 1 inch", a bizarre claim even by the standards of the moon conspiracy theorists. It is thoroughly beside the point too - the moon landing conspiracy theorist were debunked long before the Myth Busters - a show that focuses on entertainment rather than on science - came along. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation from A Man on the Moon

There is a request for a page citation from the book A Man on the Moon concerning the non-belief at the time of Apollo 8. This was added on Nov 23, 2008 by 203.154.176.1. I have skimmed and read the chapters on Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 but I didn't find it. But that is only a small part of the book, so I think it is probably in there somewhere. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-belief"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, belief in a hoax. From the Origins section: "In A Man on the Moon, published in 1994, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar-orbit mission in December 1968, similar conspiracy ideas were already in circulation." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The cataracts are not related to space radiation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580503

"No association was found between space radiation and nuclear cataracts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.220.211 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is insulting the late Kaysing

"Kaysing was not technically qualified, and worked at Rocketdyne as a librarian"

is that one propaganda troll's personal opinion or can that statement be backed up with a source? there's no source linked to that so i guess the propagandists can write their personal believes in the ARTICLE itself, while i getting my TALK session censored even when i PROVIDE EVIDENCE that many sources in the article are proven liars.

Respect for wikipedia admins? never had, never WILL have 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference #34 is the source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So i was right! "one man's opinion". Using only Jay Windleys opinions from his own site as the source isnt accetable, i already provided videos where he is getting caught as a liar. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you were wrong. You said that there was no source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added another reference from an unimpeachable source, Kaysing's book, page 80. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What his personal qualifications were is irrelevant, he was still wrong. What is relevant was Kaysing was not employed there during the Apollo work, and had no inside information or knowledge of the Apollo missions. His theories are based on the same pictures everyone else saw, including thousands of far more qualified scientists. Yet he alone produced remarkably precise calculations and conclusions based on what he admitted himself was based on "a hunch". If the source for his qualifications aren't strong then the article doesn't require them. It does smack a bit of "poisoning the well". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what exactly does it say on page 80 of his book, Bubba73? Perhaps the cite could have a snippet of a quote? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Near the end of the book, he reproduces several letters - mostly rejection letters for publishing his book. On page 80 there is a 1975 letter from the Rocketdyne division of Rockwell, replying to his inquiry about his employment there. It says:

• 2-13-56 hired as a technical writer, senior
• 9-24-56 changed classification to service analyst
• 9-15-58 changed classification to service engineer
• 10-7-62 changed classification to publications analyst
• 5-31-63 quit for personal reasons.

The purpose of printing the letter was to show that he was not a "disgruntled discharged employee". On page 31 is a photo of him with the three other members of the Rocketdyne technical publications unit, about 1961. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I already know, Kaysing worked 4 years as a service engineer. Which makes Jay Windleys statement "Kaysing was not technically qualified, and worked at Rocketdyne as a librarian" false, like everything else from his clavius website. I posted several videos (ofcourse censored) which proves that he is a proven liar, and his site as a source should be removed from the article. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a "service engineer"? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the videos i linked to did answer that, but was censored together with the rest(!), its kinda hard to take wikipedia seriously these days :( 91.145.38.53 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[This source http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html] has the following to say about "service engineer":

At one point his job title was "service engineer", which has led some to assert he really was involved in the cutting-edge engineering of the engines Rocketdyne built. We contacted Rocketdyne, which at the time of our contact was owned by Boeing, to explore this. Under Boeing's recollection of North American Aviation's nomenclature of the time (which they believe was congruent with their own), a "service engineer" would have been a sort of mechanic and not a job that required a degree or expertise in engineering as licensed engineers use the term.

. Also note that (1) Rocketdyne made the F-1 engines for the Saturn V, but they also did other things and I haven't seen and indication that Kaysing was involved with the F-1. (2) He quit more than 4 years before the first test flight of the Saturn V. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This source again? Everything there is based from one man's opinion. Lets see what else Jay Windley says now show we? in a desperate attempt to explain why there should be no molten dust under the LM, Windley claims: "We collected some desert rocks and dust and heated them with an oxy-acetylene torch (5,700 F) for five minutes. They did not melt, and they were only slightly discolored." (http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html) Really? I would love to hear from geogolists about this. Someone who makes a statement like that should never ever being used as a reliable source.

Jarrah White also contacted Rocketdyne (which is included in one of my censored posts, but what else would you expect?). And unlike Jay Windley, Jarrah actually shows us their answer:

"Thank you for your interest in Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. In answer to your question, I can only offer a generic answer to how a Service Engineer was defined during the time period in question. A Service Engineer would have provided technical support for actions like equipment processing, transportation, installation, check-out, and for the launch itself. This would have been either when the product was in the field ready for use or during analysis prior to delivery to the customer." - Bryan Kidder; Rocketdyne, Communications Director."

So much for "Kaysing was not technically qualified" which the article wrongly claims.

The fact that i need to repeat all of these already posted censored facts is laughable, but thats what wikipedia has become. So at the end of the day, who should we trust? a self proven, caught liar? or Rocketdyne themselfs? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So you want to remove cited content based on what you say someone else says about what Rocketdyne says about what is a generic description of what might have been Kaysing's job? Third-hand hearsay of an unspecific description of what may not be relevant? Do you not see what might be the problem with this? Even if you did have a cite, which you don't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A generic description of what MIGHT have been kaysing's job?! man can you read? i cited the answer from Rockeydyne themself so its based DIRECTLY from them. And as i just said, the email which i linked to in one of my earlier posts was CENSORED. Here is the link again which contains the email from Rocketdyne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyzlZkTwYRo

The "clavius" source used in the article should be removed here and now because its being runned by a proven liar which i have proved many times by now. The only problem with this is the propagandists defending the false information in the article and is not interested about the correct information 91.145.38.53 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That description of "service engineer" doesn't say that he had any technical knowledge of the F-1 engines either. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jay Windley is the one not having any technical knowledge, yet his site is being used to falsify Bill Kaysing. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Three questions. 1) are those videos on YouTube yours? I ask because you use the same language as the uploader 2) can you produce evidence that supports your position, through reliable third party sources, that support what you claim other than a YouTube video made by someone who specifically is trying to apply dodgy scientific principles to prove a theory rather than taking a neutral approach? 3) Can you make an argument for your case without calling everyone else propagandists and attacking them? Additionally what does falsify Bill Kaysing mean? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Canterbury Tail talk 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1) no, which you had noticed if my posts wouldnt been removed. 2) its not about me, its about the claimed moon landings! the article contains no independent verifications (cause it doesnt exists any) and many sources should be removed especially the ones linked to Phil Plait and Jay Windley, since both men has been caught as liars. I already quoted a statement from Windley from his own website to show why his site shouldnt be used as a reliable source, so its not my problem if you dont wanna read. 3) i could but i wont, why would i tolerate their false propaganda? because the article wrongly claims that Bill Kaysing was not a service engineer and not technical qualified , which he was.

now its my turn with questions! how reliable is the clavius site? 1) Can this site really be used as a reliable source when it says that rocks doesnt melt even at 5700 degrees F? 2) Is it accetable to use the Harrier Jump Jet and even a Boeing 747 in a comparison to explain why the LM didnt leave any crater on the moon? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a page about Jay Windley - you can read about his qualifications there. But where is Kaysing's exertise about rocket engines? There is no indication that he worked on the F-1 and, also, he left more than 4 years before the first test flight. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You seems to have a big problem with "Kaysing left 4 years before" but at the same time you keep linking to a site where the man behind it barely even was BORN back then... look who's talking? i guess that sets the bar to what wikipedia really is these days. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Because at issue is whether Kaysing had any expertise in the F-1 rocket engines. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Only issue with this is that Jay Windleys website is being used as a source, without questioning his claims. Kaysing may left Rocketdyne 4 years before the first test flight (first manned test flight yes) but the F-1 engine was developed back in 1955 http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/f1_engine.html and was launched for the first time 1959 http://www.astronautix.com/engines/f1.htm Guess who was a employee at Rocketdyne as a service engineer during THIS TIME? yes you got it; Bill Kaysing. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that there was a manned flight using the F-1 engines? Kaysing says that there never was. The first unmanned test flight using the F-1 engines was on Nov 9, 1967, more than 4 years after Kaysing left. The first manned flight using those engines was Dec 21, 1968. The engines were still in development when Kaying left. Also, a "service engineer" is a non-descript term - we wasn't exactly a rocket scientist. And Rocketdyne did a lot of things - there is no indication that Kaysing was even involved with the F-1 engines. Anyhow, this talk page is not for general discussion like this,so I'll quit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice that your second link says "Severe combustion stability problems were solved during development and it never failed in flight. First flight 1967." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never deny that man has been in space and i just talked from a different point of view. In this case im talking about the first launch, and that was in 1959 which was during Kaysing's job as a service engineer. The engine had already been developed and tested every since 1955. Rocketdyne do descript what a service engineer does: technical support for actions like equipment processing, transportation, installation, check-out, and for the launch itself. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And btw, can you show me where Kaysing says that there never has been a manned flight? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

He says that there was never one with the Saturn V, and that is the only rocket to use the F-1 engines, which he claims never worked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And the website is in error about an F-1 engine on a test flight in 1959. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"April 20, 1964 ... This was at a time when the F-1, a much larger engine, was under intensive development." -- Kaysing, page 9. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you misleading the viewers?! the website i linked to never said the F-1 engine was test flighted in 1959, it says it was launched in 1959. (started/fired/burned whatever term u wanna use) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned about this, stop attacking other editors. Comment on content, not on editors. I have struckthrough your comments on other editors. Make your arguments based on evidence and references from third party sources that are verifiable (see WP:References.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question - WITH ALL RIGHTS! since this user claimed the website said that the F-1 engine was test flighted in 1959 which is wrong, the site said it was launched in 1959. This is pathetic beyond any words, from now and on i should also make some false comments by making something up from a source, and everyone who is questioning me should be warned 91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Launched" vs "test flight" is just semantics, not wrong. If you want to completely self-destruct by making up false information, feel free. Just expect to be blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Its total wrong! flight means its up and flying, launched in this case means fired, and even a article here at wikipedia says the F-1 engine was fired 1959. And stop insulting me, stop focus on me. Comment on content, not on editors! One admin after another coming in and defend each other (unusual? *NOT*) and why cant i do what others do?: making up false information! is it different rules for different editors? yes there is, its already a proven fact. And wikipedia IS censored (also a proven fact) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See Rocket launch. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading bullshit again? its not about ROCKET launch, its about ENGINE TESTS... 91.145.38.53 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A rocket using the F-1 engine was not launched in 1959 - the first one was in 1967. It was tested (not launched) in 1959 - they worked on it for several years, starting in 1955. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

91, I never insulted you. I was replying to your statement that you might post false info, pointing out that this would simply get you blocked. There's no insult anywhere in there.

Also, the majority of people in this discussion are not admins.

Wikipedia is not censored refers to censoring as in "someone might be offended so we can't say that." Wikipedia does leave out non-notable or non-verifiable material so yes, in that sense, it is censored for quality reasons. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You can test launch a rocket engine by putting it on another piece of hardware depending on what the test requires, it neccessary doesnt have to be Saturn V (or any other rocket at all for that matter) there are sites who clearly says the F-1 engine was "launched" in 1959 and fired/burned/whatever, but it does not say FLIGHT, a "flight" is a term who usually contains ppl... 91.145.38.53 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep using the word "launched" - I'm not sure you know what that word means in the context of aerospace engineering. Per this PDF the F1 started development in 1959 (which makes me assume that the work done from '55 was paper studies), the first production engines delivered in '63, and finished it's flight test ratings (aka ground tests) in late '64 - after which it was cleared for cluster fireing and actual flight.

Also, no sources I've seen so far indicate that "flight" is a term used when a rocket is manned - to the best of my knowledge and using a wide range of sources (included believers in various moon landing conspiracies) the term "flight" is used for a launch where the rocket gets airborne...

Also worth nothing that according to this source the instability issues of the F-1 wasn't sorted out until early '65 - well after Kaysing left for "personal reasons". This renders the point of what he actually worked with and what programs he was attached to rather moot, since he had left the company anyway and as such were out of touch. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I cited a site who used the word "launched" so why blame me? its the same site btw who is frequently used by the propagandists, but now all the suddenly it wasnt good enough? And now you making this personal by accusing me of dont knowing what a launch is? ("focus on comment not on the editor" some admin told me) different rules for different editors? i rest my case!

your pdf file says the F-1 has been under development by ROCKETDYNE since 1959. But this site http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/f1_engine.html says "The F-1 engine had roots outside NASA, born as an Air Force program developed by the aerospace firm Rocketdyne in 1955" 91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So your one source gets it wrong as well - unless it's talking about the "launch" of the F1 program or F1 development, which would be a completly different thing than the launch of the F1 engine. Words have meaning, and sometimes nuances are important.

It isn't my pdf, it is a NASA historical document from the mid 60's. If you take the time to read up you'll see tha the F1 engine is based on the earlier [design]... which was developed from 1955 until it was cancelled and replaced with the F1 in '59. I guess it's a matter of scemantics if you want to consider the E1 as part of developing the F1 or not, but the basic design seems to be the same only at a different scale. So if you accept the E1 as a step on the way to the F1 - which would make sense all thing considered - it would be correct to say that the "F-1 engine had roots outside NASA, born as an Air Force program" since it was originally intended to power the Titan ICBM and only later considered for space flight applications.

A few more details on the connection between the E1 and F1 can be found here, but it seems like the E1 is a mostly forgotten engine these days. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Different sources! F-1 was developed 1955 and launched 1959, some sources says it was test fired for the first time in 1957. My source is the same that is being used by the propagandusts, so it wouldnt suprise me if EVERYTHING in that site is wrong (yes it is) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to believe what you want - the vast majority of reliable sources seems to agree with the timeline laid out in the PDF I linked to earlier. I guess that means I must be part of the conspiracy... WegianWarrior (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Development took several years. If it was launched in 1959 then please tell which flight of which rocket it was used on. Recall that even Kaysing says that it was still under development in 1964. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He worked as a service engineer - PERIOD. Feel free to ask Rocketdyne about the details, but the bottom line is that he worked as a service engineer and not only as an libertarian. The article contains false misleading propaganda and the information about Kaysing should be changed 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Have you read Kaysing's book? On page 74 he gives an idea of the thoroughness of his investigation:

... I received a call from a Margaret Hardin of Portland, Oregon. She said that she had meet a hooker who admitted to her that two NASA engineers told her that the moon trips were a hoax.

Doesn't that sound like hearsay? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious, you couldn't make it up. I guess this is proof positive. I mean, why would two guys ever lie to a hooker about who they were or what they knew? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Margaret on Facebook? We could ask her to give us the hooker's name, find out who the engineers were, and ask them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what the official Bill Kaysing website says about his education and work at Rocketdyne:

• "Bill continued his education at the University of Redlands, obtaining a Bachelors Degree in English Literature."

• "As a technical writer, and then later as head of publications, Mr. Kaysing was responsible for interpreting technical data concerning liquid rocket propellants into layman's language in order to procure government funding for more research."

• "After seven years as a technical writer and watching the once rural San Fernando Valley transform into a 'wall-to-wall' suburbia shrouded in smog, Bill decided to 'chuck it all' by quitting his job at Rocketdyne..." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn it! CATARACTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF THE MOON LANDINGS! JESUS

Stop spreading false information. There is no relation between astronauts cataracts and space radiation. Read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580503 and stop spreading lies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.220.211 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please use the edit summary to explain what you are doing when removing things from the article. Otherwise you're likely to be reverted. If you read the link you provided; : "No association was found between space radiation and nuclear cataracts. Cross-sectional data analysis revealed a small deleterious effect of space radiation for cortical cataracts and possibly for PSC cataracts.(my emphasis) These results suggest increased cataract risks at smaller radiation doses than have been reported previously." So it does not support what you are claiming. In fact it says the exact opposite of what you are saying. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cataracts

In re-reading the section on Van Allen Belts it appears the entire section needs clean up. The Cataract section appears to be over complicated and without sources or facts as at best Cataracts could only show astronauts were exposed to radiation (There are a large number of other causes of cataracts as well ) and not necessarily that they were on the moon where according to this very same section there is no risk of radiation from the Van Allen Belts.

I think the cataracts section needs improving. I do not think the fact that some astronauts had cataracts can be used as the proof of anything unless we have a good quality source which says something about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC) [sig added later]

We should probably remove this section then until it can be validated --216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I support removing the part about cataracts. It is very weak evidence. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please Remove the following statement "The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays.[86] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[87]" --216.58.23.145 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

last date modified??????

April 27 ???? Today is April 26.ANON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.71.8 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That depends where you are. Where I am it's 1:28pm on 27th April right now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably UTC. If you create an account, you can set time and date preferences. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to have a bias

Shouldn't the title be something like "Debunking moon landing conspiracy theories"? The article does a great job of covering most of the various theories but seems to have a misleading title. It doesn't just present all the theories, it debunks them at the same time. If one is going to take a position, that should be noted up front don't you think? I'm sure most people would agree that of course the moon landings really did happen, but the unacknowledged bias makes the article seem sort of arrogant, and a little unprofessional, almost defensive in some instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.150.193 (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not provide a false sense of balance by pretending both sides have valid arguments. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Like it or not, the Moon Landing Conspiracy crowd folks are some of the fringest of any fringe community. At least the alien crowd is attempting to PROVE something that is in at worst a grey area. Anti-Moonlanders are trying to disprove observed facts - corroborated by more than a dozen eye-witnesses. Fringe POV's are not to be considered equal to established facts. To argue in print on the side of the nay sayers simply to pump up the page would be ludicrous... Ckruschke (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree with 142.104.150.193 This article is completely 1 sided and consistently follows the format of a very brief Conspiracy statement with no supporting detail and 3 to 4 paragraphs of reasons this very brief statement is incorrect. If I look at other conspiracy articles example 911 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_conspiracy that was extremely controversial and resulted in the deaths of a large number of people or even Sandy Hook that involved the horrific death of innocent children the documents are focused on the conspiracy and not the debunking of the theory. This document is also semi protected for some strange reason. I went back through the history and I don't see a level of vandalism that would warrant the locking of a document. If we provide such a heavily weighted article that is semi protected so only regular registered posters can modify then people will view this article as biased and assume by this very nature there is something that needs to be questioned. To paraphrase Shakespear methinks the moon landing conspiracy article doth protest to much.--216.58.23.145 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are extremely sound reasons why a particular conspiracy theory is demonstrable rubbish, don't you want to hear them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It only takes one short sentence to say "there are no stars in the photographs" or "The flag is waving". It takes a lot more to explain to uninformed people why there are no stars in the photographs or why the flag is not waving in the wind. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For instance, if the response to "there are no stars in the photographs" simply "there shouldn't be any stars in the photographs" would that be a satisfactory explanation? I don't think so. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Kaysing text

(1) "but was not trained as an engineer or scientist." was changed to "despite having no knowledge of rockets and technical writing." He had a degree in English, so he probably knew something about technical writing. Also, I think that the reference says the former.

(2) I think that at the time he was hired, it was Rocketdyne - not Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings,

An excerpt from page 30 of We Never Went to the Moon:

"Personally, I found this relaxed, permissive atmosphere both amusing and contradictory. The latter, because, after all, in the spring of 1956 there was a pervading climate of doom: unless we could develop an engine to launch our hydrogen bombs over Russia first, the Russians would surely do us in at an earlier date. So frantic was the pace, that I was actually hired in on overtime, although my knowledge of rockets and technical writing both equalled zero."

Alan G. Archer (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rocketdyne reference and wikilink corrected -- my error. Alan G. Archer (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, you are right about rockets and technical writing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Alan G. Archer (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I should have checked the source before I made the comment here. Probably someone changed it sometime in the past, because I probably put that reference in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Van Allen Belts New Data

Should the new data coming from the Van probes providing actual levels and types of radiation as well as the discovery of a third Van Allen Belt be incorporated into the section on environment. We only talk about two belts not 3. Also with the discovery of the third belt would this increase the time required to traverse the belts and modify the flight path taken to maneuver around the belts. Initially Wikipedia had 30 minutes one way then modified to 4 hours one way and now based on new discovery and speed and flight path X hours one way. Until the new data can be processed and the correct total radiation exposure and time provided at minimum we should mention 3 Belts not 2 since NASA has provided this information --216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Two Van Allen belts, three, who cares, there is no new data suggesting that the radiation dose would be anything like enough to have prevented the astronauts from completing the journey alive. On the other hand, what we do say must be accurate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Two or three belts is relevant as the addition of a third belt increases the distance they would have to travel through the radiation irrespective of the levels of radiation they were exposed to. There does appear to be new data available as per above reference it just needs to be interpreted. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Interpreted" = synthesis, which you can't do. Find references discussing this matter if you feel it needs to be added. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The newly discovered belt is known to be transient. It also must be pretty weak, otherwise it would have been discovered decades ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The newly discovered belt was also between the two previously discovered belts, so there would be no change to the transit time even if the belt existed at the time of the Apollo program. VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Radiation levels are determined based on the Rads/sec exposure spent in the actual radioactive regions of the belts and not the total 60,000klm region that the belts reside in. With the addition of a 3rd belt within the radioactive region would increase the time spent in the radioactive region. The belts distance and strength Wax and Wane low strength large region to high strength small region so we need NASA to release the actual dosimeter values from the astronauts to review the radiation exposure. If NASA was to release this information so we could correlate to the new data released by the probes and this would help provide the necessary evidence of safe moon travel --216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That info might be in the Apollo Mission Reports. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Van Allen Rebutted Claims

The Document states "Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[83]" The reference given is this site http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html I am sure who ever wrote that believes this is the case that Van Allen was watching fox and said that but without some evidence or a reputable media source we should have validation before it is included. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some google-ing and I found that Clavius sources this statement to a letter from Van Allen, shich he has posted on photobucket. Kind of borderline as a source if you ask me, but about as good as you can expect for this type of topic - so I would say verified! Puddytang (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the same source name of the person who runs the Clavious.org blog Jay Windley that is being questioned as a valid source for wikipedia reference. Jay contact details on the domain are not available (Private) and on the letter are also marked out so he is essentially an anonymous person who posted this.--216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the kind of thing you might need OTRS to verify. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I found an article that may be able to make the same point from a more reliable source. From Time Magazine 5/12/1958, Vol. 71 Issue 19, p92, an article discussing Van Allen's discovery:

"The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."

From this, it seems clear Van Allen was not concerned about the radiation belts precluding space travel -- and this was long before the moon landing hoax was even a gleam in Nixon's eye. Unfortunately, this article is not available for free. Puddytang (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A great find! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Van Allen statements were prior to the moon launch and recent Van Allen probes. The accuracy of his information is questionable as he only discovered 2 belts not 3 and the technology to measure radiation levels in space without actually sending a probe is still not available today hence the reason we just sent up two probes. Even if his estimations were accurate Van Allen as above stated the need for "a small amount of lead shielding" to protect the astronauts that was not installed on any of the Apollo missions. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In the quote above he is discussing shielding for manned spacecraft that orbit in the belts. He mentioned passing through in the next sentence. As mentioned above, the third belt is known not to be permanent, so there is no particular reason to think that it existed in the 1960's. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

Several points are unsourced in the document. Example Take one sentence from Van Allen Belts. "The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours" UNSOURCED "and the astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft" UNSOURCED. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. UNSOURCED I am sure sources all exist but until they are included unsourced information should not be included. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The same references that are used later in the same paragraph. But I've added them and expanded the info. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73 much better read. If you have an online sources instead of a book that can only be purchased would be better. I am not sure what makes this book a credible resource. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like online sources because many of the links go dead after a period of time so the information is no longer available. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe we need to be VERY CAREFUL on the accuracy and sourcing of this specific information and make sure it is publicly available. If we look at the historic responses in this wiki document we state it took 30 minutes a couple of years ago to 4 hours last week to 1 1/2 hours + several minutes now. I believe by continually changing the answer we are losing creditability so we want some direct responses that quote NASA especially since they have all of that information. The astronauts were wearing Dosimeters and according to the logs we have several data points on the velocity and negative acceleration rate (V1-v0) so this is a high school calculation if we source the actual data. NASA in now providing new data for the VAN Allen belts and we also now know they start at 200 to 1000klm and extend to 60,000klm and radiation ranges from 50MeV to 400MeV so the answer to the question also needs to reflect real world data. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the four hour figure is for passing through both of them, from the start of the inner belt to the end of the outer belt. The inner belt takes about 30 minutes, the outer belt about 1-1/2 hours. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I googled around and found an old SPACE MATH Page provided by NASA but the data appears to be incorrect. It shows 1) Constant velocity and we know based on earth gravity this is not correct (you would undergo negative acceleration), 2) Assumes that the 3mm of aluminum shields 100% of radiation and we know that is not the case. 3) Radiation levels here http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf do not correlate with data provided here. http://athena.jhuapl.edu/home_overview --216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What did you expect?! the entire article is filled up by lies and misleading propaganda - protected by the admins. IF anyone changing something in the article (i.e changing a lie to the truth) then excpect to be blocked from editing! Many many users has over the years pointed out the errors, lies, and misleading propaganda in the article but its impossible to remove / change anything of it because its immediately even gets removed (censored) from the talk section!! Its hard to take an article like this seriously 31.209.16.177 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mythbusters

Several of the conspiracies appear to be debunked by Mythbusters. I did not realize mythbusters was a peer reviewed scientifically recognized show I thought it was a TV show who's sole purpose was to entertain. So yes you can breath from the tire of a car underwater, minto wheels do work and you can die of electrocution from urinating on high voltage line http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/06/nasa-curiosity-mars-press-conference-live Mythbusters is a great TV show but it should not be one of the main sources we provide in proving NASA really did land on the moon. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a short paragraph about the Mythbusters episode, stating that they tested some of the theories and 'busted' them. Nothing in the article implies that the CT has been proven false because of this episode. Still, I removed the word "scientifically," as this show is not intended to be used as "scientific" evidence. It's meant as infotainment. (Plus, we have oodles of far superior evidence that debunks this silly CT.) JoelWhy?(talk) 18:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mythbusters should be removed as a source since they got everything wrong, here's some examples: They didnt show us the albedo for one of their light/shadow test, nor did they get the jump salute test correctly. The conspiracy claim is that it was slowed down PLUS wires was used(at same time) yet mythbusters screwed up this one as well by testing the claims independently. They tested the footprint in a fraction of an inch regolite, yet Aldrin himself claimed it was 2 inches of lunar dust where he made the famous footprint. Further more, David Scott never used a rig for his feather and hammer experiment, yet mythbusters used a rig to drop the feather and the hammer - probably because it would had been impossible to hold something tiny as a feather between your thumb and the finger INSIDE a vacuum, which all along proves that David Scott was on earth when he made his test. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. He might have been on Mars. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh. But seriously, if the criticisms the IP brings up have been published in reliable, secondary sources then they might be suitable for inclusion in the article. No sources have been presented so far, though... VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? you need a source for the fact that David Scott did not use a rig but mythbusters did? you need a source for the fact that mythbusters never showed us the albedo? if you dont have a clue what this is all about (which u dont) then stay away! please stop making a fool of yourself and go censoring some barbie articles 31.209.16.177 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a reliable source say that you can't hold a feather between your finger and thumb in a vacuum.  :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard that one before. Really? What does a vacuum have to do with being able to move your fingers. The dexterity of the gloves being called into question yes, but the composition of the atmosphere around them, or lack thereof? Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To 31.209.16.177: Can you explain what albedo has to do with it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Mythbusters had the change to put a guy into a vacuum chamber in a pressurised suit (like the same model and gloves they had in 1969) but as usually, they screwed it up... on purpose, because they knew its impossible to hold a feather between your thumb and finger in a pressurised glove 31.209.16.177 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As asked before, please provide a source stating why holding a feather betwwen you thumb and finger is impossible.--McSly (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it did make a difference (hint: it does not - observing the fall of objects in vacuum have been done on earth both before and after the Apollo missions), I'm somewhat amused by 31.209.16.177 naivety... it's not not spacesuits and their gloves can be bought off the shelf, and certainly not within the budget of a entertainment TV show. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my high school science teacher demonstrated it before the Moon landing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it; "entertainment TV show" STILL mythbusters is used as some kinda evidence in this rotten article, and is being protected by even more rotten admins (even the talk section is heavily censored) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point out who these rotten admins are (that's a personal attack by the way) that are supposedly protecting the article. All the users who have been blocked from editing as a result on this article have been blocked due to their disruptive editing, personal attacks and abusive behaviour. Not for editing the article to add sources. Posts that attach other editors, call others propagandists or attempt to impose labels on other editors will be removed as a normal rule, not just here but all across Wikipedia. Talk pages are to improve articles, not comment on other users, and such comments will be removed. I've left the above in in order to address this point but generally it is considered and attack and not aimed at improving the article and yes could be used as a potential blocking offense. No one has ever been blocked for trying to improve the article, and anyone can be blocked for attacking other users. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack, its a FACT. Every single admin who has censored posts for no reason are the rotten ones, some of them cannot even stand to NOT HAVING the last word. You claim that the talk page is to improve the article, yet you dont allow the errors and misleading propaganda in the article to been pointed out(!) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no point in engaging these conspiracy theorists (especially those who post anonymously based on their fear of oppression by a conspiracy of Wiki admins.) You don't get to believing this theory by relying on facts, evidence, or rational thought. So, you're not likely to get anywhere by using these methods in regards to this article. Let us all return to our Illuminati fortress and resume our control of the world banks, Big Pharma, and the Mattel corporation (what, you're so naive that you didn't realize Barbie a is shape shifting lizard alien designed to brain wash children?) JoelWhy?(talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments like that don't help, assume good faith. People have the right to a properly referenced article. Perhaps it is a failing of Wikipedia editors so bent on disproving the anti-landing theorys that they can't see the wood for the trees and dismissing everything out of hand. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And there is for me (and other truth seekers) no point to discuss with the propagandists 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case the question is more interesting than the answer: why didnt they? if the propagandists could prove we went to the moon in the first place we wouldnt had this coversation 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly nobody could prove it to you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of conspirators involved

Why is the argument that 400,000 needed to be in on the conspiracy relevant? That defies common sense that everyone involved with the NASA project would need to know the conspiracy of the supposed moon hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.31.73 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The silly thing is that every single one involved in this one way or another has been counted in this "400,000" propaganda nr - everyone from employee's for japanese microchip makers to dish washers, chefs, caretakers, cleaners, to the astronaut's barbers. So who are these 400,000 ppl? someone better be sure to list them - or its just a bullshit propaganda lie 31.209.16.177 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Clavius.org

Clavius.org appears to be a website focused on debunking the moon landing hoaxes. A large number of proof points come from this single source. The articles documented sometimes are sourced elsewhere or sometimes not sourced at all. I do not think one person registering a domain name and creating a blog is a credible source and should not be used in the wikipedia article. As previously stated I am sure Jay Windley is a great guy and I am also sure his blog should not be one of the main sources we provide in proving NASA really did land on the moon.--216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It could be pointed out that there are no reliable sources for the landings being a hoax, period. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It should also be pointed out that there exist NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONS to prove that the manned moon landings were real, NONE - PERIOD. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you gotten to the 20th century in history class yet? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A good place to start for 31.209.16.177 would be Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - but I guess JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, the Soviet Space Transmissions Corps, Kettering Grammar School, H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates, Pic du Midi Observatory, McDonald Observatory, Lick Observatory, Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Baysinger, Paul Maley, Chabot Observatory, Corralitos Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, Bochum Observatory, and Sven Grahn (to mention a few) are not independent of NASA... never mind the existence of moon rocks, the retro-reflectors placed by the Apollo missions, and images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission (to mention a few other pieces of evidence). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Third-party evidence? what evidence? the only evidence in that article is that its full of LIES and misleading propaganda - protected by wikipedia admins (as usually) and the talk page of that article is also heavily censored. Sven Grahn (among others) used a NASA OBSERVATORY but is still listed as independent (!?) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, zing. I do think it's a fair comment though that we're so heavily reliant on a single source for the debunking, someone who probably has as much of an agenda as the hoax theorists in the first place. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's actually a fair point. I frankly don't see any indication that the Clavius website meets the standards of being a reliable source; it may have to removed altogether (or, at the very least, supplemented with better sources.) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that Clavius AKA Jay Windley's personal blog does not meet the standards of a credible source so we should remove approx 15+ points from this article until they can be re-sourced with credible references 216.58.23.145 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I think that many experts contribute to that site and it is not a blog. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Who are the "experts" the domain name is "Private" ie anonymous and the only email is at a third party web hosting company with no real world contact details. The statements on this website should only be viewed based on the creditability of the Author and as there is no information regarding the author then the information is not credible. This site does not meet the standards for a Wikipedia source. We either need to petition Wikipedia to change the standards or delete the source and provide real sources. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but the IP does have a very good point. Verifiability not truth means we need good reliable references to back things up, and if we can't prove the reliability and accepted standards of this source then we shouldn't be using it. Is it used as sources for other areas that could back it up as being a reliable source? Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Mythbusters used Clavius. If we insist on reliable sources, all of the hoax claims will have to be removed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bubba73: There is a long list of credible and credentialed sources in this wikipedia article who are questioning the moon landing. I believe we need to stick to facts and data and refrain from making statements like "If we insist on reliable sources, all of the hoax claims will have to be removed." or the creditability of the editors will also be in question. At this stage without any support for Clavius.org as a reliable source I believe we have no choice but to remove the references. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As discussed I have submitted an edit request and tried to remain unbiased by providing alternative references where available to support the current article. I believe we can still leave Clavius as an external link as we are not using it as a reference it is there just to provide additional informaiton for readers of the article. This is a lot of small edits. I don't have a wikipedia ID to make this edits but would appreciate if someone could. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning "Bill Kaysing (1922–2005) – was an employee of Rocketdyne [51] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Kaysing" - Wikipedia cannot serve as a reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaysing 2002 reference [8][9][51] are used throughout this article with a link to the wikipedia article. We either need to accept this as a reference and link or change the other references. {{unsigned}216.48.23.145}}

Those are references to Kaysing's book. You want to change the reference to a Wikipedia article. Repeating, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR about not using Wikipedia as a source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read wp:fringe, and pay particular attention to the parity of sources section, especially the second paragraph of that section. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

wp:fringe is for referencing the conspiracy and not the actual facts that prove the conspiracy to be incorrect. If the conspiracy was reversed stating "Man has landed on the moon" then this would be a permitted reference and the facts stating we did not land on the moon would need to be credible reference. I appreciate the spirit of parity of sources and the fact it specifically and conveniently mentions the moon landing hoax but as the most significant event in the history of human evolution it would be disingenuous to dispute a conspiracy using an unreliable source 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

wp:fringe is about more than referencing. But the section on parity of sources addresses the issue:

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed.

So clavius.org, Mythbusters, etc are OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is a CNN and a Gallop poll both show 6% of US citizens (=18 Million + Americans) and a fox presentation stated that 20% of People (= over 1Billion people world wide) believe the moon landing was a hoax. If you are comfortable that we can respond to such a large number of people who believe we never landed on the moon with a TV entertainment show and an anonymous website I am a perfectly fine with this. On the other hand if you seriously want to continue to maintain the position that we actually did walk on moon, I strongly suggest we provide credible resources to support this position. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no issue with the references that we did land on the moon, and those are contained in the correct article on the Moon Landing. This is about references against the specific conspiracy theories against the landing. And to be fair, the article is about the conspiracy theories, not about debunking the theories. As for X million don't believe it happened do remember also that a lot of people in the US believe wrestling is real. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See Moon landing (in particular Moon landing#Manned landings and Moon landing#Manned Moon landings (1969–1972)), Apollo program, and many others for evidence that we landed on the Moon. Clavius addresses the claims of a hoax. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Request on hold for review 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please Remove the following lines using the references associated with Clavius.org

1) This matches with the sunlit part of Armstrong's spacesuit.[49]

2) If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit yields a similar effect to a spotlight.[49]

3) There was a similar hoax article, originally posted as a joke, but which has been quoted as in earnest by Clyde Lewis.[173]

3) The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.[126]

4) He is the main proponent of the 'whistle-blower' accusation, arguing that mistakes in the NASA photos are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by knowingly adding mistakes that they know will be seen.[64]

Please Change the following references

1) Bill Kaysing (1922–2005) – was an employee of Rocketdyne [51] > [8] Kaysing 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Kaysing

2) Furthermore, NASA and others say that these gains by the Soviets are not as impressive as they seem; that a number of these firsts were mere stunts that did not advance the technology greatly, or at all, e.g., the first woman in space).[167] > http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/ISS%20Science%20Blog/posts/post_1371493907761.html

3) Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing.[148][149] > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html

Please remove the following redundant references only and not actual statements. There were multiple references so the additional reference is not required

1) Grumman appears to have destroyed most of their documentation [149]

2) The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage—the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still.[129]

3) Jack D. White (1927–2012) – was an American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos and the Zapruder film related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[86]

216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lunar Legacy

Its being said in the article that Bart Sibrel's claims in the film "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is being debunked by Svectors video series "lunar Legacy" and we can also find these videos as source. Making a claim that someone is being debunked and then just put a nr of videos as a source with no further explanation, isnt good enough.

Lunar Legacy is like clavius, private site/videos all about one mans opinion. Svector is misleading the viewers which Jarrah White's video series proves - a videos series so devastating to the propagandists that they flagged copyright claims to it and had it removed from youtube - when it contained NASA PUBLIC DOMAIN(!). The cited Svector video series contains edited footage, piece by piece, till the point that it fits him. Jarrahs video on the other hand includes non-cut off footage and we will later compare the two videos. Its time to put the truth in the article, and its time to start address many of the false and misleading claims in the article.

Since i have being involded in this for many years i already know whats this is all about but everyone else has the right to demand that the one/ones writing this into the article to come forward and explain exactly WHAT Sibrel said who was debunked, and how was it debunked. Give the timestamps in the videos where Sibrel is debunked by Svector. If not, its time to remove it from the article. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

SO HOW AND WHERE IS SIBREL DEBUNKED BY SVECTOR? (as claimed in the article) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad Astronomy

Like clavius, "Bad Astronomy" - by Phil Plait, is a site often cited in the moon hoax article, and much like clavius this site also contains many errors and misleading propaganda, sometimes even pure LIES! Both sites should be removed from the article 31.209.16.177 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

References. Otherwise it's just your original research. Everything needs to be backed up, we can't remove something because a person claims it's lies and misleading propaganda. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been backed up many times here in the talk section, but every time removed (censored) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We do not censor on Wikipedia. We do however remove posts where editors call other editors names, accuse them of being in cabals or label them as propagandists or liars. If you wish your perspective to be heard then you need to stop talking about other editors and make your points calmly and back them up with reliable references, and I can guarantee you you will be heard. If you call other editors liars or propagandists I can guarantee you you will be blocked. Just like other editors will be warned and blocked if they call you names, call you a liar etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Drop the bullshit since IT IS censored, by the admins... viewing the history proves that very fact! 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Provide evidence. Don't just make claims, that constitutes original research. Please provide diffs of where Admins have censored the page in the history. Wikipedia does not censor, and if there is evidence to the contrary please produce it and it will be looked into. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed out numerous of errors and misleading propaganda in the article (sometimes pure lies) and everytime when i get into specific details it will for sure be censored (been there, seen that) Admins who cannot stick to the truth should never be respected or tolerated. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And not just places where things were removed because of policy violations such as no or poor sourcing, etc. Removing unsourced conspiracy theories is not censorship. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it really worth responding to any editor crying "Lies & Propaganda!", but who will not or can not produce any evidence? I'm afraid all this IP editor has stated so far is some personal opinions and personal original research. Wikipedia is not the place for these, which is why they have been removed. However, if you have any actual facts to suggest the sources used in the article are not reliable then please produce them. Otherwise no-one is likely to pay you any attention.

If you don't understand the problem with personal opinions and personal original research, please click on the links to read more about what they are, and why Wikipedia doesn't contain them. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

CANT YOU READ?! "viewing the history proves that very fact" - thats the proof! have had posts deleted for no reason, thats CENSORSHIP! And should you really talk about "evidence" ?! its pathetic and equal laughable that something that cannot be proved must be protected by the admins (the moon landings) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Provide evidence. Please provide links showing the diffs that demonstrate that censorship is going on. If there is indeed censorship going on, it will be looked into, but I do not believe that is the case. Remember that removal of information for lack of sources, useless sources or the source not saying what the text says is not censorship. Unless you can provide evidence to back up your assertion you do run the risk of being blocked for making attacks against groups of Wikipedia editors. Comment on the content, not the editors. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Stay out from comment on comments meant for others 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Anyone can reply here. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been up before but here it is again, Phil Plait claimed in a radio program with Joe Rogan that ALL shuttle astronauts who has ever gone into space has been through the van allen belts, at 6 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc

If thats not misleading propaganda i dunno what is... his website should be removed as a source 31.209.16.177 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says they haven't all been through the VAB? Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is beyond pathetic! (and what wikipedia has become) PHIL PLAIT is the one making the claim and you asking ME to prove that the shuttle astronauts DIDNT GO THROUGH the van allen belts?! OMG 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and now it's time for you to put up or shut up.--McSly (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor is not here to make a genuine improvement to the encyclopaedia, they have been blocked for gross incivility, personal attacks, lack of good faith and disruptive editing which doesn't help their case. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you im here to make improvements, you on the other hand is here to censoring opinions and facts you dont like and you are blocking users for no reason 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

31.209.16.177, please stop accusing others of censorship. If you want to add something to WP you need to supply a reliable source to support it, otherwise it can be removed. Removal of unsupported claims is not censorship, it is how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As I feared..!!!

Extended rant, not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is now - wait for it - 103.22 KB!!! Whereas the actual/real/true article on the Apollo program is just a mere 79.85 KB. This has to stop because this article is nothing more than a repository for bullshit, BS that has no real merit except for piquing the interest of a vocal minority. There are now hi-def images of the moon showing the moon buggy tracks and even the shadow cast by the flags planted on the surface. Yet this article in many way represents the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia, the concept that something is only "notable" based on footfall (i.e. people making a noise about it) irrespective of whether what is being promulgated is complete bollocks. For instance, a professional astronomical researcher cannot create an article about their peer-reviewed work on the Moon Landings because it would infringe WP:OR, WP:ONESOURCE and WP:SELFPUBLISH, however any retard who has a book published making unverifiable accusations and unsubstantiated claims can be placed here on this shrine to stupidity. Even now this entire talkpage is being taken over by people who are utterly clueless about "real science" but know everything about agendas i.e. the Moon Landings are fake. It is all very ironic because it just proves another point by religion vs science. A believer would say there is a god but a sceptic would demand physical proof. Yet in the moon landings' case there is plenty of physical evidence but sceptics say that is not good enough and instead believe in their "faith"!! Come on this article should be trimmed according to WP:SOAP because it is just a platform for people who don't get out much due to probable character disorders and paranoia. Saying that this article must include all claims is just plain dumb. That is like saying that everyone who wanted to be a major league player but missed the cut should have an article of their own. Everything on this page never happened, it is fantasy. There is far too much independent evidence, sources and material to prove this. Besides...Armstrong did all this in the Cold War, only eight years after the Bay of Pigs. Do you think the Soviets or the Chinese missed the opportunity to score a massive propaganda victory if they did not already have independent telemetry tracking the Apollo mission to the moon and back again (derrrr they had sophisticated tracking for all kinds of missiles)!? Please will someone just stop this nonsense...Wikipedia is supposed to have a policy called WP:DENY that states vandalism should be ignored and no attempts should be made to empower those conducting such acts. Well what about these kind of articles then? This page is an endorsement of bullshit!! Profoundly, ridiculous, unadulterated twaddle which is placed here only by people who believe such rubbish; it a place to peddle their "wares". That does not mean it should be ignored completely, noting that bullshit exists is enlightenment in itself, but to actually engage in the deception is a fallacy. These conspiracists claim they are refuting acknowledged facts but they never actually refute anything. I sincerely want to see this article cut to about 25% of its current size because then it is stating quite clearly showing that the topics covered in this article are exist but they're the fringe delusions of a desperate few. (Thought experiment: would the Wikiepedia project continue to be taken seriously if the article on alchemy (turning lead into gold) was double in size to the article on the Higgs boson? Personally I don't think so.) 216.185.35.134 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your frustration with conspiracists, this is not the page for you to vent on. Especially when you're throwing around comments suggesting people have developmental disorders ("retard," "paranoia," etc.).

More to the point, this article is long because it doesn't really have enough separate issues to spin into their own articles. While the main article on the moon landings is shorter, that's because there's enough other subjects to spin out into sub-articles, deflating the main page while allowing for more total information to be spread over multiple pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, no shock, no horror for the typical Wikipedian response. If you can't delete it, then hide it or, better still, disparage it, oh and throw in a couple of ad hominems to boot. The poster has made the same clear points I did a couple of years ago.

1. the article is just about fringe theory.
2. it is only here because enough people say it should be, notability (Wikipedia consensus: the practice where any two idiots can shout down a genius)
3. unlike, say conspiracies about 9/11, the poster is saying that there are now images showing the marks and the rockets on the lunar surface negating nearly everything this article is claiming. Compare all this nonsense to the conspiracies about Elvis: Did he fake his death? It's a section and three pars, that's all, because he is categorically dead! No needs to list every titbit, myth or theory because it is not true. Meanwhile even though the Apollo missions did happen, vis-a-vis with the Elvis article, this should be the end of the story on conspiracy theories. The article actually notes, quoting the guy from Penn& Teller, who says that considering the thousands of people involved, someone would have blabbed by now if it any of it were true.
4. the poster is also right to question the moral agenda of the interested parties on this page. Only people who care will want to read about shadows, fake lighting and film sets. They and I are talking about empirical data...maybe you're feeling a little bit hurt as you identify with those souls who could be described as someone with "developmental disorders"
5. the issue of this article won't go away simply by burying the topic and calling it a "rant".

In my view this article remains an open affront to all those people who worked on the Apollo missions from the astronauts, the mission controllers, and all the unrecorded back room techies etc. The information in this article is just laughable, the only proviso being it can be here because it has been published. The poster notes this and states that it even trumps a real scientist because of Wikipedia's own rules. Wikipedia editors can't just cherry-pick topics because the same test should be applied to all articles and their purpose of informing. More often than not, other counter articles are deleted in moments because they are classed as fringe cases. So why are lies allowed to remain here? [Sigh] like the voice of reason above has said already, this article should be deleted or heavily redacted but then again I don't need a rant to know that.86.179.86.22 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, much of the material in the article isn't because it's been raised by various conspiracy theorists but because it's been pretty thoroughly debunked by various experts. It something is just spouted by CT's and not covered in good sources, it's not going to show up here. The quality of the debunking also adds to the length of the article. The article has been shorter but over time as various misguided folks say "but what about X", editors find material debunking X and add it to the article.

Yes, to most people the view that the Apollo landings were faked is laughable. I think this article makes that point extremely clearly, using the best reliable sources available for all sides and conclusively shows that this is a junk theory. Many of the CT articles on Wikipedia end up fairly big because of the need to show to the reader how completely debunked they are by experts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. It is a pity that an article like this article is required but that facts are that millions of people actually believe this crazy theory. I think this article makes a reasonably good job of debunking the theory. If the stupidity of the conspiracy theory can be made clearer that would be a good thing, which I would support. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do love how 86 goes on about the "typical Wikipedian" reaction is to "delete it, then hide it or, better still, disparage it" then goes on to state that "this article should be deleted or heavily redacted." Pot, meet kettle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Debunking the Skeptics

This is the funniest article I read on wikipedia! The threat level posed by the skeptics must be really high for this article to read the way it does. By comparison The Flat Earth Society article is downright tame. The numerous talk pages make a good read also. Keep it up and thanks! 67.206.185.219 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oh, I forgot to suggest that the article be renamed to "Debunking_the_Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories". :) 67.206.185.219 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Many "bucking against common thought" pages are written this way. Try reading "Objections to Evolution" - I've said many times on that Talk page that it is written as Objections to the Objections to Evolution. The typical response is "we want to make sure everyone understands this is fringe and no one gets the wrong idea" which is an interesting take on non-NPOV. Not agreeing that there is anything wrong with this page - just saying... Ckruschke (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The most neutral way to describe fringe theories is to indentify that they are fringe theories. This requires explaining why they are not accepted by the mainstream. Not only is this format compliant with NPOV, it is really the only way to write about fringe theories in compliance with that policy. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, I agree with that. If a theory is fringe - say that up front - and strongly (THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT). What I disagree with, and have done vocally on the Objections to Evolution Talk page, is the "Point 1 - why point 1 is stupid. Point 2 - why point 2 is stupid" writing style. Even if something is fringe, it should be honestly related. However, some people have an almost irrational fear that if it isn't said in big, bold letter in every other sentence that the text on the page relates non-scientifically accepted ideas, that some poor dove will stumble on the page and have his world view absolutely rocked. That strawman is not pretty naive and implies that some people think they "know what is best" for all the rest of us... Ckruschke (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wikipedia's concept of "neutral point of view" is not "give equal weight to all opinions" but "give weight in relationship to the coverage in reliable sources". If reliable sources say "this is crap" then we should say "this is crap", not pussy-foot around presenting the crap from a point of view that gives more respect to it than any reliable source does. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm more in the "faithful representation" crowd. I agree that if majority/scholarly opinion says its crap, say it loud and clear in the lede. After that faithfully relate the beliefs of that page. Continually hitting people over the head over and over throughout the article to again and again drive the point home that it's crap may not be a violation of NPOV, but it certainly takes away from the readibility of the article. I think that's all I'm trying to say - it makes the article read like a disjointed pile of mess. Ckruschke (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

This an interesting discussion. How do we deal with fringe views? I think the answer depend to a degree on how likely the fringe view is likely to be misunderstood as a reasonable one by the reader. In the Flat Earth Society article there is no perceived need to continually defend the mainstream view that the Earth is not flat, because the flat earth theory is so patently absurd and accepted by almost no one.

On the other hand, a surprisingly large fraction of people do believe in some kind of moon landing conspiracy, mainly due to scientific ignorance and the mischievousness of the media. I think this is one case where we do need to explain in detail how silly the conspiracy theory really is.

One that really baffles me is the absurd overreaction to the Tau (circle constant) (follow back the redirect) article. Some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed that they have actually deleted the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There has never been an article entitled Tau (circle constant): that has always been a redirect. At first, I assumed that by "deleted the article" you meant that they had blanked the redirect, but then I saw that you were one of the people who did that, so presumably you must mean something else. Was there an article on the same subject under a different title, which has been deleted? If so, can you give its title? And can you give the evidence that it was deleted because "some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed"? Obviously, without knowing what article was involved, I can't tell why it was deleted, but it would seem more likely that someone might think ti should be deleted because it is not notable (in your words, an "insignificant proposal"). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place to discuss this topic, the original AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics). It look like I got the name wrong. There probably should be a central discussion somewhere on how organisations/movements/people who support fringe views are treated in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One problem is deciding which mainstream view to take if there is more than one, but geographically delineated. Most of the world thinks the US gun lobby is a semi-dangerous bunch of nutters, but we can't say that because in the dominant American culture here the view is different. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is no problem. If there is more than one "mainstream view" then we report them all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not when Admins from the gun lobby block me for writing what I wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know about your block, and found it very interesting looking it up. Personally, I don't agree that you should have been blocked. However, I think you are misrepresenting the situation (albeit unintentionally) when you say the block was for "what [you] wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US". You were blocked for saying that you personally considered certain people as "nutters", not for reporting that they are referred to as such in reliable sources. My own view is that blocking you was a misuse of Wikipedia policy, but you certainly were not blocked for reporting that a certain view is one of the various "mainstream" views in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know about this particular case but I think we do need more and clearer policy on how we state the views of people who are not in the majority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a enormous difference between views that aren't in the majority and fringe ideas. A continued belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded would (possibly) be a 'minority viewpoint' that at least has some level of science supporting the claims (although, at this point, even that is arguable). Believing the moon landing was a hoax is, and always have been, a fringe viewpoint completely unconnected or reliant upon facts or evidence. We don't pussyfoot around calling a spade a spade. JoelWhy?(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I described the views of the majority of Australians (definitely verifiable, and it matches most of the world), then when asked if I was one of them, honestly answered Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The FAQ

Who did the nice FAQ on this page? Good job - I wish more people would read it before editing the main article or talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The "high resolution images"

I am going to remove the entry that makes reference to "proof" that NASA landed on the moon, as if anything they prove the opposite. The term "high resolution" is false and I do believe the images speak for themselves, so I am stating that either the images be shown, so that the reader can see for themselves the fallacy of the statement or else remove the sentences. Before to many people start going agro about defending the legitimacy of NASA's claims, keep in mind how you are going to look when there will be no more question whether or not NASA has put anything on the moon.Dirtclustit (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove any sourced text in favor of your own conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not the place on expound on such nuttiness. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

They are high-resolution photographs - higher resolution than you can get from any telescope on Earth or the Hubble telescope. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There are not, and they show nothing but artifact amorphous smudges, and had they thought about it, they would not have added the "tracks" from the rover, as they can be used to scale the dimensions, which anybody not in denial's firm grip can decipher were NOT images taken from a lunar orbiting satellite, and better actual "high resolution" images can be taking from earth orbiting satellites, yet we are supposed to believe these are from a lunar orbit? It is a sad day when a govt. agency which is supposed to be somewhat "scientific" out does the Church in denial of the facts. A sad day indeed, at least the Catholic Church didn't fabricate "evidence" and entangle so many other reputable sources which are now implicated as knowingly publishing "facts" which they know are not true. If you want to keep the images as content, let's add them so that the images can clearly be seen on this entry so that the reader can see for himself and decide which type of "proof" they describe. The greater lengths they go, in a feeble attempt prove their word is truth is marring their reputation, and for what? Ego? Why on earth, why?Dirtclustit (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I'll take over reverting "seven by twenty four" (that's ESL for 24X7)Dirtclustit (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the images, I may be able to let the wording of "you be the judge" slide. I don't mean to discount all of the important work -- hard work -- done by NASA, which by far over shadows getting put betwix a lunar rock and a hard place, but I firmly believe there are fundamental physics laws that can be brought to light, specifically GRAVITY, not being able show the truth because of discrediting the landing claims is a serious setback to breakthrough/revolutionary understanding of physics. I don't care about mistakes of the past98.232.228.200 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither we nor the reader care what you firmly believe. If you have sources that you believe should be reflected in the article, feel free to list them with the proposed edits. Otherwise you are just wasting your time. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you mean unedited images, without being altered to show what is not there? The resolution of the images that would show things like the tracks of the rover at that scale would be show the surrounding landscape in such greater detail and "high resolution" that the images are laughable. I understand that no matter how obvious the "evidence" becomes there will be staunchly adamant individuals that continue to make the same absurd claims. I am speaking of the readers who do not already have their minds made up, who would read because they want to know the facts so that they may discern truth when only fallacy is publicly accepted, for such a reader this entry is incredibly biased, and anything and every reason any person claims otherwise, such as the FAQ entry for this talk page has a problem with either honesty or discerning the difference between "neutral" and "agendaed" and frankly when such a person is an active editor, it is they who waste time. And instead want "sources" that are the equivalent to an authority claiming that the color red is not green, each authoritative source for self-evident truths is each person's self, which is why truth will eventually always overcome not truth, when information and education is available to all people. Encyclopedic writing or discussions of written content where one does not fear honesty and truth in reality is not ever a waste of time. It's the remedy of time being wasted.Dirtclustit (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that the full data from the LRO's high-res camera would be huge at the resolution presented then yes, they are huge. Feel free to browse the raw data yourself here. The rest of your reply reads more like a rant than anything actionable; please review WP:SOAP and WP:VERIFIABILITY. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, how can anybody still think it was a hoax with such evidence? Entries such as this can remain neutral yet still explain -- so that the reader can understand how a conspiracist can still believe it is a hoax despite all of NASA's proof. What is wrong on biased about editing are adding content along the lines of "Here are images provided by NASA which have been found creditable due to the data showing the images were not altered nor edited? well these crazy nutjobs seem to think the image was either a unaltered picture of a mock-up moon or else the innovators of technology have ways to beat the data test. If you were a conspiracist, do these images look fishy to you?" Of course we'd have to remove the "crazy nutjob" wording as that IS BIASED, but without explaining the very topic of this entry, how can it be considered neutral? The article doesn't need fail in explaining the very topic it was written of. The facts can reported neutrally, yet the reader can still come to an understanding of why this entry would even be written. I am aware it will be fought the entire way, but sometimes I can get into character and believe I am a trial lawyer and perhaps it will be make such disputed topics easier for Wikipedia to deal with, because this is not yet a perfect world where honesty is easily distinguished from dishonesty. "Apology in advance, to NASA, I wish it didn't have to be this way, but trust me, this is going to hurt me more than it does you" did you see what I did there? that is a perfect example of a dishonest statement.Dirtclustit (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right VQuakr, it was a rant, I will sit and think for a couple of days, there is already to much work for refereeing people that jump the gun, like me. I will try to not be problematicDirtclustit (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Please consider focusing your posts more, with a terser style and more clearly communicating what specifically you think should be changed about the article. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How does the resolution of this LRO image of Surveyor 1 compare to that of the images of Apollo landing sites? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

MythBusters

Section 5.11, “MythBusters special”, needs citations; it currently has none.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

All the necessary citations are at the Main article: Mythbusters "NASA Moon Landing" episode. It isn't a BLP issue needing citations at the point of controversy. But if you feel it needs citations pick what you want cited from there and replicate here.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why has NASA never returned to the Moon?

Those who believe the landings were faked sometimes ask this question, implying that if the landings were true then surely we would have had more missions to the Moon in the decades after the Apollo program (last moonwalk was with Apollo 17 in 1972).

I think this question should be addressed in the article. Apart from obvious reasons as are lack of money and political support, it would be interesting to draw an analogy to South Pole exploration.

The first expedition to reach South Pole was led by Roald Amundsen in 1911. Robert Scott reached it soon after, in January 1912. After Scott's retreat from the pole in 1912, the location remained unvisited for nearly 18 years. In 1929 there was the first aircraft flight over the South Pole. Twenty-seven years after that, Rear-Admiral George J. Dufek became the first person to set foot on the pole since Scott, when on 31 October 1956 he and his crew landed at the pole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyaWgnignahCehT (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. There is, as always, a degree of annoyance in having to defend the obvious against another crazy argument but, as you say, it is a well known conspiracist argument so we should mention it here. Why not add something yourself? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I think bringing it up in the article is an absolutely lousy idea. Doing so opens a whole can of WP:OR worms. First off, are there reliable sources saying this is a "well-known conspiracist argument"? Same for rebuttals. And drawing the comparison to the South Pole is also OR, and doesn't really have anything to do with hoax conspiracy.

I think the question is typical of the "logic" of the conspiracists. NASA's subsequent manned space activities don't logically have anything at all to do with whether the Moon landing was possible or a hoax. It is based on a naive ignorance of historical and political realities. The short answer to the question is: NASA doesn't have the luxury of doing whatever it wants to do; regardless of technical capability, it takes money (25 billion 1970s dollars; maybe close to $200 billion today.) NASA is an agency of the federal government, and is dependent on the US Congress for funding. It was done in the 1960s because of the context of the Cold War, and the fact that the Soviet Union was kicking our butts in the Space Race, which made it an issue of national security in the minds of the US public. By the time the first landing was done, by definition we were no longer losing the race, and the political realities were changing (detente), so the will to spend this much money disappeared, never to return. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Justin. Mentioning it here would just feed the naysayers faulty logic (IMO) that "just because" we stopped at Apollo 17, this somehow implies that ALL the moon trips were hoaxes. This argument MAY have relevance if we stopped when Neil and Buzz left, but of course there were six more moon missions with 10 more men walking on the moon. Although it is true that its brought up from time to time by the fringe nuts, its a pretty minor one and I wonder whether it will amount to simply trivia on this page with respect to the larger issues that are covered. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Like a lot of things on Wikipedia, this comes down to sourcing. We would need a mainstream source that identifies this hoax theory and discusses it in enough detail to provide the source material for the edit to the article. If such a source exists, that is pretty good evidence that some coverage of the subject is due. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

While I have no opinion on whether this comparison between expeditions to the Moon and expeditions to the South Pole of Earth should be included in this article, I would like to thank the user SyaWgnignahCehT for pointing out this fact – it puts those two human endeavours into an interesting context. Tony Mach (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why oh, why oh, why!!!??

You know the Chinese have a saying...only a dog returns to its own vomit. I walk away but something just keeps pulling me back to this train wreck of an article. Even the page's talk page is on a continual loop among those who condemn its tone for being too sceptical i.e. an outright rebuttal of the hoax theories, or those who think it doesn't got far enough i.e. there should be more conspiratorial theories.

But what is never answered is why the article is the way it is? Wikipedia has a very clear rule on something called WP:FRINGE, which [shaking with sheer apoplexy] states "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". Which basically means this article pokes its fingers up to everything NASA stands for with its multi-billion dollar budget. Anything in this article can legitimately dance toe-to-toe with those of highly-qualified scientists and engineers. Hence this article elevates bunkum to the level that can be considered on the same par as the hundreds of thousands of people with PhDs, MSc, MPhils, doctorates who helped work on the world's space programmes!?

Likewise Wikipedia, I recall, also has a policy entitled WP:SOAP, a section that clearly states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Yet this article does exactly that, it promotes ridiculous and unsubstantiated fantasies. It even then justifies/cements their inclusion by taking time to carefully rebut certain key points. Talk about self-promoting material that otherwise should be consigned to a bin.

I can only speak for myself but as someone who has worked in an industry that is commercially connected to space programmes in most Western countries, if this was all one big hoax, a laugh, a fraud, then how on earth could a business model be sustained for more than forty years!!? Hundreds of thousands of people - in various countries - helped build components for the Saturn V rockets just so history could record the names of Armstrong and Aldrin. If it was a hoax, how could they hide it from so many really clever people? I have been privileged to have met numerous "old timers" who were "there"; despite the many, many humorous and poignant anecdotes, not a single one has ever said "you know what it was a hoax".

It is against this background that I find this article to be an affront to common sense on so many levels. Firstly to say the moon missions were hoaxes (with all the available telemetry, data and third-party sources) is about as rational as saying iron bars can float on liquid water. Secondly as every hoax claim is patently a fantasy or a fabrication (downright lie) there is no need to listen to them - they should be given the same respect as the rantings of a mad person. Thirdly rebutting things that have no validity is fallacious because it only reinforces the notion that the falsehood might have a ring of truth to them (no smoke without fire).

In conclusion this article needs to be trimmed down to the roots. All the theories and the related information on shadows, lighting, movie studios etc should be deleted and replaced with external links. Let the reader find out more if they wish to do so. This article's main topic should just be concerned with acknowledging that a belief in hoaxes exists despite all the rational evidence to the contrary. It should not be promoting bull crap under the guise of serious discussion or respectability.

By not heeding these words will only see the archives of this talk page grow and grow, just like they have now, it will never never end. Never! Is that what Wikipedia is about, a series of round-and-round articles. I hope not. Start with this article and remove all the rubbish. 81.129.204.231 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

231, I think everyone here agrees with you that the conspiracy theories are complete nonsense, pseudoscience, a fraud. I think everyone here also agrees that we should not be promoting this idiocy. Where we seen to disagree is on whether this article does promote the conspiracies. Can you give an example of where you think the article promotes the conspiracists crazy theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, you make some good points, and I agree that in an article such as this one will always have an overhead of dealing with "true believers." However, I also notice that you cite WP:FRINGE in your justification that the current format is problematic. Did you happen to notice that this article is cited as a specific example of a notable fringe theory at that same policy? I would also like to echo Martin Hogbin's request for examples of where we promote these theories. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Moon Rover

The closest Apollo site to the Chang'e-3 landing is approximately 650 miles to Apollo 15. Unfortunately, the Chinese rover does not move that fast and it would take quite some time before reaching 15. Nonetheless, I believe it would be very interesting for the rover to travel to the site. Has the Chinese indicated their desire to inspect the Apollo landings? Docob5 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorists would simply believe that the rover has just moved from one earth based fake landing studio to another. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Baiting and Switching

Completely deceptive title. This is not an article that faithfully represents the viewpoint of the conspiracy theorists, but is rather an attempted point-by-point rebuttal of their claims and the title should be changed to reflect that e.g. "Rebuttals to common claims of moon landing conspiracy theorists". "Baiting" with a title that seems to faithfully reproduce the claims of those who doubt the moon landing, and then "switching" by presenting those claims and then attempting to rebut them one by one is clearly unethical and unprofessional. It would have been much more ethical to faithfully present the claims of the conspiracy theorists and then link to a separate page that attempts to refute their claims. The conspiracy views may not be dominant, but they are not trivial either. In 2002, NASA almost published a book debunking the arguments of the hoax believers. This would suggest that their arguments are at least cogent (not necessarily valid) enough to warrant a faithful and dispassionate presentation without any editorial paternalism. Presenting the supposed arguments of the hoax believers and then providing "parental guidance" in the form of supposed rebuttals is, in truth, quite insulting to readers. In any case, so what if people don't believe man landed on the moon? Why should such a belief be so dangerous that claims supporting it must necessarily be accompanied by such "parental guidance"? --Campingtrip (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A few sentences from Wikipedia:Fringe theories are useful here:

• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.
• Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.
• Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Campingtrip, if only there were a cogent conspiracy theory then it would be much easier to give a faithful and dispassionate presentation of the errors in the theory but the fact is that there is no complete theory saying exactly what is claimed to have really happened during the Apollo missions (If you know of a source which gives a complete description of what is alleged to have happened please let us know). All we have is a series of ridiculous swipes at various pieces of evidence of the missions.

I do agree that we must take great care here not to overstate the facts and thus give the impression of a religious belief rather than a scientific rebuttal but it is hard to deal with an incomplete hotchpotch of patently absurd claims without being a little patronising. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, Thanks for linking me to those Wikipedia guidelines. However, after carefully reading the "public opinion" section of this article can one really suggest that hoax believers constitute a fringe? It would be difficult to do so especially when surveys outside the U.S., and those relating to younger age demographics are considered. Of course there will always be disputes about figures and percentages but let's assume, for purposes of argument, that hoax believers still constitute a fringe. This still does not detract from the essence of my argument about baiting and switching. The title does not reflect the contents of the article and I still stand by this. The title suggests that the arguments of hoax believers are being dispassionately presented whereas the contents reflect a detailed point-by-point rebuttal to those claims. If the presentation of a "fringe theory", from only that theory's perspective is not allowed, this does not imply that titling must be deceptive or vague. That is why I suggested a title change to something like "Rebuttals to common claims of moon landing conspiracy theorists" to actually reflect the contents of the article.--Campingtrip (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes theories about the moon landings being hoaxes are excellent examples of fringe theories. The only way to neutrally write an article about notable fringe theories is to identify why they are fringe. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the moon landing was faked. To prove it would require puncturing holes in the evidence that claims that it actually happened. This would not necessarily require a "complete theory" stating what may have actually happened. Proving that something did NOT happen, does not require proving what else actually happened. If whether Frankie went to Hollywood is the crucial issue, and someone proves that Frankie did not go to Hollywood, it would matter very little where Frankie may have actually gone.

The hoax claims are rather like the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly but much more extreme in that they have not originated from respectable sources. When a claim is made that appears to contradict a widely held and generally accepted theory, the most likely explanation is a mistake in the claim or that the claimant has not fully understood the subject. Only when the claim itself has been full verified can it be considered as evidence for something exceptional. Part of that verification must consist of the background to the claim.

For example, to have any credibility at all, the claim that Armstrong's words were not transmitted from the moon would have to address the questions of where they were transmitted from, who spoke them and when, who knew about the deception, and why no one noticed, otherwise it would be like me claiming to have transmitted a signal faster than light; without some convincing background to my claim it would be simply laughed at. The problem with the moon landing conspiracy claims is that they have been given false credibility by mischievous media. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Proving a negative is not the same as proving a positive. If a negative is proved, it still leaves open the possibility of other positives. Proving a negative does not necessarily require that a precise positive be established.

I appreciate your argument but I also think you are not distinguishing between the specific questions that contribute to establishing a proof, and the further questions raised by establishing said proof. Such further questions or issues need not have any bearing, whatsoever, on the established proof. You gave a good example about Armstrong's moon transmission and I'll also use it to illustrate further. If, for example, Armstrong's transmissions did not come from moon, then proving it would, of course, require that a specific question or questions be answered, most probably, where such transmissions came from. You're spot on here and I agree with you. However, issues relating to those who would have orchestrated such grand deception, how such deception was successfully kept under wraps etc are further issues (those you appear to refer to as "convincing background") that would arise after a specific issue (transmission location) would have been used to 'prove' that Armstrong's signals did not come from the moon. If it were possible to scientifically or mathematically prove that Armstrong's transmission did NOT come from the moon, such proof would not require further validation from establishing who organized such deception, or why such deception was not uncovered.

On the issue of hoax believers and their claims I think you appear to be agreeing, albeit indirectly, with my earlier point. Their claims may be mistaken not out of deliberate mischief, but out of a genuine misunderstanding of science, or because NASA previously was not being forthcoming with pertinent information. It is therefore wrong to dismiss these claims as absurd just because the individuals or groups making them are not convinced by common rebuttals made to those claims. Cogent (not necessarily valid) arguments don't become less cogent just because those making them are either not convinced or 'refuse' to be convinced by rebuttals. --Campingtrip (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You have variously described the conspiracy views 'ridiculous swipes' or 'patently absurd'. I would quickly characterise claims that Barack Obama is an alien or that Elvis is currently on Mars with such terms. However, I don't think the arguments of hoax believers can be described as such. This is not to imply that they are necessarily valid. However, they are cogent enough to have stung NASA to commission James Oberg, an accomplished journalist and space expert, to write a book rebutting the arguments of the hoax believers. The commission was withdrawn after careful consideration but Oberg still intends to pursue the book according to Oberg's Wikipedia entry. In addition, the painstaking, point-by-point attempts to rebut the conspiracy claims in this article suggests that such claims are anything but "patently absurd". Those arguments are cogent but not necessarily scientifically valid as I stated in my earlier post. NASA, James Oberg, and Wikipedia wouldn't waste their time responding to ridiculous, Elvis-spotted-on-Mars type of claims would they? --Campingtrip (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia would if enough serious, reliable sources covered a Elvis-spotted-on-Mars phenomenon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. An article in Wikipedia is not any indication of truth/approval/seriousness/"non-absurdness" of the subject. It is merely an indication that it is a subject discussed by enough reliable sources (which in this case overwhelmingly reach the same conclusion). And NASA has a public-education responsibility, so if enough people need educated... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All responses thus far have not dealt with the core issue I'm raising: the article is a painstaking, point-by-point attempted rebuttal of the common arguments raised by moon hoax believers. The title deceptively suggests that it is about moon landing conspiracy theories whereas it is actually more of a rebuttal to such theories. I understand Wikipedia's policy of not giving undue weight to presumed fringe theories; I am NOT insisting that the article be edited to give prominence to such theories or arguments. The contents can remain just the way they are. However, the title, in relation to the contents of the article, is deceptive, and I still stand by that unless someone can offer me a good explanation. Title MUST reflect content and that is the whole point of my argument. --Campingtrip (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the name of the article is particularly important. It could be argued that we should have two articles, say ' Moon landing conspiracy theories', which merely describes the theories and 'Errors in moon landing conspiracy theories' which points out the errors. This would give us the problem that the ' Moon landing conspiracy theories' article would still need to make clear that these theories were regarded a fringe and stating that fact, without evidence on that page, would also attract criticism. Overall I do not see any real problem in combining these two conceptually different articles into one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been hashed and rehashed many times. Read through the archives, the current title is the best we've been able to reach consensus on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I've responded to your earlier response on hoax claims so you may want to check it out. On this particular issue, you've raised a point about two separate articles which, in essence, is exactly the point I was making in earlier posts. An article presenting the conspiracy viewpoints can be preceded with a link to an article debunking them and this would not pose a problem. However, since the allegation that the moon landing was a hoax is considered 'fringe', the arguments of hoax believers, to the best of my understanding, cannot be faithfully presented (in Wikipedia) without detailed rebuttals from mainstream viewpoints. If the contents cannot be changed to reflect the title, then the title should change to reflect the contents and this is my suggestion. If it has been discussed several times previously, it does not imply that it cannot be revisited. Such a deceptive title is unbecoming of Wikipedia.--Campingtrip (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, an issue can be revisited. But, your argument falls flat. This is an article that discusses a fringe topic. "moon landing conspiracy theories" is the natural choice for this article as it is what people generally refer to when discussing this topic. We're not going to title the article "Explaining why moon landing conspiracy theories are silly." The title isn't misleading -- it's discussing the conspiracy theory and why it's wrong. There's no room for a counterpoint on why it may be true because this is an encyclopedia that deals with facts. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Moon landing conspiracy theories". It is not "Moon landing conspiracy theories presented from the point of view of those who believe them". When writing an article about moon landing conspiracy theories, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one presents both sides of the argument, not just the pro- side, while relegating the anti- side to some other article, with a title such as "Rebuttals of moon landing conspiracy theories". What is more, one does not present the two sides equally; one presents them in relation to the amount of support that they get in reliable scientific sources. This means that the article gives predominant coverage to the predominant view in reliable scientific sources. To suggest that the article should "faithfully represent the viewpoint of the conspiracy theorists" is both completely contrary to Wikipedia's standards, and also contrary to any reasonable standard of objective reporting. The article Adolf Hitler does not "faithfully represent" the viewpoint of Adolf Hitler, and nor should it; no more should the article Moon landing conspiracy theories "faithfully represent" the viewpoint of the conspiracy theorists: if it did so then it would be an appallingly biased treatment, and a failure to follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it pays to carefully read posts before replying to them, even if one does not agree with them. Joelwhy says "...your argument falls flat" but then goes on to say "The title isn't misleading -- it's discussing the conspiracy theory and why it's wrong" (emphasis mine). First of all, titles are not supposed to discuss; they are supposed to reflect content as accurately as possible. So by "it's discussing...", I assume JoelWhy is referring to the article itself and if my assumption is right then JoelWhy is essentially agreeing with my argument despite claiming that it 'falls flat'. The article is a mainstream rebuttal to claims made by conspiracy theorists and an objective reading of the title, as it currently stands, fails to adequately convey this. JoelWhy also writes "There's no room for a counterpoint on why it may be true..." Well, I've stated earlier that the contents of the article are not what bother me. Having said this, whatever the contents are, the title should reflect those contents and I don't think this would violate Wikipedia policy. I am not absolutely insisting that this be done. If the consensus is that the title is okay as it stands, then so be it, I can live with that. But I'm still entitled to my say that it is a deceptive title in relation to the contents of the article.--Campingtrip (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I read your post and I stand by what I said. The title stays because it accurately reflects the subject matter. End of story. JoelWhy?(talk) 11:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

JoelWhy. ""End of story"". I think you could have simply made your point without conveying an unnecessary authoritative tone. So this issue must not be revisited just because you say so?? --Campingtrip (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let My word be Law...seriously, as I pointed out previously, yes, a previously-discussed issue can be brought up again. But, as with the previous discussions, the arguments for a name change are unpersuasive. There is no way to objectively discuss this theory without explaining why they are wrong. You can't write an article about the theory of gravity without explaining the evidence and tests supporting it. You can't write an article about perpetual motion without explaining why it's impossible. And you can't write an article about a fringe theory related to a global conspiracy to fake a historical event without explaining why it's utter rubbish. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, That was a good and informative response. I understand Wikipedia's policy on supposed controversial and 'fringe' topics. If there is a preponderance of views in favor of one side of an issue then, by all means, an encyclopedic entry should reflect this and avoid engaging in acts of deceptive balancing. I fully agree with this. However, if the weight of mainstream opinion is so overwhelming so as to render an alternative a mere 'fringe', then an article that attempts to faithfully reflect this balance inevitably assumes the character of a forceful and coherent rebuttal to the 'fringe' or 'minority' perspective. If this happens, as is the case with this article, then the title should change accordingly to reflect the fact that it is effectively a rebuttal to a supposed 'fringe' theory or viewpoint. Anyway, that's just my view and I don't expect everyone to see things my way. If the consensus here is that the title remains as it is, then the majority can have their way and I honestly accept and respect that. However, I still maintain that the title as it currently stands is deceptive.--Campingtrip (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a total loss to understand why anyone should regard it as deceptive. Your arguments seemed to be premised on the assumption that anyone seeing the title "Moon landing conspiracy theories" would naturally take it as meaning "Moon landing conspiracy theories presented from the point of view of those who believe those theories", but you have given no reason whatsoever why anyone would think it meant that. Evidently for some reason or other you think it should mean that, but that is not a reason to suppose that it is likely to be a common misinterpretation. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is essentially that Wikipedia attempts to present a subject in a neutral, logical, sensible and consistent manner. Unfortunately the moon landing conspiracy theories are none of these things. It is impossible to present the article from the POV of someone who believes them, (even if that was Wikipedia's aim), because there is no one POV to base it on and the theories themselves are totally inconsistent and shifting. So all the article has is the consistency and logic of the mainstream position; that these theories are all flawed and all wrong. We could provide balance by offering theorists' responses to the rebuffs of the theories, but there are none except those who deny the conspiracy are part of the conspiracy. So heading in that direction is a pointless exercise in circular reasoning. Such is the world of conspiracy theorists. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you as well. The idea that the title of the article should change because the mainstream view is so strong seems wrong to me. The title is fitting, like, say, for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories, two other conspiracy theories also interesting to a lot of people for various reasons. One could possibly spin of, for example, section "Conspiracists and their main proposals" into a separate subarticle (if there´s WP:RS material). But that article would also have to clearly reflect mainstream opinion, like Objections to evolution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to continue flogging a dead horse, but I'd just like to say for everyone's benefit that I find Campingtrip's lack of understanding of logic terminology disturbing: "their arguments are at least cogent (not necessarily valid) enough to warrant a faithful and dispassionate presentation". He apparently believes cogent means "worthy of consideration" and valid means "logically successful." This is not how logicians use these terms; quite the opposite.

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be considered false. But if the premise(s) are false, this is worthless.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true; thus, voila--true conclusion!

But... what if the conclusion is one of the premises (or necessary to accept them)? This is called begging the question; obviously valid (and if the conclusion happens to be true, sound), but nonetheless a fallacious argument. But if an argument is valid and sound and does not beg the question, then it is cogent. Now this is a logically successful argument (proves its conclusion to a rational person who didn't previously believe it.)

Thus, the phrase "cogent but not necessarily valid argument" is nonsense. All arguments deserve the right to be heard (we call that civility), but that has nothing at all to do with logic. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

JustinTime55, "...I find Campingtrip's lack of understanding of logic terminology disturbing" I was not discussing logic. I was simply stating my opinion on a Wikipedia article. How many editors or contributors to talk pages understand technical "logic terminology"? What LOGIC leads you to believe that words used in contexts unrelated to logic, must necessarily retain their meanings as they strictly relate to that discipline? On my use of the words "cogent" and "valid" you say "This is not how logicians use these terms..." Well, I have never ever claimed to be a logician!! Is there a Wikipedia policy that obliges contributors to use terms "the way logicians use them"? Even then, I'm at a complete loss as to why you would fail to distinguish between the ordinary, everyday usage of a word, and its specialized usage! C'est incroyable!! The online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives one definition of "cogent" as "appealing forcibly to the mind or reason"; synonyms provided include "convincing" and "compelling". This was the sense in which I was using the word and in this ordinary usage sense, cogency does NOT imply truth. The same dictionary provides a definition of "valid" as "well-grounded or justifiable" and this is the sense in which I used the word, and not the "logically successful" you try ramming down my throat. The dictionary also gives one definition of "argument" as simply "a statement for or against something" and this usage is common in everyday language; this is in contrast to its strict definition in logic as "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion". In your conclusion you claim that "the phrase "cogent but not necessarily valid argument" is nonsense." This may well be true, based on a puritanical and fanatic obsession with word usage as it relates to a certain specialized context (logic). However, in ordinary everyday usage, a "cogent but not necessarily valid argument" can also be taken to mean a "compelling but not necessarily true argument". It may not sound right to a pedantic logician but I am only concerned with communicating my viewpoint to the "regular" reader. Of course, every argument or analysis must have a logical flow but attaining such logical consistency does not require that one uses, by all means, words with meanings as they are strictly understood in logic. These words are, first and foremost, words of the English Language. English may not be my native language, but it certainly is not my fault if you failed to discern the specific nuances of my word usage. --Campingtrip (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Campingtrip, I totally agree with you. Anyone who thinks that this is not a clear example of the bait and switch has an agenda. This article needs a neutrality warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Campingtrip - this is how all Wiki pages discussing fringe theories are presented (see Objections to evolution for an even more overtly negative treatment of a subject). Feel free to spit into the wind, but this is how similar topics are treated on Wiki. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Opinions from experts

This article is slightly biased, because it often list non-experts to represent the conspiracist camp.

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.26.202 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We actually do reference the aulis website in the article. However, the web page you linked is written by a non-expert. Generally speaking, very few individuals that are experts in relevant fields have expressed doubts as to the veracity of the moon landings, which is why, as you say, non-experts to represent the conspiracist camp. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists

"Conspiracists" is not an accepted word of the English language. For example if a native speaker of the English language heard this word it would not be clear if the word indicated someone who perpetrated conspiracies or was someone who theorized about them. The entire article loses credibility and it reflects poorly on everyone who edits (and views) Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.2.246 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"One holding a conspiracy theory." "one who believes or promotes a conspiracy theory". Seems accepted to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm "a native speaker of the English language". I have no problem with the word. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto - and I'm an engineer who supposedly has no grasp on either writing or speaking the english language - not sure what the issue is... Ckruschke (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's a common enough English word. Don't see the issue. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While it's obviously established that the word is real, I appreciate your point about credibility and authority if we cite the Wiktionary, (which I will never regard as authoritative.) I've replaced the wikilink with a citation to Merriam-Webster, which is how we should handle word citations (using whatever real-world dictionary you prefer). Wikipedia isn't allowed to cite itself; the same thing applies to the Wiktionary, which, like us, has no editorial oversight in the real-world sense (think of Lou Grant staring over your shoulder.) "A dictionary that anyone can edit" cannot be used for that for which we use dictionaries. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A dictionary definition of an English language word is different than a citation. We use soft redirects to Wiktionary all over the place; if you want to change that practice please start a discussion at a central location such as WP:VP/P, not an individual article. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hindu mythology

The article says that according to Hindu mythology, the moon is further away than the sun. That is not correct. Any non-Hare Krishna translation of the text in the Bhagavata Purana would say that the moon is above the rays of the sun, which does not necessarily mean "further away". I suggest that the text in the article should be edited to "...according to Hare Krishna interpretation of Hindu mythology..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.122.33 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly sympathize with your concern over misinterpretation of scripture. However, lacking expertise in Hinduism and Hare Krishna, and WP:reliable sources, our options are limited. I've attempted to modify the section to try to make it clear that the claim of "Hindu mythology" is strictly as that made by the Hare Krishna magazine article's writer. Hope that helps. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Section ordering

I would like to reorder the main sections of the article a bit:

1. Origins
2. Conspiracists and their main proposals
3. Claimed motives of the United States and NASA
4. The hoax claims
5. Third-party evidence of Moon landings
6. Public opinion

My reasoning is, I think public opinion is largely independent of the claims (who can prove how widely read the individual claims are?) and their debunking, and this would be more like the WP standard for other articles. Also, I think the conspiracists should be introduced before the claims, but I feel less strongly about this than public opinion. Would anyone have heartburn with this? Is there a reason for placing it so high?

Also, I would like to make a minor content move: since Bill Kaysing started this all, I think he should be "honored" :-) by moving his entry from the list of conspiracists to Origins. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

JustinTime55 - agree with your proposal. I think the sections were ordered this way original because that's how the content evolved and not any reason. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I also agree, seems like a good idea. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me also. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hari krishna

"There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. By 1977 the Hare Krishna magazine Back to Godhead called the landings a hoax, claiming that, since the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away, and "according to Hindu mythology the Moon is 800,000 miles farther away than that", the Moon would be nearly 94,000,000 miles away; to travel that span in 91 hours would require a speed of more than a million miles per hour, "a patently impossible feat even by the scientists' calculations."[204] [205]"

People who doubt the credibility of the Apollo moon walks base their assertions on real science. They are well aware that the moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. To conflate these well meaning and honest objective inquiries with Hari Krishna fantasies is an example of an effort by NASA to cover up the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement in the article is in the "public opinion" section; it makes clear, with references, who has this specific belief. The article does not state that all believers in a moon landing conspiracy theory believe that the moon is many millions of miles away. In short, the information is not "conflated". VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How can pictures of Earth taken from the Astronauts be verified?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did technology exist in 1969 for pictures of Earth to be transmitted back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6E47:99D0:B47D:9ED1:4B71:A32B (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Why do you ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) Are you referring to the still photos? Those were not transmitted at all. They were shot on film, which was brought back and developed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC) The technology to transmit images electronically did indeed exist in 1969, though compared to today's technology it was rather crude. An example would be video of earth's surface transmitted live via television feed. Some satellites also transmitted images electronically, though the quality was lower than what could be accomplished with film (so high-resolution images such as those from spy satellites were still sent to the ground in canisters). Do you have any comments pertaining to improvements to the article along this line of thought? VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Environment - #5 Flag Moving edits

The final edit I made was not original research. Saying "The argument...has not been addressed by Myth Buster" is original research is just like saying "Myth busters fully debunked the argument" is original research, neither of which is true. The original author posted the MYTH BUSTER EPISODE as a reference. The REFERENCE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT STATED. It is therefore VIOLATING the Verifiability policy as the statement that many of you have reverted to is FALSE. Outcomer (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's simplify the problem: Mythbusters addressed this idea on their show. Your claim is that they didn't address it adequately, and there's a nuance that wasn't considered. Understood. So we'd need a source discussing that nuance, and how mythbusters didn't address it. Without a source like that, inserting commentary about the nuance is OR, because it is unsourced analysis by an editor.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely true jess, Mythbusters addressed part of the idea on their show. #5 actually refers to multiple problems with the flag. 1. The flag waved when the astronauts twisted the pole into the ground. 2. The flag waved when astronauts moved past it as if the wind blew the flag. This is actually mentioned in the wikipedia section Environment #5, just prior to the mythbusters mention. The episode therefore does not bust the entire myth, nor does the episode ever state that fact.

The fact remains that by making the statement "This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode 'NASA Moon Landing.'" the author is violating the verifiability policy, as neither the episode nor the description of the episode mention that it BUSTS the entire myth, but only the myth regarding the astronauts twisting the flag into the ground. This statement ALSO violates the OR policy since it does not discuss the source by which it lays that claim, but instead makes a false claim period. This statement does not belong in the article as it is KNOWINGLY LYING TO INDIVIDUALS READING THE ARTICLE, which violates the verifiability policy. Do you not agree that a KNOWINGLY FALSIFIED statement should be removed due to the verifiability policy?

What likely needs to be done is this - perhaps #5 should be split into two separate sections, one mentioning the twisting of the flag and the movement generated by that, as well as the flag waving on its own without prior initiation by human hands?

And just to make things more clear, here are a few YouTube videos showing the other issue described in the Environment #5 text. The first is just the quick shot of the flag moving due to air movement, which in the Environment #5 text an argument is made that a cooling fan may have blown it, which is impossible in a vacuum and hence why it is debated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDRBCYp5-0

The second is the same video but much longer, which is what Joe Rogan has discussed many times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

These videos are examples of the issue not mentioned by MythBusters in the "debunk" episode, which is clearly not mentioned in the Wikipedia article that explains what happens in that episode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22 YET this issue is mention in the Environment #5 text.

The debunked statement should only go with the section that ends up being dedicated to the twisting of the flag pole issue. Outcomer (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but I'm not able to find any mention in the article of the flag moving because an astronaut ran past it. Woodroar (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Woodroar. The #5 starts off mentioning a different issue which is the movement of the flag due to wind. Not due to twisting of the pole. The argument that was on the mythbusters was that twisting a pole would not cause a flag to wave in a vacuum. The wind may have been generated by fans (which still does not make sense in a vacuum) which is described per the article: "The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon. This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused the flag to flutter. Sibrel said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts, since their spacesuit cooling systems would have been too heavy on Earth." The flutters they are describing are the ones where the astronauts are not touching the flag pole. Mythbusters only addressed the flag pole when being manipulated. Do you now see the discrepancy? Outcomer (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you meant by that Woodroar. The article did not specifically state that the astronauts were moving past it. However the text is mentioning that issue without stating as such (i.e. it left that part out and just said a "breeze"). See the videos in question that I posted above. They show the issue being described in the article very clearly. Now with that further clarification, do you see the discrepancy I have pointed out? Outcomer (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anything you wrote addressed what I said. Your claim is that mythbusters didn't address the conspiracy theory adequately. We need a source to discuss that. Please keep your responses considerably shorter. One or two sentences should be fine: what's the source that discusses this mythbusters omission you want to include?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. MythBusters established that manipulating the flagpole is sufficient to move the flag, which eliminates the need for all other supposed reasons, whether that's cooling systems or wake turbulence or space eagles. If we're going to include mention of wake turbulence, then we'll need reliable sources stating that it is, indeed, a notable conspiracy theory. Woodroar (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And I think it's fair to say that a YouTube video would not be accepted as evidence that the flag did move. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The first part of Mythbusters' mission is to determine exactly what the myth is. The second part is to see if they can disprove the myth as they have determined it. The program marked the flag myth as 'busted'. That means the the myth, as they determined it to be, was disproved. If an editor wants to claim that Mythbusters misunderstood the myth in some way they need to provide a source for this. I agree that a YouTube video is not acceptable for this purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me most of you (Woodroar a noteable exception) are missing an important point here: the article as written, says nothing at all about any theorist's claim that the flag moved as the astronauts walked past. If we don't have that first, (with source verification), then talk about that not being debunked is moot, and therefore totally inappropriate ("OR") to include. Also, as currently written, it doesn't make it too clear exactly how Mythbusters defined the myth. The bottom line, I think, is that more work is needed, with reliable sources. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's precisely what we're all saying.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We can say that Mythbusters report the myth as 'busted' because they did. If there are conspiracists who claim that the flag moving as the astronauts walked past proves that the landings were faked then we need to find a source for that claim, otherwise there is nothing that needs to be disproved. The fact that a user makes that claim here, based on a YouTube video, is not evidence of a significant conspiracy theory and it is certainly not our job to make one up. Obviously this page cannot attempt to disprove every crazy theory that anyone in the world has ever had about the moon landings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on your side; of course we don't have to disprove every crazy theory, but I don't think it's clear on the page exactly what Mythbusters understood the myth to be. All the article says now is "The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon." And the way it's written now with two separate bullets, there is no explicit declaration of exactly what myth they busted; are we to infer that it's "The flag only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position." There's nothing that links that to Mythbusters; if that was the intent, the bullet list markings should not have been used.

I didn't want to complicate this, but I guess I have to: It's not stated at all (clearly or otherwise) exactly when, which conspiracists think the flag is supposed to have moved, and on what "evidence". It's impossible to infer fluttering from static photographs; and the only other motion footage is from the TV transmission, and the stop-motion film taken from an automated camera inside the LM. As I remember seeing the TV as it happened, the flag just flapped around a bit while they were arranging it on the pole, and then it stopped. (I, for one, would really be curious to hear exactly when these moonbats think they saw it move from Armstrong and Aldrin walking by. I guess people see what they want to see?) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But this article is called, 'Moon landing conspiracy theories', not 'Evidence for and against the moon landings'. If it is not clear what the conspiracy theory is, it should not be in the article at all. Like most of their crazy claims, the flag fluttering conspiracy is not very well defined by the conspiracists and it is certainly not our job to try to fix that for them. Neither is it our job to ask what the explanation is for the flag fluttering as an astronaut walks by (I can think of a couple) If there is any conspiracy it should be over why the wind just happened to blow as an astronaut walks by the flag. Mythbusters say that they busted the flag myth, whatever that ill-defined claim may be. That is all we need say.

If there is a reliable source which clearly shows that there is a notable conspiracy theory concerning the flag fluttering as the astronaut walks by then we should mention it in the article, otherwise not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Martin. There have been things written about this and I will attempt to find the source. The argument that I have read among many Moon Landing conspiracy theorists is that Myth Busters likely avoided debunking the video I posted above due to their inability to do so and their likely bias towards the landing being true. That video is a genuine moon landing video which is one of the original videos brought up by conspiracy theorists which argued this point: If the moons surface is an absolute vacuum, how could movement of an astronaut or a fan on the astronauts suit move the flag. This would imply that they are not in an absolute vacuum. If I recall things correctly, this point was the major point about the flag conspiracy theory. Simple physics would easily explain the flag movement due to rotational forces put in place by the astronauts manipulating the flag pole, hence by choosing this as "the myth of the flag movement" Mythbusters attempted to BUST the myth for the majority of people who already scoffed at the theory in the first place.Outcomer (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcomer, you would need to produce a reliable source to show that there is a notable, that is to say published and widely believed, conspiracy theory that is not already covered here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcomer, maybe you are misunderstanding the purpose of this article. It is not to debate whether the moon landings really happened; they did, and and it not to present arguments for and against that fact. Neither is it to discuss or explain every observation regarding the moon landings that does not have an explanation that is immediately apparent to everyone, although such explanations may be suitable for a different article.

This article exits because a small number of crackpots have propagated, through various media channels, crazy and blatantly unscientific conspiracy theories about the moon landings, and these conspiracy theories have become well enough known that they meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Only theories which meet WP's notability criteria need be mentioned here at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I am not misunderstanding the purpose of this article. Again, as stated before, the way the article reads, it is in violation of the verifiability policy, which was the first reason I decided to make the edits I did originally. Mythbusters DID not bust the myth regarding the fans "blowing" the flag as Sibrel stated and as is mentioned in the article (See this statement: "This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused the flag to flutter. Sibrel said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts...."). Mythbusters, as defined by the episode description, only busted the part of the myth regarding when the astronauts had their hands on the flag and flag pole. Not when they weren't touching it. Outcomer (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What reliable source makes the claim that Mythbusters did not address Sibrel's claim? VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are a load of Citations Needed in the Hoax Claims section that have been there almost a year. In a couple of weeks I'll go though and remove the statements that these are against. If these are hoax claims they should be referencible and not just claims by editors on the site. Just a heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Usually these tags are placed on the page and everyone forgets about them. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Radiation on the Moon

Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B. In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation. Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky. Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous — shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive. "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected." My comment- Of course it is unexpected, we've never been there. Source-http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.124.19 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Another article- Astronauts in low Earth orbit receive protection from the Earth's magnetic field, which shields out some of the heavier subatomic particles that stream in from space. It's just as well. These cosmic rays are energetic and dangerous to life. Go beyond this region of space, and this natural protection disappears.

The Moon itself has essentially no magnetic field, and no atmosphere. There's little to stop the barrage of particles and rays that stream in from the Sun and beyond. Some of this material actually changes the lunar surface. It can cause erosion of some rocks, and alter their chemistry. Particles from the solar wind probably contribute to the thin layer of water on some lunar rocks, by stimulating chemical reactions. The Moon's deposits of Helium-3, which could be a future energy source, have been collected from eons of solar emissions. A short mission to the Moon will be survivable for astronauts, mainly because exposure times will be low. Astronauts staying for longer periods will need shielding, to guard against the long-term effects of exposure. The thin walls of spacecraft will not be enough. Bases on the Moon will probably need to be buried, or at least covered with a layer of soil. Studies of the levels of radiation around the Moon were performed by the Indian Chandrayaan-1 orbiter. A radiation monitoring instrument on board the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still active. This research is certainly useful, but it will not answer all our questions. Radiation sensors need to be placed on the surface, and at different regions, to assess the full nature of the Moon's radiation environment. The most critical challenge will come when astronauts face the fury of a large solar flare while on the Moon. Radiation levels can increase enormously, and fatal doses can be absorbed by unprotected astronauts within minutes. source-http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Radiation_The_Moon_Greatest_Menace_999.html My comments- I'm glad this article addresses the fact the Van Allen Belts are of little consequence when talking about the radiation the astronauts would have received had they gone to the Moon. Once outside, that's outside the belts, the protection of the Earth's magnetic field is gone. This has been brought up before here, but you de-bunkers need to hold on to that Van Allen red herring. I also bolded the part about the solar flare as it has been documented that NOAA's website had, and may still have, documented solar flares during, that's during, alleged missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.124.19 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the August 1972 flare, that happened between 16 and 17. If not, do you have any of the dates for the flares you claim occurred during the missions? That would help us judge the validity of the claim--for example, was there an actual flare on the date in question? Was it pointed at earth? How big was the flare?Almostfm (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

IP, what specific improvements to the article are you proposing? Neither source you linked discusses any conspiracy theory. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mythbusters

Why are there so many repeated mentions of the Mythbusters TV programme in the text of this article? Why should this TV programme's debunking be given special prominence, in the article's text, over all of the other sources who have debunked lunar landing conspiracies? The phrase "This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing."" is repeated in the article again and again, and it also seems to me that this repetition is inelegant from a stylistic point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.240.139 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While not perfect, Mythbusters uses something much closer to true scientific method that most of the conspiracy theorists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nvidia lunar light field simulations

NVidia has used computer simulation to debunk some of the hoax claims about lighting. Eg why was Buzz easily visible when he was in the lander's shadow. Answer: the sun was reflected off Neil's bright white suit. http://www.cnet.com/news/nvidias-new-gpu-sinks-moon-landing-hoax-using-virtual-light/ Not sure if it should be in the article itself.  Stepho  talk  05:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be added to the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced statement and POV spin

User VQuaker has continually reverted my removal of this unsourced statement "Bennett and Percy were also mistaken in their assertion that the landing was "broadcast on live television"; there was in fact no video broadcast during either the landing or takeoff." (He's also impugned my motives by calling it "disruptive editing" in violation of WP policy on benefit of the doubt and civility. Then wrote on my Talk page saying the same thing and about "blocking". He is arguably edit-warring TOO if that's the case, so I wrote on his talk page to the same effect.) The point is that there was no reference for that obvious POV spin. But then he put the ref Steven-Boniecki, Dwight (2010). Live TV From the Moon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books. ISBN 978-1-926592-16-9. which does NOT back up the statement. It's obvious that POV Apollo apologists want that there though it's out of place with no real source. Neither pro-conspiracy nor pro Apollo editors should be inserting things like, that is just SYNTHESIS, with no real reference for the statement.

The statement is not even accurate or logical, given that Bennet and Percy did NOT say that the thing would be “broadcast on live TV”, but that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast on live TV, due to fears of catastrophe and failure.

That source does not back up that last sentence, and the sentence doesn’t even get Percy/Bennet’s point. It’s just pro-Apollo apologist spin and POV. They KNEW it could never be “broadcast live”...either for real or as a hoax. But said that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast live or shown in general. (And in their view for the reason of too high a risk etc...) The distinction is important, and is sloppily overlooked (apparently by POV Apollo apologists)...the statement is sloppy, inaccurate, and unsourced. That webpage does not make the point made in the sentence. It’s just POV spin and synthesis. No warrant in that paragraph. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the reference, while there were people arguing for and against a live television feed during landing, it ultimately couldn't have been done due to technical issues with maintaining a stable connection. The article could be updated to reflect this. You are correct that the reference doesn't refer directly to Percy or Bennet. (Rather, I should say I couldn't find it in the transcript; I didn't watch the entire video.) That being said, it takes two to edit war, and it's best to follow BRD on controversial articles such as this one. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Woodroar: I fear my including the weblink that included a video has caused some confusion. The actual supporting reference is the book, [1]. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the case. I looked on Google Books earlier but, sadly, it's not available online. I may buy a copy just out of interest, however. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gabby Merger: I impugned your behavior, not your motives. That said, your reference to "Apollo apologists" is somewhat concerning; please note that this is an article about a notable fringe theory. In compliance with that policy, it is going to have the POV of the accepted historical account of the moon landings and not attempt to give equal consideration to the notable (but in no way accepted by the mainstream) conspiracy theories. That said, if consensus is that the last sentence of the paragraph is unnecessary, then the first sentence (...crashing to their deaths on the Moon, broadcast on live television) should be rewritten to clarify that the takeoff and landings were not transmitted live. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gabby Merger: Ok, the attempt at a rewrite was reverted without discussion. I do not think that the version that was reverted to meets the requirements of WP:FRINGE, because it leaves the reader with the impression that the landings were televised. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Or that they even could have been televised. Woodroar (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

the death of Brian Welch

The death of Brian Welch does NOT go against the so-called conspiracy theorists. He was inept in his handling of any rebuttals regarding the many points brought up in most of the theories, if I were NASA or any other group involved with something to hide, his death might actually be of some benefit. This page seems to have 'decided everything' before the verdict is in, and that is enough for me to know there is a serious bias afoot here. Many questions are being disputed by MANY scientists, professionals and the like regarding this subject, still to this day. I will always be suspicious of one sided arguments...and this has only galvanized that stance. Thank you Wikipedia for being biased, and not asking the hard questions and not giving credence to worthwhile investigations. I will remain vigilant in my suspicion of the authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.108.128 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to present a false balance or ask the right questions. We simply summarize what reliable sources say, and it happens that virtually all of them say we went to the moon and that conspiracy theories suggesting otherwise are incorrect. Woodroar (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

live broadcast of liftoff from the Moon

The article says "Technically there was in fact no video broadcast during either the landing or takeoff because of technological limitations." Actually, there was no live broadcast of Apollo 11 or 12 lifting off. IIRC, there was of Apollo 15, 16, and 17. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Apollo 17 liftoff from the Moon
• Apollo 16
• Apollo 15 Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mars landing and space travel hoax claims

There are 'sufficiently many' websites claiming that the Mars landings were hoaxes - or even that the entire space program is a hoax to justify mention on WP - and this page is probably too long to include reference to/discussion.

The case against the hoax:

• 'It actually happened' is much simpler.
• Too many people involved - somone will have an urgent need for money/decide to leak for the fun of it/decides to keep documents so if it all goes wrong 'muggins here' doesn't get the blame/the USSR/PRC/France/other countries would get much milage out of 'doing the Yankies down.'
• If there were any doubts as to practicality there are much simpler ways of not pursuing the mission - eg 'technical problems not responding to verbal, percussive or feline maintenance' (and nobody else will have sufficient knowledge to gainsay it).
• If it is revealed as a fake Washington and the area around the spaceport would be standing room only with people wanting their tax back.

Add other reasons to taste. 108.171.128.162 (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. This article is about the Moon landings, so we have no need to respond to claims about Mars landings. Additionally, any statements will be based on reliable, third-party published sources, so it's not like we need to make our own rebuttals. Woodroar (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Search terms 'Mars landing hoax' and 'space travel hoax' brings up 'large numbers' of hits - most of them of the 'I say they can't do it' variety (and can someone analyse the sums on [2]?) - including the Flat Earther [3].

A statement to the effect that 'There are also people who think that the Mars Landings, and also the entire space programs are fake.' would cover most angles.

I know that feline maintenance is unlikely on spaceships (and they would spend their time yowling at 'things not visible to humans) :) 108.171.128.162 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The same reasons apply to Moon Landing hoaxes as to the other categories.

Basically - if someone/an organisation could prove the hoax (as distinct from 'starting with plan A and due to a misunderstanding they went for Plan B which worked just as well' and similar) they would make a lot of money/get much kudos, 'it is what it appears to be' is #much, much simpler# and 'there will #always# be loose ends or inconsistencies with a coverup of such a magnitude.' 108.171.128.162 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chang'e allegedly finds "traces" but no source details are provided

Regarding the text:

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010, can photograph the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 1.3 meters (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.[178]

Lina, Yang, ed. (February 6, 2012). "China publishes high-resolution full moon map". English.news.cn (Beijing:Xinhua News Agency). Retrieved April 20, 2013. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm

When we look at the source article we find just one single sentence, with no details, much less photos: "The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project"

If this is to be considered third party verification of such a significant sighting, we need more details. The Chinese might just be playing along, to not awaken the sleeping American giant, while they continue working to land the first man on the Moon. Wikipedia should not state that " It spotted traces of the Apollo landings". It is more accurate to write "A Chinese official reported spotting traces of the Apollo landings."User:RogerMartin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.221.6 (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Kaysing - knowledgeable about rockets and technical writing

Some person with a sense of humor wrote "despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing" after Kaysing's description as a Senior Technical Writer for Rocketdyne. Of course he has knowledge. No one has "no knowledge" of rockets, much less an employee of a rocket company. This insulting phrase should be removed from Wikipedia as it is not objective. User:RogerMartin

Considering that the factoid in question is sourced to a book written by Kaysing, I think you'll have to come up with a pretty good source to show that he had such knowledge when he was hired (the way I read it, he didn't have the knowledge when he was first employed). Kaysing, his statements, and his lack of detailed knowledge on the F1 engine and Apollo program have been discussed several times before, and you can check the archives for details.

Also, you might want to consider creating that user account you use to sign with =) WegianWarrior (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Horizon

I have uncovered something never discussed and disturbing if it will be included in article please use my code name of delta5 .The horizon in all the images is too short only 100 metres max. This is impossible as when the sun shines on the subjects you would expect to see an almost endless lit up land horizon extending for miles but in every picture we have this cut off short land horizon as if we are dealing with a back drop please discuss thankyou delta5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.116.175 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

How far away is the horizon on the Moon? How do you know that it is 100 meters away in the photos? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the furthest images of the landrover on the horizon its about 100 metres you will never see any true moonlanding horizon images because they do not exist delta5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.116.175 (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We cannot add your personal theory per our policy regarding original research. VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, first you need to call the Discovery Channel. They'll then run an hour-long "documentary" on your theory. THEN you can add it to Wikipedia. ;) JoelWhy?(talk) 13:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen any pictures of a Land Rover on the Moon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they said it was a Horizon. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think he said that it was a Land Rover on a Horizon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it a statue of Elvis (or was it a bus - or was that in the Antarctic?)? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides 'the Moon is full of craters (not of the wine-holding kind) - so the horizon might well be only 100 metres away/the slope of the ground upon which the photographer is standing may give that impression. 108.171.128.162 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Our impression of the distance of the horizon is heavily influenced by our expectation of slight loss of clarity over distance. In a vacuum, without air and dust in our line of sight, such loss of clarity does not occur, so on the moon we are likely to very seriously underestimate the distance to the horizon, especially when we are relying on a single photograph, rather than the stereoscopic view we get with two eyes.
2. Taking the moon as a sphere of radius about 1,740 km, a photograph taken from a height of 1.75 m would give a horizon at a distance of almost exactly 2.5 km, or 1.5 miles, not the "almost endless lit up land horizon extending for miles" that the original poster imagines. If the photograph is taken from a height of 1 m instead of 1.75, the horizon would be at only a little more than a mile away. Since the moon is lumpy, and not a smooth sphere, there is a high likelihood that somewhere in our line of sight a rise in the ground would get in the way and give a horizon at a shorter distance than the figures I hae quoted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did this calculation before I asked him to tell us the distance to the horizon. The cameras were attached to the astronaut's suits at chest level, so the horizon is a little more than a mile away (1.2 or something like that). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Una Ronald

The refutation of Ms. Ronald includes the suggestion that many Australians saw the Apollo 11 landing occur 'in the middle of their day time'. The Apollo 11 lunar module landed at 8:18 PM, GMT. That would be 4:18 AM in Perth, Australia. There is something awry with this particular passage. 74.12.5.218 (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The EVA occurred about six hours after the landing, or 10-11 AM in Perth. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Grammar in the lede

@Italicisify and Green547: I'm confused by theseedits in the lede. The sentence is Even as late as 2001, the Fox television network broadcast Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? claimed NASA faked the first landing in 1969 to win the Space Race, which is grammatically incorrect. To condense the sentence, we have "Fox aired a documentary claimed the moon landings were faked". It should be "Fox aired a documentary which claimed the moon landings were faked". Unless we're using the less common noun form of "broadcast"—which is not only unclear but increasingly sounds archaic—in which case I would suggest we switch to "documentary" instead. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It didn't seem archaic or unclear to me; in fact, I interpreted it that way. It needs to be clarified. Green547 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you add this to the external links section

Nasa Image Library

The story is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.95.4 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Really cool photos, but I'm not sure that they belong here as they have nothing to do with the article subject. The article isn't "things that disprove Moon landing conspiracy theories". Otherwise we could have thousands of links that do that.

But thanks for pointing them out!--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lunar Rover

Can we add another section for the problems with the Apollo 16 Lunar Rover?

There are a few YouTube videos that discuss how it is easy to prove that a backdrop is used for that footage. video here

There is another discussion that compares how the sand would behave when it is kicked up by the rover with Earth gravity and with Moon gravity. It also mentions the path the sand would take with and without air resistance. The sand in the footage moves as if affected by air resistance. video here

I don't have "neutral" sources, perhaps someone could help in that regard.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E7D:5410:44B2:749D:99B2:3DCA (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Youtube videos are generally not reliable sources. There's the FAQ at the top of the page. Green547 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The first video is obvious nonsense, because at around 40 seconds, they are driving over what just a few seconds earlier the red line said was a backdrop. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I played the second one a few times and it seems to be nonsense too. If it were on Earth, I don't think the dust would be thrown up and drop back down like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm saying you're wrong Bubba73 but your personal assesment is not a reliable source or WP guideline. Green547 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that I'm not a reliable source for that, but it is up to the OP to come up with a reliable source saying the things you claim. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is some analysis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dust on the lunar surface is not "sand". It has very different structure and properties. But regardless, I think we need a better source than random YouTube uploads before including this in the lamentable gallery of conspiracy theories.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Shadows at close relative distances

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5925.jpg

How is the shadow in the bottom half of the image nearly perpendicular to the shadow at the top half of the image, given the close distance between the two?

Mythbusters has shown that by manipulating the contours of the terrain, shadows cast from the same light source can be made to look non-parallel.

In this case, the contour is very flat. Why are the shadows facing different directions, if there is only one light source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.2.130 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The shadow near the center is from the pole that is sticking out from the bottom of the landing pad. It is sticking out at an angle. Three of the four landing pads on the Lunar Module had these poles (probably 6-8 feet long) that extended down from the landing pads and were to detect when it was close to the Moon's surface to cut off the descent engine. These poles were bent over by the weight of the Lunar Module when it landed on the Moon, which is why it is sticking out at an angle. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This photo shows it from a different angle. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, OP, the shadow of the bar (it's called a probe) is perpendicular, because the probe is really almost perpendicular to the landing gear leg, despite the fact in your picture it looks as if it's pointing out straight away from the leg. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And interestingly, the photo taken right before the one you give shows the Earth in the background! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This hasn't happened

In regard to this addition here;

"However, in the nearly fifty years since Apollo 11, not one of the half million people involved in the planning, construction, implementation and execution of the Moon landings has come forward to reveal a hoax."

There are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, it is unsourced. Where is the figure of half million coming from? Where is the source that says this hasn't happened? Without sources these claims are worthless.

Secondly; it is discussing what hasn't happened. Millions of things haven't happened. Picking one from the many, to make a point, is not neutral. This is why, generally speaking, Wikipedia concentrates on what has happened. Particularly when there is not reliable source to confirm what hasn't happened. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

While apparently true, you can't prove a negative. If there were a reliable source saying that, then maybe it could go in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll agree that the number of "half million people" is unsourced, but the general claim that given the number of people involved nobody has come forward is supported by the rest of the article in the Number of conspirators involved section, which does state "Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers". Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Escape Orbit that the lede is better without this sentence. The paragraph it was in is about the persistence of the theories in popular culture, a factual assessment that does not require a rebuttal to be WP:FRINGE compliant. The preceding paragraph in the lede makes the level of acceptance of these theories clear. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

But it still leaves us with no source to say that absolutely none of the "Hundreds of thousands of people" has ever claimed the Apollo missions were faked in any way. I know of none, and any such claim may have been generally ignored as certainly bogus, but it's impossible to claim this because we don't have a reliable source. And even then, it would seem to be an almost impossible claim to validate. Who knows what "Hundreds of thousands" have said since the 1960s? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the statement says "reveal a hoax", not "claimed a hoax". If you reveal a hoax, then it's beyond doubt - just claiming a hoax is nothing that hasn't happened many times and in many places.

At the moment nobody has come forward and revealed a hoax and proved categorically that the landings were faked - and in that respect the statement is accurate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence from the Documentary "What Happened on the Moon?"

I have been looking for evidence from reliable, third party sources that has not yet been covered in the article.

The 2000 documentary "What Happened on the Moon?" covers many topics that are not addressed.

This is the link to the IMDB page for the documentary.

The MLA citation for the documentary:

   What Happened on the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo Dir. David Percy. Knowledge 2020, 2000. DVD.

I will be examining the evidence made by the documentary, and adding what has not been covered in the article under this section. I will put in square brackets what part of the documentary the evidence comes from. Anyone can feel free to contribute.

Neoletrix (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

1. (Apollo 16) A rectangular flap on the astronaut's suit from Apollo 16 is shown flat in the video, but vertical in the still shot. This is a continuity error. [11:11-12:55] Neoletrix (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

2. (Apollo 11) When the astronauts are filming earth from the spacecraft's window, an object comes between the camera and earth. This is impossible because the camera is directly against the window. [13:13-17:10] Neoletrix (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Percy is already mentioned in the article. He is definitely not a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ignore your personal attack. Neoletrix (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Percy is really not a reliable source. --McSly (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Neoletrix: are you claiming to be Percy? VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC).

No, I am not Percy. Neoletrix (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured not. You might want to read WP:NPA as it definitely does not say what you seem to think it says. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

He is just the director of the film. There are many other professionals that speak, and I will be quoting them as well. Neoletrix (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

3. (Various) Fill in lighting. Additional light sources are used to improve the lighting on shots where the main source of light is shading part of the picture. [30:25-40:27]. Analysis by third party Dr. David Groves [36:30-37:43] Neoletrix (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

4. (Apollo 11) The camera height is not at chest level in some pictures. The camera was supposedly mounted at chest level, but the center reticle of the picture shows that it was taken from a higher height.Analysis by Dr. David Groves. [42:53-44:05] Neoletrix (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Groves doesn't look like a reliable source either. --McSly (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

5. (Apollo 14) The length of the astronaut's shadow changes as he moves away from the camera. This change is not possible in natural sunlight, only with a very close light source. [1:05:47-1:06:24] Neoletrix (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The movie itself is a (spectacularly) unreliable source. If there are reliable, secondary sources that discuss the arguments made in the movie they might be usable. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well good. If that's what you think, then you should be able to provide the counterargument to all of this evidence quite easily. Neoletrix (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. It is up to you to present a reliable source, and to obtain consensus for its inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

#1 - Apollo 16, John Young jump salute - As you should recall, astronaut Young made two jumps. Do you think it is possible that the still photo is from one of the jumps and the video they show is from the other? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. That is a good refutation to the claim. Neoletrix (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only that but in the second jump the flap in question can be seen to move, showing that it isn't fastened down as claimed in the video. Given that the angle the still was taken from is more acute than the video, it may well show as being more pronounced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And there is no guarantee that the still from the video was at the same time as the still from the camera. Interestingly, there is a sequence of shots there, and the flag does not move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposed story

I have removed the plug for the DVD. This is not the place to promote sales.

Neoletrix, I can assure you that no one is going to rush out to buy this DVD and watch it just to refute a work of fiction but it would be interesting, for me at least, if you would state exactly what the authors of this film claim did happen. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to plug the DVD. In fact, the entire documentary is available free to watch on YouTube. Here's the link.

I believe this is as reliable as it's going to get for the conspiracy theory status that this article has right now.

I have provided five pieces of evidence in the discussion above with the locations that they occur in the film.

Below I will give links to each claim:

1. Continuity error in John Young's Apollo 16 jump.

2. Object between window of spacecraft and earth.

3. Fill in lighting used to improve photographs

4. Camera not at chest level

5. Changing shadow lengths

Neoletrix (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please answer my question. What exactly do the film makers claim did happen. Without this you do not even have a conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk)

The conspiracy theorists claim that the Apollo program never went to the moon. They claim that the photographs and videos of the Apollo program were either taken on earth or in low-earth orbit. Neoletrix (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking what did not happen I am asking, according to the conspiracy theorists, what did happen. This might involve some films being made somewhere, some rockets being launched, some signals being transmitted, I do not know; you tell me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is what the conspiracy theorists claimed happened in the Apollo 11 mission. NASA launched the real rockets, and the astronauts took real footage from actual low-earth orbit. During the supposed trip to the moon, NASA prepared to broadcast their pre-recorded LEM footage. When the astronauts were to have arrived on the moon, NASA broadcasted the footage that they had taken previously. The footage of the lunar lander approaching the moon was filmed using a scale model of the moon. The video of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon was filmed on Earth, in a studio setting. The first half of the film provides evidence that the photo/video was taken in a studio. Neoletrix (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So here is my question. How many major inconsistensies with the known facts do you think there are in that story? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I gave my reply to #1 above. For #2, it is obviously the side of the spacecraft. For #3, light bounces off the surface of the Moon and other things (well known). #4 He is assuming that the astronaut with the camera is standing completely upright on level ground, and #5 he is assuming that the ground is flat. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I meany your crazy story about videos?? being taken in studios etc. described by you above. The whole story is laughable. With major inconsitensies with the known facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum, folks. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well we are discussing the most important issue in Moon landing conspiracy theories, which is that there is no credible alternative theories to the fact that men actually landed on the moon. This currently under-represented in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As a reliable source

The purpose of this article is either:
1. To refute false claims that the Apollo missions were hoaxed.
2. To propose evidence that the Apollo missions were hoaxed.

This documentary is a good source for either one of those purposes. In the first case, the documentary is a good source of false claims. Since the purpose of the article is to refute false claims, then we need to include the false claims made in this video, to add to the number of refutations of claims made by the conspiracy theorists. In the second case, the documentary is a good source of new evidence. Any professional that proposes evidence that that the Apollo missions were hoaxed should be included as a reliable source, because that is the purpose of the article, to show evidence made by professionals! Neoletrix (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The purpose of this article (as with all Wikipedia articles) is to neutrally present the topic without expressing any opinion as to its validity. The article therefore proses, or refutes, nothing. However, as a fringe theory Wikipedia is not obliged to give the hoax theories any weight beyond that which they are due. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Escape Orbit is correct, you are incorrect, Neoletrix. Neither 1 nor 2 is the purpose of this article. Please review the WP:NPOV policy: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." And also the WP:FRINGE guideline: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea [e.g. Apollo 11 or Apollo program]. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea [this one], which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." JustinTime55 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Then, if this article is about the minority viewpoint, that of conspiracy theorists, why can we not use the work of a conspiracy theorist? Neoletrix (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, if the goal is to maintain neutrality, then why should we give undue weight to the idea that is broadly supported by scholarship in its field in an article about the fringe idea? Neoletrix (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We can. There aren't any fundamental problems with using this video as a source for hoax theories. Percy is/was a main proponent of them. His reliability as a source has nothing to do with the reliability of his theories, they are entirely different matters. However, generally speaking, videos don't make for great sources. Especially Youtube ones. So better, written ones, would be preferable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you then revert the last change to the article? I added claims made by Percy (with accompanying images), but they were deleted by VQuakr. I think the documentary has an accompanying book, and I will try to find the same claim that was made in the video in the book. Neoletrix (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: this isn't a video vs book issue. Where we use Percy elsewhere in the article, it is because his specific theories have been evaluated by reliable sources. That is not the case on the current proposed addition. VQuakr (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So your objection is simply WP:PRIMARY? I appreciate the problem with such a source, but they are not prohibited. Percy is a noted authority (if you can have such a thing for something so incorrect) on these conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FRIND, we evaluate if any aspect of a fringe theory is prominent enough to merit mention by evaluation of independent reliable sources. If we only have Percy presenting something then it should not be included. This is important lest we end up with a massive Gish gallop of every claim presented by anyone or outrageous content such as "this is a continuity error" presented uncritically as fact in the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This article (like many others) is why Wikipedia is now an internet joke.

As of 17 November 2015:

• Article on Moon landings: 91,525 Byte
• Article on Moon landing conspiracy theories: 144,535 Byte

Put simply this article (which is based on total utter bullshit) or more politely: the premise that the Lunar landings are fake, is now a third bigger than the actual article about real events!!!

This current talkpage is a testament to the persistence of the tin-foil wearing ding bats to use Wikipedia in contravention to WP:SOAP. If this article's real purpose was to just inform people that a few whackos think that because a shadow or two doesn't appear to line up mankind never went to the moon, then it would be about 20kb in size (compare the lack of any articles querying media integrity considering the amount of photoshopping that now goes on in the 21st century!).

Instead every little bit of ridiculous implausible fallacious theory is given equal footing. Moreover this article is an offensive legacy to the brave tireless men and women who labored to put humanity into space.

If a talkpage is supposed to be about "improving" articles I'd be deleting most this article ASAP. I have never seen such an article begging to be cut down. Hey all you conspiracy types there are now multiple hi-vis images that show the actual wheel tracks of the abandoned rovers left on the moon!? Or was there other missions that sent up robots to fake that as well?

DELETE. DELETE. DELETE. Simple as. It is an article that is an embarrassment to common sense and to good taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.127.188 (talk • contribs)

There are a lot of articles about Moon landings besides Moon landings. Each Apollo mission has its own article. There are articles such as Apollo Program, which is much more extensive than the Moon Landings article, with links to many more articles. There are individual articles about many of the components of the rockets and spacecraft, not to mention the astronauts. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your basic calculation omits to count the articles on Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, Apollo 17, the Apollo program, all the articles on each of the astronauts, and a host of other supporting articles. While the conspiracy theories only get this one.

Wikipedia is not censored, so you finding it offensive doesn't count for anything. The validity of the theories also doesn't play a part on whether they should be here. These theories exist and are notable enough to mean they should be included. The reader is given plenty of factual evidence to reach their own conclusion safely. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult problem in general; how to deal with crazy conspiracy and pseudo-science theories. What might be considered the conventional approach is to ignore them. This was the approach that NASA took to the moon landing conspiracy theories for many years. Their, perfectly reasonable, attitude was not to grace such bizarre and obviously wrong theories with a response, which might be seen as giving the crazy theories some credibility. That is essentially the approach which 81.129.127.188 seems to be advocating here. Within an academic or serious scientific environment it is probably the best approach.

Unfortunately, for most people, the world, and the flow of information within it, is governed not by academic standards, but by the media, of all kinds, newspapers, TV, and social. It is also a well accepted fact that politicians are happy to tell whatever lies may suit them if they think that they can get away with it.

Against this background, conspiracy theories and pseudo-science flourish, many providing a good living for their originators. Saying nothing can easily be seen as a further part of the conspiracy. In the end even NASA were forced to publish a rebuttal of some MLC theories.

In WP I think we do need to give detailed and accurate rebuttals of the bizarre theories put forward by money-making publicity-seeking conspiracy theorists. I do think we need to take care that what we say here does meet the highest standards of sourcing and verifiability and that the wording is calmly dismissive of the MLC theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've ordered a book Moon Hoax Debunked! that should help establish the subject as notable and provide some material. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to have an agenda, and certainly not to make value judgements on what needs debunking. What Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does is simply summarise and reflect what is already out there. Giving each topic due emphasis and balance. Ignoring the hoax theories, in the hope they go away, is not an option as long as they remain notable out in the general world. This is not a particularly unusual situation. Read what the WP:FRINGE guideline says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A good book

Today I got a copy of Moon Hoax: Debunked! by Paulo Attivissimo. So far it seems like the definitive source for debunking Moon landing hoax claims. There is also a website for it, http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/ . On that page, just above the "donate" button, you can download a free version in PDF or EPUB. This is an excellent resource and it seems to address just about everything in the article and more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)