Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Questioning article's merit

This subject does not merit an article and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think many here agree that you are right but even NASA who originally refused to dignify the crazy claims with a rebuttal eventially had to say something. Unfortunately the crazy idea is out there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It meets notability guidelines and has references to support it. It would easily survive AfD. Please refer to WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Update: Please refer to the FAQ at the top of this talk page for more information. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The existence of references does not mean that we have to have an article. The fact that a crazy theory need rebuttal does. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll reproduce my reply to a similar comment on this same page a few months ago; The validity of the theories 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) 17:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there is ample precedent for this article's existence, e.g. Modern flat Earth societies, multiple articles on mythology, JFK assassination conspiracies, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This guy is clearly trolling the page with this comment. I'm not sure why we are dignifying it with an "actual" answer... Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Additions to Kubrick section

I have added a brief note on the basis for most theories of Kubrick's involvement, that is, clues left in the Shining. 95% of theories refer to the room 237 (and the apollo 11 sweater and futuristic/launchpad carpet as their main piece of evidence, therefore it deserves a mention, though there's no need to go into the dozens of pieces of evidence people refer to in the film. Another editor reverted my edits, but I think they should stand. The section is currently heavily biased, titled 'allegations of' 'no evidence offered' and predominantly consists of 'debunking' and explanations why Kubrick was not involved, synopses of mockumentaries and other criticisms on moon landing CTs, rather than actually discussing what the conspiracy theories are, which is the subject of the article, and letting them stand or fail on their own merits. The section reads as if it was written by someone who is strongly opposed to moon landing conspiracy theories, and needs more balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.66.88 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you DO need deal with cited sources.. Any material likely to be challenged needs to be backed up by sources per WP:V. I have reverted your changes for the time-being. Please do not re-add it unless reliable sources are supplied, as well. Thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

For these theories to be mentioned, you need to demonstrate that they are already "out there" and referenced/believed/disproved/discussed by people in general. You don't provide any sources to demonstrate this and the article is not the place to publish new theories. Personally I've never heard of them. Where did you hear of them? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/welch_obit_001127.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally this article's kryptonite!

This published peer-reviewed journal article proves what any sane and rational person has been saying since the year dot! Basically a study by Dr David Robert Grimes suggests that large groups of people sharing in a conspiracy will very quickly give themselves away. Hence the fact that no one has ever come forward from NASA to say the moon landings were fake is evidence enough.

This published paper proves once and for all that this article is a load of old doody and it is only maintained by people with the mental capacity of said doody!

Here are the findings:

[..] estimating the maximum number of people required to be in on the conspiracy, in order to see how viable these conspiracies could be. These include: the theory that the US moon landings were a hoax (411,000 people); that Climate Change is a fraud (405,000 people); that unsafe vaccinations are being covered up (22,000 people assuming that only the World Health Organisation and the US Centers for Disease Control are conspirators and that others involved in advocating, producing, distributing and using vaccines are dupes. 736,000 people if, as would be more likely, pharmaceutical companies were included); that the cure for Cancer is being suppressed by the world’s leading pharmaceutical firms (714,000 people).

Using the equation, Dr Grimes calculated that hoax moon landings would have been revealed in 3 years 8 months, a climate change fraud in 3 years 9 months, a vaccination conspiracy in 3 years 2 months, and a suppressed Cancer cure in 3 years 3 months. In simple terms, any one of the four conspiracies would have been exposed long before now.

This article has been a complete waste of time from the start. You have wasted your time creating an article about bullshit from bullshit.

Or are the tin-foil hat-wearing dingbats now going to question the integrity and motivations of an Oxford University physicist? Delete this waste of space now. You might as well start somewhere as it's just one of many that makes Wikipedia an online laughing stock. 86.182.40.253 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, have you read this article? What specific changes do you propose making to it? VQuakr (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or this article. You might start by actually reading it. Thanks for the link though. Interesting stuff. Worthy of addition to the number of conspirators section? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate title

While the article is called "Moon landing conspiracy theories", there really is only one conspiracy theory (that the 1969 Apollo moon landing was faked). Shouldn't the title reflect that? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because there is an unending stream of different theories about how or why the moon landings are supposed to have been faked. I have more experience of mathematical crankery, but the one constant is that cranks can never agree among themselves. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And it doesn't apply only to Apollo 11 in 1969, but also the five more from 1969-1972. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And, depending on the theory, to Apollo 8, 10, and 13 that orbited/flew by the moon but did not land. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, because some of them say that we can't go through the Van Allen radiation belts, that the Saturn V wasn't powerful enough, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Clear consistent bias

This article is biased throughout, when it should be dispassionate and present all sides of all arguments as clearly and fully as possible as is reasonable for a summary in wiki form. Its premise is, wrongly as a so-called encyclopaedic article, the intransigent assertion that the moon landings irrefutably happened and viewing the claims of them being a hoax as unquestionably flawed and absurd. Its tone in discussing the claims of the 'conspiracy theorists' is dismissive and can barely disguise its scathing towards them and its bias towards the veracity of the moon landings. 'Reliable evidence' is actually out there in support of the 'conspiracy' claims, if you look for reputable sources and yet insufficient information is conveyed in support of the hoax claims in this article, which I believe, based on the article's tone, is intended to serve to strengthen the case of the landings having been genuine. Discussion of the Van Allen Belt radiation is insubstantial and biased. Also, the article does not mention the argument against the plausibility of the landings in the fact that no further missions to take humans to the moon have been launched by any country since the last Apollo missions. Wikipedia appears to support the biased content and tone of this article in its FAQs and itself rejects all notion of potential truth in the 'conspiracy' claims. I regularly donate to Wikipedia but I am not going to continue doing so now I have witnessed for the first time how biased and agenda-driven they can be in their work. Whether the writer of an article believes an argument or series of arguments roughly forming some cohesive ideology or not, he or she should not be communicating and conveying information in this way. I don't trust Wikipedia or Nasa and I don't fully subscribe to any 'conspiracist' ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.223.165 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That is because the hoax claims are indisputably false. It is not are job to give "equal validity" coverage to silliness, but to cover what has been written about such theories in reliable sources. See WP:FRINGE for more information about how we write neutrally about this sort of subject. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So much for an "unbiased, neutral" article

The FAQ makes it look like the purported moon landings are a scientific certainty when upon closer investigation it is far from it. Of course, NASA's lapdogs will claim that everything has been debunked and that the sun is shine by sticking to the same, boring talking points like a broken record (ie. the eternal flag waving) while serious anomalies which prove that some photos were not taken on the moon as claimed are ignored. Galileo Galilei was hounded by the church for going against conventional beliefs held at the time but in the end he was right. Similarly, scientific evidence studies undertaken by image analysts and film experts proving that at least some pictures were faked here on Earth cannot be ignored because unrelated points have been "debunked" and the possibily of a hoax makes the faint-hearted squirmy. All this to say that this page should be balanced by showing both pro- and anti- conspiracy theory arguments, not just pushing one view by claiming it is the right one, or at the very least deleted. Truth does not fear investigation. 209.197.169.159 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is balanced. Considering how fringe these theories are, I think the article treats them in a very even-handed way. If you have exact and specific suggestions for improving the page, rather than simply saying "this sucks", please post those suggestions here in talk. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

The explanations given to the manned moon landings conspiracy theorists are weak and naive

Wikipedia is not a forum, please use RELIABLE SOURCES, not personal views, to suggest changes to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(1) Quote, "The quality of the photographs is implausibly high. ...There are many poor-quality photos taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.[84][85]" ... People want to see those poor quality photos. If NASA really sent people on the moon why it would hide pictures? (2) (a) Quote, "In some photos, crosshairs seem to be behind objects. ... This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals." ... (b) Quote, "The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props. ... The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original" ... Put on the net high resolution scans of the original negatives. Why are they not available? There are, in the Library of Congress, high resolutions scans of negatives showing, for example, Samuel Langley (died in 1906) which are so detailed that the weave of his cloths can be clearly seen. (3) Quote, "There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used. ... Backgrounds were not identical, just similar." There are backgrounds with identical features, an impossibility. (4) Quote, "The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage or were filmed outside in a remote desert with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon." ... The moonwalks could have been faked using slow motion. It is quite easy to prove this. Demonstration: From a height, h, a body falls to the ground in the time, t = sqrt(2*h/g). In consequence, t_Moon/t_Earth = sqrt (g_Earth/g_Moon) = 2.456. So, if someone films an object falling on Earth in the time t, and with 24 * 2.456 fps, frames per second, instead of just 24 fps (the standard), it is enough to play the record in such a way as the fall to happen in 2.456 * t and you fake a fall on the Moon. For example, if the body falls in 1 second on Earth, filming with 58.944 fps and spreading those frames over 2.456 seconds leads to a 2.456 sec fall filmed at 24 fps which is the same as a real fall on the Moon filmed at 24 fps. Just filming with a standard 24 fps camera on Earth and spreading those 24 frames over 2.456 seconds (just 9.771 fps), a common mistake, will not give good results. The fake will be visible. (5) Quote, "In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots and the wheels of the Lunar Roving Vehicles rose quite high due to the lower lunar gravity, and settled quickly to the ground in an uninterrupted parabolic arc since there was no air to suspend the dust."... It is relatively easy to prepare a sort of artificial sand on earth with all dust eliminated (washed, filtered out). If, in a studio, this special sand is used, neither the wheels of a rover nor the boots of the astronaut actors will rise any cloud of dust. Regarding the parabolic trajectory and the height reached by the alleged moon dust, on earth you can send ordinary sand grains meters in the air and the trajectory will be parabolic because the departure from this kind of curve is evident just for high speeds, due to drag, at low velocities the drag is about zero and the air behaves like the vacuum. (6) Quote, "During the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum.[124]"... It is easy to fake, on Earth, such an experiment by connecting, for example, the hammer and the falcon feather with a small diameter transparent plastic bar. The experiment of David Scott is not available in HD so it is not quite clear, beyond any doubt, what he did there. (7) Quote, "There should have been more than a two-second delay in communications between Earth and the Moon, at a distance of 400,000 km (250,000 mi)." ... Faking communication delays with accuracy was well within the reach of the 1969 technology. (8) Quote, "Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing.[140][141] Apollo 11 data tapes containing telemetry and the high-quality video (before scan conversion from slow-scan TV to standard TV) of the first moonwalk are also missing.[44][142]" ... Without the telemetry and blueprints, which form a kind of DNA, a complicated fingerprint, the authenticity of a space mission can not be seriously verified and confirmed. (9) Quote, "The presence of retroreflectors (mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) from the Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment (LRRR) is evidence that there were landings.[195] ... Smaller retroreflectors were also put on the Moon by the Russians; they were attached to the unmanned lunar rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.[198]" ... The presence of retro-reflectors is evidence just for automatic landings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC) OK, what specific change to the article are you proposing? What reliable sources are you citing to back up the change?--McSly (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC) The most important change I want be made is regarding point (4) (The moonwalks could have been faked using slow motion.) The reliable source I cite is Newton's theory which shows (see the demonstration) that low gravity is equivalent to slow motion. The Mythbusters (see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M) made two serious errors. (1) The space suit they utilized was not pressurized (did not have the rigidity of a car tire) and this explains the unnatural movement of the helmet which does not behave like in the videos allegedly filmed on the moon (1969 - 1972). (2) They filmed the earthwalks at 48 fps (2 * 24 fps) instead of 58.944 fps (2.456 * 24 fps) being 18.56% below the necessary frame rate. However, even with this two imperfections, their faked moonwalks were quite realistic, even the height of the jumps was matched. The experiment performed by the Mythbusters does not prove the impossibility of faking moonwalks on earth, in a studio. As a note, there are two kind of sources available for citations, (a) NASA and various entities that keep the story of NASA (considered automatically reliable) and (b) conspiracy theorists (labeled as unreliable). The only serious way to fight against NASA moon landings claims is through experiment, math and physics. Any article coming from a conspiracy theorist will be rejected as unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) This is not a forum for you to "fight against NASA moon landings claims" or publish your own thoughts about the matter. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC) While I personally believe that it is not a hoax, I will admit that the article does not provide an effective rebuttal against slow motion claims. The article's rebuttal to being filmed in slow motion is to say that it is consistent with being in a vacuum - which is not what was being claimed. The article could use some strengthening at this point.  Stepho  talk  01:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I don't have a reference for this at hand, but even if it were filmed in slow motion, they would not have been able to jump that high on Earth - especially in those space suits. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC) You know what, the article doesn't even reference that anyone claims that it's filmed in slow motion. In fact, the majority of the claims to it being a hoax are not referenced in the entire article. We shouldn't be providing references to defeat hoax claims when the claims themselves aren't reliably referenced. Technically half the article could just be deleted as it's not verified. Canterbury Tail talk 03:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, per WP:EVALFRINGE we primarily care about the mainstream views on the subject. If a mainstream source has published a "debunking" of a particular hoax CT, isn't that adequate evidence that said hoax theory exists? VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) (10) Quote, "Stanislav Pokrovsky – Russian and General Director of a scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK who calculated that the real speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time was only half of what was declared.[36][37] His analysis appears to assume that the solid rocket plumes from the fuselage and retrorockets on the two stages came to an instant halt in the surrounding air so they can be used to estimate the velocity of the rocket. He ignored high-altitude winds and the altitude at staging, 67 km, where air is about 1/10,000 as dense as at sea level, and claimed that only a loop around the Moon was possible, not a manned landing on the Moon with return to Earth. He also allegedly found the reason for this – problems with the Inconel superalloy used in the F-1 engine.[38][39][40]" ... Pokrovsky did not ignore anything. Here (see, http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/Pokrovsky1.pdf and http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/Pokrovsky2.pdf ) is an English translation of his two papers. He took into account not only the density of the air but the pressure, temperature, wind speed, etc., and he calculated the speed at separation by three different and independent methods. (11) Quote, "On September 1, 2009, India's lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 took photos of the Apollo 15 landing site and tracks of the lunar rovers.[181][182] The Indian Space Research Organisation launched their unmanned lunar probe on September 8, 2008 (IST), from Satish Dhawan Space Centre. The photos were taken by a hyperspectral camera fitted as part of the mission's image payload.[181]" ... Many articles from September 2009 claim that Chandrayaan-1 detected traces of the Apollo 15 mission on the surface of the moon but no such a picture can be located on the net. Usually the texts about Chandrayaan-1 are either illustrated with pictures coming from NASA and allegedly showing disturbances created by the Apollo missions in the lunar soil or simply they contain no photo. Someone has to find those Chandrayaan-1 pictures and add them to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Here's a photo: http://gizmodo.com/5352410/indian-probe-takes-clear-photo-of-apollo-15-hopefully-smashing-conspiracy-theories-forever The first photo is the Indian without mods, the second photo is the same photo with an overlay added to help you see where the faint tracks are in the first photo. The tracks are very faint but they are there in a loop pattern that does not occur in nature.  Stepho  talk  01:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC) There is a good analysis of (10) in the book Moon Hoax: Debunked!, by Paolo Attivissimo. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC) That book is available for free (or donation) download at http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/ You will need an EPUB reader for your computer, which can be found by searching the web.  Stepho  talk  03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC) But to be clear IP, no we don't need the image in the article. Providing a reliable source that says Chandrayaan-1 imaged that landing sites is adequate; see WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) I took a look at that Indian image "showing" the Apollo 15 landing site (http://gizmodo.com/5352410/indian-probe-takes-clear-photo-of-apollo-15-hopefully-smashing-conspiracy-theories-forever) and compared it with the NASA LRO picture of the same location. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/08/lro-zooms-in-on-apollo-15-once-again/#.V6MFGtIrJpg). Honestly, it is quite hard (for me impossible), to find common artificial features in the two photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Yeah, it's quite hard to make out. It took me about a minute to see the tracks in the first pic and I needed the second pic to guide me. The tracks are most of a figure 8 loop that are slightly brighter than the back ground. Nature doesn't do figure 8 loops. A higher resolution pic would be nicer but don't forget that this was taken from orbit and the size of each pixel is not much smaller then the items we are trying to look at - so each item we want to see is only a few pixels wide or less. A bit like to trying to read a book on the other side of the room. The LRO has higher resolution that the Chandrayaan-1 image but of course, if NASA faked the original mission then it could be faking it again. So the (unfortunately lower resolution) Chandrayaan-1 image is what we need to use for confirmation.  Stepho  talk  12:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC) I want to identify that "8" photographed by Chandrayaan-1 on the LRO picture. (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M175252641LR_ap15.png). This is what I am not able to do. I can not even locate identical patterns of craters in the two images captured by the Indian and NASA satellites. Is there a study somewhere which demonstrates that the two pictures show the same location and same "8" left behind by the Apollo 15 moon rover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC) The LRO pic shows boot tracks around the lander while the Chandrayaan-1 pic shows tracks of the Rover (the electric car) away from the lander. Since the whole purpose of the Rover was to get extended range, it is seems reasonable that the Chandrayaan-1 and LRO pics are of different areas of the Apollo 15 site.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC) I think there are a few misconceptions evident in this discussion. The purpose of this article is not to prove or disprove the landing conspiracy theories. Its purpose is to document the notable theories and, if available, responses and comments on them by notable authorities (both pro or con). All the time without giving undue weight to fringe theories. Its purpose is also most definitely not to provide a platform for Wikipedia editors to construct arguments either supporting, or disproving, the theories. And various editor's personal analysis of the merits of the existing arguments, or any photographs involved, is totally irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "any photographs involved, is totally irrelevant"?!!, "The purpose of this article is not to prove or disprove the landing conspiracy theories."... As it is structured the purpose of the article is to disprove the landing conspiracy theories as long as each conspiracy, after being briefly explained, gets an apparently strong rebuttal. At a more careful examination many of these explanations aimed at ridiculing the conspiracies prove to be quite weak and unhelpful. Before the middle of July 2016 I have never doubted any manned moon landing. After finding totally by chance this wiki page my confidence into the authenticity of the of the Apollo mission dropped from 100% to 40%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Your analysis of any any photographs involved, is totally irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC) (13) "While the Apollo missions gathered 380 kilograms of Moon rocks, the Soviet Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 robots gathered only 326 grams combined (that is, less than one-thousandth as much)." ... The total mass of the moon rocks given by US to various countries and accounted for is less than 326 grams and could have come form unmanned sample return US missions. Quote, "The U.S. distributed 270 moon rock samples in the 1970s as a goodwill gesture to countries around the world.... Apollo 11 samples were rice-sized chips, amounting to 0.05 grams. Apollo 17 samples were single stones, weighing 1.14 grams." (see, http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/tales-of-lunar-rocks-through-the-years/). No independent research, totally uncontrolled by US was done on the alleged large rocks brought from the moon surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.65.48 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) The overwhelming majority of reliable sources support the view that the Apollo landings happened. That then becomes the view of Wikipedia (see the pages on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT). Yes, a fringe minority contend otherwise, thus this article. These theories have been discussed and dismissed in detail so we do include that - again, it's about presenting views in relative weight to how they are covered in reliable sources. This isn't a place to discuss your views and your analysis. There are plenty of forums and blogs for that. Please, stick to what reliable sources cover on the subject. Ravensfire (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC) That Seattle Times article doesn't discuss any moon hoax theory. What reliable sources do you propose using? VQuakr (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC) You are now constructing your own theories and discussing what hasn't happened. This is original research and suggesting an opinion about what should happen. Neither belong on an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "No independent research, totally uncontrolled by US was done on the alleged large rocks brought from the moon surface." Our WP:FRINGE guidelines do not require this to support mainstrem views. I would go even further than OR and POV: conspiracy "theorists" who insist on promulgating the idea that NASA hoaxed the landings suffer from paranoid personality disorder, to wit: "tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;" "suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous"; "preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large." querulant behavior JustinTime55 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out, WP:FRINGE says WP must take the main stream view in general. We can then show each claim for the hoax theory and counterclaims. Ultimately, it is not up to WP to prove either viewpoint - only to show the major points of each viewpoint. The reader is then free to make up his/her/its own mind. Likewise, the talk page is also not for proving which view is right but is only meant to talk about improving the article. If a major hoax point is missing or needs some beefing up on either viewpoint then we discuss that. Trying to convince each other is a fruitless task that degenerates into name calling. Name calling is, of course, juvenile behaviour that signifies intelligent discussion has ended.

I propose that we step back and evaluate how to improve the article. Is there a specific point in the article that needs to be addressed? Remember, we are not trying to prove either side, only showing viewpoints.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Motivation for believing the hoax theory

The　article does not offer any explanation for why the hoax theory might be so widely accepted. I suggest that the following could be added. I am not making a claim for or against the particular theory; "this is not a forum" - yes I know.

I found myself reading some of the comments on conspiracy sites, and was struck by something I had never previously thought of: the common argument of a sort of "reverse Moore's law". The idea is that if people had been to the moon in 1969, by now, "obviously" space travel would be commonplace, and going to the moon, Mars or whatever would be just a bit more expensive than going to the other side of the earth. I think it would be useful to mention this in the introduction, but I'm not quite sure where to source it. It's part of a much more general observation that sci-fi books of half a century or more ago all made wildly optimistic predictions about travel, and all failed to predict the computing/communications revolution. At least this gives me a prediction: in about 50 years there will be a conspiracy theory that Concorde was a hoax. It will, obviously, stand to reason that if there had really been supersonic travel in the 20th century, there would by now (2060, remember) be round-the-world-in-80-minutes trips available for the cost of a haircut. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

An interesting hypothesis. Of course we'd have to source the theory somehow or it would be OR. My personal opinion is that it predominantly stems from the "The Government Is Evil" crowd who also are the chief proponents of the UFO hoaxes. Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708063431/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/kik.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kik.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Other theories

While this is all fringe and speculation, should we include other conspiracy theories, such that the astronauts spotted alien spacecraft on the moon or that secret moon missions continued after the Apollo program? Some people believe that, you know. Czolgolz (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The title of the article gives the scope of the article. This article should restrict itself to conspiracy theories about the moon landings and not drift off. Other conspiracy theories may (or may not) deserve their own pages.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Other conspiracy theories of finding aliens etc are far less notable and an entirely different kettle of fish. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarrah White

Suggest that under the section "Conspiracists and their contentions" you include the Australian Jarrah White and link to his youtube series titled "Moonfaker". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.168.145 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be just repeating claims already made by others. Nothing new. Also, his photographic expert seems to be looking at the photo for the first time and then asked for an opinion about perspective on shadows. She didn't have time to consider alternative explanations - only the explanation that was hinted at by the interviewer. Very unprofessional reporting.  Stepho  talk  07:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

LEM left no crater

Missing from this topic is that three of the four LEM foot pads had five foot 'probes' which shut off the engine while still in the 'air' to reduce the effect of the descent rocket blast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.28.238 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

True. Where would you suggest that this would need to be added in? Ckruschke (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Actually, the probes did not automatically "shut off the engines"; they simply lit a Contact Light on the instrument panel, which the LM Pilot annunciated to the Commander, who manually shut off the engine. Sometimes the engine would be shut off earlier or later than others. The intent was to avoid the exhaust gasses damaging the bottom of the LM, not to avoid disturbing the lunar surface. Also the probes were 5½ feet long. Our verifiability rules require that we don't speculate or make our own arguments. The absence of craters is adequately addressed by the reliable source already cited in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Mechanical issues item 1. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Great Moon Hoax

Maybe a link to the 19th-century Great Moon Hoax should be added.87.247.60.106 (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Van Allen Belts, cosmic radiation, lunar surface radiation, solar flares

This whole page gets straight into fiddly pictures and debatable claims about shadows, surely it's worth a good look at the #1 conspiracy theory and addressing that first????

Ask most doubters and they'll mention the radiation. They'll say that there was too much radiation for any manned space travel outside of earth. This wild theory relies on the fact that apart from Apollo, no one has been anywhere to visit anything except LEO, thus drawing the wild conclusion that no one can get beyond 500miles up without dying, and the anomalous travel - Apollo - was therefore faked.

The belts themselves are discussed here: Van Allen radiation belt

From that page the claims that "proton energies exceeding 50 MeV" have not been ratified and in fact the Apollo missions would have only been within the grip of the belts for 90 minutes. It's of huge benefit that the Apollo service, command and lunar modules were so ruggedly built with lo-tech equipment because today even in the ISS a laptop will crash as it brushes into the rather low altitude parts of the belt in the South Atlantic - known as the South Atlantic Anomaly.

If the aim of this page is to dispel the rumours of conspiracy nuts it's doing an extremely poor job at not even mentioning the hard radiation found in space, the multiple flares during the Apollo missions and how the thickness of the tanks, hull and the short timescale of the missions meant that a few days out in space next to The Sun isn't such a big deal. Proof of that of course is in the excellent health and longevity of the astronauts, thus proving that the radiation is quite manageable. If that radiation was half as bad as the hoaxers claims they'd have all dies of cancers years ago.

By ignoring the Van Allen belts this page simply plays into the hands of the conspiracy nuts, and while I'm sure they warrant a listen, it's surely not Wikipedia's job to supply their ammunition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.250.119 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The aim of this page is not to "dispel the rumours of conspiracy nuts". It is to document the Moon landing conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, perhaps that's not the stated aim, but by establishing the facts that's what happens, conspiracy nuts can't argue against the fact that we went, so this page needs to cover the factual state of the radiation environment. That the page makes no mention (that I could find) is highly suspicious and we need to have a complete page.

When I direct any hoaxer to this page they come straight back with the missing radiation argument. Why is it missing?? It's their main objection - duh! So much for balance.

It's a topical subject too because NASA is actually planning to measure the radiation (obviously the Apollo team measured it already but in only a few areas - we need to publish their results too), so we have solid references. See: NASA page on moon radiation

So you have failed to answer that basic question: Why does the Wikipedia page on moon landing conspiracy theories omit the most popular reason that these nuts say it was a hoax?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.244.117 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First - the way to get changes done is not to come to a page and say "you suck". This is typically a way to get your opinion ignored - so word to the wise for next time.

Second - your information is somewhat lacking as we've had several satellites that have measured the strength of the Van Allen belts so I'm not sure why you are stating that no work on it has been done since the early 70's. In addition, I seriously doubt that this is the most popular theory for the conspiracy nuts because it is very easily explained due to the very short time the astronauts spent in the belt and the protective nature of the water tanks and the hull of the CSM.

Finally I agree with Escape Orbit that the object of this page is not to dispel arguments - its merely to discuss them. I'm sorry that the page has allowed "all these crazies" to continue to believe stupid things, but that's not the intent of Wikipedia. There are several very good sites on the web that actively work to debunk Moon landing non-believers just fine and go into very intricate and specific scientific detail.

That being said, if you believe that strongly on the subject and have a suggested edit for what you would write and where it would go, put it up here on Talk and we'll look at it for you so that you can post your own "fix" to the content you see that's missing. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

"It is to document the Moon landing conspiracy theories." LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.133.114 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

FFS Wake up and smell the coffee!

This article about idiot theories is now 145MBs whereas the real article about the actual moon program is only 92MBs long.

This situation is just moronic. It also an indictment of the mindset of set of editors who laud it here.

They'd rather have an article about fake news and bullshit that is bigger than the actual facts..!!

Shocking. Utterly baffling and shocking. 81.132.7.170 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The main article was longer. But then some of it got erased by accident. Just like the telemetry tapes of "the most historic achievement of mankind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.133.114 (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There was only one type of moon landing (repeated a few times). But there are many, many crackpot theories. This article only gives an overview of each theory and a small rebuttal in order to dismiss it. What would you have us do? Cut each theory summary and rebuttal down even smaller so as to make it useless? Or leave theories out? Perhaps we could replace the whole article with the state "The moon landing was real - every other theory is junk !!!" but give no proof of any type? Do you have some form of concrete suggestion or do you just want to rant while leaving it up to others to do the actual work.  Stepho  talk  21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many articles about the Moon landing, other than the main one. There are articles about many pieces of hardware - the rockets, the command module, the lunar module, the lunar rover, the experiments left on the Moon, the launch pads, the VAB, the Crawler-transporter, Mission Control Center, tracking stations, the TV cameras used, the space suits, the rocket engines, and even each stage of the rocket, etc. There are articles about the Apollo program, each mission, each astronaut, etc. There are articles about the methods to get there. In total, the real thing is much larger. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The quality or value of an article is not measured in MBs. And since Wikipedia is not short of room, the size of this article has absolutely no impact on the size, or value, of others. Hope this clears up your bafflement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: actually, there were many types of moon landings (ie Luna, Ranger, Surveyor, Chang'e) as discussed at the linked article. OP: it's KB, not MB. Hopefully WP:SUMMARY clears up the rest. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101101224934/http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovstems.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovstems.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527201104/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128101904/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm to http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040041/http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3 to http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217205048/http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-98-13311 to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-98-13311
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221125347/http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg to http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615021549/http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/27jan_solarflares/ to http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/27jan_solarflares/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214030100/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/lost-moon-landing-tapes-discovered/ to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/lost-moon-landing-tapes-discovered/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224200322/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sovnding.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sovnding.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128204607/http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/12/fake-right.cfm to http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/12/fake-right.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522183404/http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm to http://braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602104844/http://vif2ne.ru/nvz/forum/archive/229/229340.htm to http://vif2ne.ru/nvz/forum/archive/229/229340.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why haven’t we returned?

I like the comment in the archives (Nov 2013) that it took 44 years to return to the South Pole (1912-1956). That author hoped this article could cite reasons why “we” haven’t returned to (the surface of) the moon.

Can it be addressed here? Why no (new) experiments? Why not robots (rovers)? Why not a one-man capsule? Is there any Wiki article with that info?

(I’m sure it’s in science journals and NASA reports, but I’d like a “Wiki” answer.)

MBG02 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories and returning to the moon are 2 different topics. Returning to the moon should not be handled on this page. But the short answer is that it is hard and expensive and there is no short term benefit attractive enough to politicians.  Stepho  talk  14:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As per User:Stepho-wrs's comment, I assume you're after a reason other than this - which would fit in nicely with the conspiracy theories?

I did a quick Google - it really comes down to cost:

[1] - Astronauts explain why nobody has visited the moon in more than 45 years - and the reasons are depressing

[2] - 40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Is It So Hard to Go Back?

[3] - Why getting back to the moon is so damn hard

[4] - Why Haven't We Been Back To The Moon?

Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Good list. But I really was expecting a Wiki answer (ie Wiki articles). MBG02 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You can always write that article yourself. It doesn't fit here in this particular article but I'm sure you could find a place for it somewhere on WP. Perhaps a section in Human spaceflight.  Stepho  talk  11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that "why haven't we returned to the Moon" would make an appropriate WP article. You might look at Canceled Apollo missions for some idea. Besides, "why haven't we returned to the Moon" assumes that we went there in the first place. :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps a "Why haven't we faked a second manned moon program?" article :)  Stepho  talk  09:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Other conspiracies

Is there a place for other conspiracies, aside from the landing being faked? I'm referring to some people's unsourced but fervent belief that the astronauts witnessed alien spacecraft both on the moon and in orbit, or that we've not returned to the moon because there are secret military bases up there. Bkatcher (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is List of conspiracy theories. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 08:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

it was in the middle of the cold war russia vs usa and they faked it so they could beat them. by ELI BARNES 76.8.253.178 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Begoon 14:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Clean up on hoax claims

Recent edits included, for instance, mention of non notables [5]. 2601:188:180:1481:F0D4:6F62:5E25:2367 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of non-notables from the recent addition "Moon Truthers". Tooncool64 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Discrepancies on the appearance of the Moon and "Moon Truthers""?

Someone has undone the addition of the "Moon Truthers" section. As you can see it is relevant to the page and sourced. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC), I have undone the edit, as i see no reason for a deletion, as it is properly sourced and edited per Wikipedia standards. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The first reference doesn't seem to say anything about a conspiracy theory and the second one doesn't say anything about the Moon being a hologram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, i'll concede. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference link broken

The link to reference [167] ("Did U.S. Astronauts Really Land on the Moon" (PDF) (Reissue (June 1977)). Washington, D.C.: NASA. February 14, 2001. Retrieved April 24, 2014.) is broken. I suggest for example updating to this URL: http://www.braeunig.us/space/pdf/lunar_landing.pdf (retrieved 01/07/2019) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcerio (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Resolved No need to alter the footnote - there's a copy of that PDF in the Internet Archive. I have added that link to the footnote. Thanks for pointing it out. --Krelnik (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible source

One giant ... lie? Why so many people still think the moon landings were faked - from the Guardian. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a good news article but it looks like our article already covers all of its points. I would be surprised if he hadn't used our article in his research.  Stepho  talk  22:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Politifact too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Add Bill Kaysing to list of experts that proves nasa and apollo missions are a hoax

Kaysing began work as the senior technical writer at Rocketdyne, starting on February 13, 1956. On September 24, 1956, he became a service analyst; starting September 15, 1958, he worked as a service engineer. Kaysing wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle,[6] which was self-published in 1976.[7] The book was republished in 2002 by Health Research Books. In his book, Kaysing introduced arguments which he said proved the Moon landings were faked.

Claims in the book and subsequent sources include:

NASA lacked the technical expertise to put a man on the Moon. The absence of stars in lunar surface photographs.[8] Unexplained optical anomalies in the photographs taken on the Moon.[9] The absence of blast craters beneath the Lunar Modules. He claimed that the rocket engines of the Lunar Modules should have generated an enormous dust cloud near their landing sites the final seconds of descent.[10] The mysterious death of Thomas Ronald Baron, a quality control and safety inspector for North American Aviation. The Dutch papers had questions regarding the "authenticity" of the Moon landings.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, we have an article on Bill Kaysing. Do have a read about him there, and learn that between the two editions of his book he completely changed his arguments as to why it was faked. The two books are very different. Not a strong position to argue from. And re your section title, NOBODY has proved the missions were a hoax. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It should also be noted that we don't have a "list of experts that proves nasa and apollo missions are a hoax" because not a single person has proven they were a hoax. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are we even having this conversation? Not only does Kaysing have his own article, (which the OP already knows, because that's where they got the wall of text above,) but he has significant mention in the origin section as well: Origins and is scattered throughout the entire article. What exactly is the OP wanting to be done? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's a real stretch to call Kaysing an "expert". He had a degree in English and appears to have been mostly employed to write documentation and possibly a tech of some sort. He also left Rocketdyne in 1963, just as the development of the Saturn V and LEM were commencing. His opinions hardly constitute a "smoking gun".KaturianKaturian 22:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

... the longstanding large sections of text—entire paragraphs and subsections—that are completely unsourced. WP articles lose credibility when the dedicated editor's of particular articles allow text to creep in the direction of partially sourced, just-trust-us tomes, or when longstanding unsourced blocks of text are not replaced with actual verifiable content in a timely way. The first question we ask students when they bring WP content to us—to what degree are the editor's following their own WP:VERIFY guideline? This very important article repeatedly fails this test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:5092:4410:3EF3:2956 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And since the article is write-protected, please attend, even in this period of high interest, to basics regarding article appearance that bear on perceived reliabiity—including bare URLs (e.g., ref. 85 at this timestamp). Addressing these more minor flaws are often as easy as a redaction, or placing an appropriate article tag (to bring in individuals dedicated to correct such issues). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.0.28 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do something about

... Point 12 in the Photographic & Film Oddities section which states that "The TV camera was then powered on and a signal transmitted to the command module, which beamed the live signal back to Earth." That is clearly wrong since the signal from the lunar surface would then have been lost when the orbiting CSM passed around the far side of the Moon; what NASA called LOS (loss of signal). The signal from tha LM camera was actually beamed directly to Earth. See https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/moon-to-living-room-apollo-11-broadcast although there may be better sources. It's urgent that this be rectified asap as, given the current high level of interest, it's extremely important to have a reliable source for discrediting "it was all a fake" type claims. An error such as this is manna from heaven to conspiracy theorists for obvious reasons. Thanks 82.25.248.206 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Done Good catch. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

On Neutrality

Just my thoughts on reading this article.

Specifically the "Rebuttals" section, But also for example the "Vietnam War" Section:

Quote: "In fact, the ending of the landings was not "sudden" (see The Space Race above). The war was one of several federal budget items with which NASA had to compete; NASA's budget peaked in 1966, and fell by 42.3% by 1972.[77] This was the reason the final flights were cut, along with plans for even more ambitious follow-on programs such as a permanent space station and crewed flight to Mars.[78]"

It isn't really written with any neutrality if the article is going to extend itself to debunking arguments. Neutrality would have to concede that the contributors to this article have no first hand knowledge of these events and are engaging in argument based on their personal faith in graphic evidence and written reports. Neutrality would suggest that it at least be conceded that an event as monumental as this with the technology of the day is bound to raise some doubts. And leave it at that. But there is an almost frantic rush not to just report these theories but to debunk them at every point, and that, clearly, is not a neutral position. To any sceptic, this level of damage control mentality only gives more credence to the conspiracy theory itself. APDEF (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary. Failing to debunk these would be a break of neutrality. Keep in mind, WP:N does not mean that both sides get equal treatment. It means the scientific consensus is the neutral position, with fringe theories being treated as such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The program was ending anyway. After 1969 the missions were farther apart. NASA had ordered 15 Saturn Vs, so the program was scheduled to end. One of the Saturn Vs was diverted for Skylab, which caused the cancellation of Apollo 20. Two more missions were cancelled, see cancelled Apollo missions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

APDEF - Neutrality does not mean you need to support an absurd theory. Saying the budget was slashed and the program was truncated because of it isn't "damage control" - its a statement of fact. Ckruschke (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

• "Neutrality would suggest that it at least be conceded that an event as monumental as this with the technology of the day is bound to raise some doubts." No one doubted it at the time, except flat-Earthers and a few nuts like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You know, at the end of the day, it comes down to what you believe vs what someone else chooses to believe. "Facts" that you have no firsthand knowledge of are at the end of the day stuff you believe. You can call them "facts" if your definition of facts is "what I and almost everyone else believe". Personally, I also choose to believe in the Moon Landings, but I am not going to beat other people over the head with my beliefs and call the people idiots and my beliefs facts. Like you, I have faith in media reports and evidence which I have no way of verifying in my lifetime. But I'm more cautious with not representing everything I believe as infallible and unquestionable. Nothing is beyond question. Personally I think the assertion that it is your duty to use a Wiki page to actively engage and debunk people's beliefs to be proof of your lack of neutrality, and the fact that one of you threw in "Flat Earthers" to back up his position with a straw man just illustrates it. The assertion that nobody doubted the moon landing at the time except Flat Earthers... is that more fact or just being so invested in this life and death mission to debunk that you will assert anything? I see where you stand, and wish you well. Peace. APDEF (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I was the one that said that only people like the flat-Earthers didn't believe in the Moon landing at the time. I was around, and it was only people with such a lack of understanding that doubted the Moon landing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You are utterly failing to understand our WP:Fringe theories content guideline, or the essence of our WP:Neutral point of view policy, which does not require giving equal credence to such "theories"; I would advise you to review these documents. (Pay particular attention to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight)

"Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." The hoax conspiracy theories cannot meet this requirement: they are based on ignorant assumptions (e.g. "technology of the day") and refusal to accept the sources which document the landings as reliable.

It's also a wretched philosophy of life to go around in a constant state of doubt about what one believes. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I'd have said their failure to "go around in a constant state of doubt about what one believes" is precisely what is wrong with conspiracy theorists and their ilk.

2A02:560:4269:C200:FDC8:4F0D:5DA5:F753 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand "...the technology of the day is bound to raise some doubts". Are people just unaware of the Saturn V, the Apollo command and service module, the Lunar module, and all of the support on the ground - the launch pad, Mission Control Center, NASA Deep Space Network, etc? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

They're referring to "we have much better technology now and we can't get to the moon, therefore they couldn't have made it with old rockets and a pocket-calculator computer!" BS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a rather odd way of looking at it. What technology they didn't have, they built. They had the technology they needed at the time. It was designed and built for the purpose of going to the Moon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, I know. It's a backwards concept of "Well, we haven't done it recently, and our tech is better, therefore they couldn't have done it back then." Same kind of mindset that says humans couldn't have possibly built the pyramids ourselves, because they didn't have construction cranes back then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Death of Brian Welch

I do not understand why Brian Welch is included in the list of deaths of personnel connected to the manned spaceflight program. He did not start working for Nasa until 1979, and was directly connected to the shuttle program from 1984 until 1993. - Donald Albury 20:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Mr Welch was "Director of Media Services" and we are dealing with media, or are we ordering parts for a new rocket? He handled the PR for NASA after it was attacked by some as being a fake - his job was to protect the story of this event and thus RELEVANT to the whole discussion. It could be argued that his job was the most important of all those at NASA since he held the top position not for years but over decades. It was not ME who included his name on the list of dead - I was just giving relevant details of his position and his exact date of departure. You prefer to hide this information from us? OK, then remove it. Nothing new there. kk (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 2056

Well, they needed as many cases as they could get. That's the way of pseudoscience. It does not need to make sense to reasonable people, they are not the target audience. Removing people from the list because they do not make sense is the wrong approach because all of them will have to be removed. Also, there is a number given, and it should either match the list or the list should be replaced by examples. But the choice who to include should be made by reliable secondary sources, not by Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As Hob Gadling indicates, we would need at least a reliable source indicating that there has been a claim that Welch's death is tied somehow to a cover-up, and then we would have to decide how that would be treated in the article, if at all. - Donald Albury 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what Donald and Hob are saying here. As a scientist I cannot bring myself to waste time here arguing with others who clearly hold deep views on this matter. Change it as you wish. I have no interest in trying to convince you that the chief director of PR in NSA was relevant to the stories that have gathered around this event.I am just adding relevant material and you can send it to NASA to ask them if they think that it should be removed. Clearly some of you are very concerned about this story and there are no doubt dozens of supporters of NASA who will come along and change things to suit their viewpoint. Whatever the result the facts remain and the truth cannot be destroyed. I've done my bit and leave it to the "pseudoscientists" to fiddle the result to their liking. kk (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 21 19

Wikipedia has a very clear policy that anything in an article must be verifiable from reliable sources. While not every item needs a citation to a reliable source when added to Wikipedia, a reliable source must be cited supporting the item if the item is challenged. In this case, since the relevance of Brian Welch's death to the subject of the article has been challenged, then a reliable source showing the relevance of his death to the subject of the article must be provided, or mention of his death will be removed from the article. By the way, while NASA can request changes to any article about the agency, as can the subject of any Wikipedia article, they do not have the final say about what is or is not in the article. Also, please be careful who you label as "pseudoscientists", as that might be interpreted as casting aspersions. - Donald Albury 21:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I was under the impression Welch was included because he was mentioned in the Fox program. VQuakr (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:If someone can provide a link to the mention of Welch's death and how it relates to a cover-up in that program, we can consider it. Note, though, that the general consensus, recorded at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources, is that, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." A consensus on whether to use such a link in this article will have to decided here. - Donald Albury 23:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: The Fox source I was alluding to is the "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" program. It isn't a RS for anything except its own contents. Upon further scrutiny, Welch provided an interview for the program; he passed before it aired. So it is unlikely that the program uses his death to promote a moon landing conspiracy theory. Given the absence of sourcing connecting Welch to a conspiracy theory, I agree it should be omitted. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:Thank you for digging into that. I apologize for preaching to you in my previous post. - Donald Albury 02:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The point of this article is to document existing conspiracy theories, not construct them. Unless there is a reliable source that speaks of Brian Welch and the Apollo landings, explaining what the conspiracy theory is, he does not belong on this page. A source that merely documents who he was, and his passing, is original synthesis. His appearance in a Fox TV programme doesn't really count as involvement, if he is only commenting on the conspiracy theories, and if the programme itself doesn't accuse him of involvement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Photographic and film oddities correction

In the section where it talks about the angle and color of the shadows of the moon, i wanted to add that, if there were infact more than one light source, then we would be see double shadows in the photos. In the section where it talks about the supposed identical backgrounds, if you actually obvserve correctly, they do show differences. You can even use parallax to show that they are three dimensional. Also, there are many video footage taken on the lunar rover where we can see that the background does indeed shift, disproving the idea that they're backdrop paintings. ( the fact that they appear to consistently remain three dimensional in the footage is alredy proof that it can't be a painted backdrop. ) In the section talking about the 'hot spots' in the Buzz aldrin photo, the section of soil that Buzz was standing on is actually exposed lunar rock ( which is much brighter than lunar soil ). This is evidenced by the fact that in other pictures this 'spot' is a line aswell as the footage that we have of the LM landing and blowing away the surrounding lunar dust.

I also wanted to add the supposed claim that in one photo of the lunar module, the shadow that it emits seems to be touching the horizon, proving that the horizon is actually a backdrop and that the moon landing was done in a really small stage. The most common and logical rebutal is that the horizon in the picture is actually the border of a nearby double crater.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Apollo_11_Lunar_Lander_-_5927_NASA.jpg https://astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov/download/Moon/Apollo/Traverse/AP11trav.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.54.118 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Could we have a section on why this particular conspiracy theory is so popular (assuming it is)?

Could we have a section on why this particular conspiracy theory is so popular (assuming it is)? I think it would arguably improve the article, provided of course that Reliable Sources can be found about this particular aspect of the topic. I suspect one reason may be that it strangely seems to arguably suit both anti-American interests (for obvious reasons, hence the conspiracy theory is taught in Cuba, at least according to our article) and pro-American interests - because it is a big interesting topic but one that can easily be debunked, thereby making people ("once bitten twice shy") reluctant to believe other anti-American conspiracy theories (whether true or false or somewhere in between), which obviously suits America. But unfortunately the later possibility just might make reliable sources on that aspect of the topic hard for our editors to come by, at least in the USA (but perhaps also in many other countries), as if there was a US policy to promote the theory in order to make people skeptical about similar theories, then such a policy might be barred from being discussed publicly (at least in the US, and perhaps also in other countries that didn't want to upset the US) by any US equivalent of Britain's DA Notice policy (always assuming that such a US equivalent exists and can be publicly discussed, with perhaps also similar questions regarding other countries). However, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm currently not sufficiently interested to try to create such a section myself, but I'm mentioning it here in the hope that other more interested editors might have a go themselves. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Here https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked is a longish Guardian article focussing on the psychology behind it. Maybe someone want's to compress it into bite size? --Syzygy (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

How is NASA a 3rd party in this?

NASA LRO does not belong in == Third-party evidence of Moon landings == as NASA is not a 3rd party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmesolis (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Rather than edit-war over this, it may be better to move the LRO information into another section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I won't edit-war, but it should really be moved or something. Callmesolis (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The LRO isn't made by NASA. It was launched by NASA, but it was built by the Arizonian state university, and all the data is sent there. So yes, LRO could be considered 2nd-3rd party. D2Owiki (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does this info come from? From the LRO article: Operator: NASA; Manufacturer: NASA/GSFC. Callmesolis (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from yes the LRO itself is definitely NASA. NASA funded, NASA launched and NASA assembled. However not all the instruments on it are NASA, and several belong to other entities. The LROC (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera) was built, and is operated by the Arizona State University and isn't a NASA instrument. Canterbury Tail talk 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a different program, separated by four decades. I'd be open to tweaking the section name, but blanket removal is not the solution. VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Four more rehearsal photographs

http://www.xenophon.org.uk/apollo11.html 86.187.234.88 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the suits are somewhat saggy instead of the pressurised balloon look and that faces are easily visible without the sun visors.  Stepho  talk  22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Grumman Documents

I was shocked to read Grumman's documentation is mostly destroyed, as I have several reports I wrote there until leaving in 1966 to write canned shows for a planetarium manufacturer. They been sitting on a livingroom shelf since 1978. Unique today? Thomas Wm. Hamilton 2603:7000:6A01:AD31:184:C658:AC00:D035 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you might have a bit of history there. Might want to contact someone at NASA, Grumman, or perhaps the National Air and Space Museum. That said, this is off topic for editing the Wikipedia page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes - think about a museum or the National Archives. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

I want to add something that I saw in a video game which I thought is related to the moon landing conspiracy theories. Delta-one-X-ray (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if this were specific enough to act on it: No. You need a reliable source. "I saw something" is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Lheureux" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lheureux and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Lheureux until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukebbaldwin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths

Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths is a disingenuous analogy - only 4 USSR personnel died before the Apollo 11 launch; NASA had almost three times as many during the same period (11). Saying these instances are "similar" is a stretch. The NASA deaths say a lot about the state/dangers of the Apollo program. 2600:1700:1E13:A810:DC6F:97A2:2888:5A07 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on lede

I am calling on MrOllie, I am A Leaf, and Robby.is.on to cease edit warring and return the text to the status quo ante. This is textbook WP:POINTY behavior. Leave the final decision to page watchers who are uninvolved. Sennalen (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Sennalen (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia - I am not doing this to be disruptive or to score points on another talk page. I firmly believe this is an improvement. And an improvement is worth implementing no matter who the idea came from. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Importing disputes is disruptive, even if you believe you are on the right side of the dispute. This article was cited as a positive example of how to frame a lede. Your choice to follow that link and mar exactly the text that was being held up as a positive example was WP:POINTY. Further, edit warring is inherently disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's quite an extreme position. I doubt you would find consensus that a mention of an article on some other talk page would then make editing that article off limits to those who read the comment. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a strawman of what WP:POINT is about. Sennalen (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

But it seems to be a pretty exact depiction of your interpretation of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

if its a straw man they've made it nearly identical to your argument to the point where they're indistinguishable. Was your argument a straw man the whole time? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If an opposing lawyer in a court said "the defendant falsely claimed ..." then the judge would stop him immediately and ask him to rephrase. Determining whether the claim was false or not is the point of the trial and cannot be presupposed. The same should apply here. We state what was claimed. Then we look into the supporting facts and only after this proof do we say true or false.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think so too. With "falsely" taken out, it still says that "conspiracy theories claim...", with a link to CT, so those who do not know what a CT is can click on it and see that thy are false, by nature. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, and the lede of an article is not a lawyer's plea. If you do not want spoilers, don't read Wikipedia ledes, because they are supposed to summarize the article. Your reasoning is invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats not how leads work on wikipedia... They're a summary of the article not an introduction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What if we told readers a bunch of straight up lies, and then at the end of the article - we tell them the whole page is a hoax and that they should learn how to do their own research! What do they think this is? An encyclopedia or something? 58.7.108.95 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Donald Albury 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

References

How did they get off the Moon?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Landing is one thing but how did they managed to get BACK to earth?????! 2600:1011:B12C:4342:F457:3EC:2626:383 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Apollo Lunar Module, particularly the section titled Ascent stage. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The top half of the lunar lander (the ascent stage) took the 2 astronauts back to lunar orbit to rendezvous with the command module. It was then discarded. It was much smaller than the Saturn V rocket because it had less mass to haul up and the moon is 1/6 the mass of Earth, so the ascent stage was fighting less gravity. The Saturn V had to lift everything and fight against the much larger mass of the Earth. Both the mass to lift and the mass to fight against are exponential (double the mass and you quadruple the problem), so lightness helped a lot.

Once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module (and the lunar model discarded), the command module fired its engine to return. The command module leaving lunar orbit was much smaller than what left Earth orbit and was also fighting the smaller gravity of the moon rather than the larger gravity of the Earth. In fact, after a short while the Earth was pulling the command module (gravity tends to do that), so the command module only needed enough energy to leave lunar orbit (technically, it only raised its lunar orbit high point enough for the Earth gravity to dominate over lunar gravity and then let the Earth gravity do its thing).  Stepho  talk  05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See Lunar orbit rendezvous. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How did they risk the lives of the astronauts? What if there was a technical issue that arose on the moon? There would be no way back.

It is clear to most logical thinkers that NASA would not have sent the astronauts on a mission with even a small chance of failure. It would have been a PR catastrophe and extremely unethical. In all my time researching this issue, I have never seen a satisfactory response to this point.

To argue that there wasn't a small chance of failure is ludicrous. The lunar landing alone (without an atmosphere to slow the craft down) relied on untested and extremely complex technology. Even 50 years later unmanned craft have a poor record on moon landings. See Beresheet and Japanese moon lander . And even had the moon landing gone to plan the craft would have to have landed in a perfectly aligned manner on a totally flat surface to have even the slightest chance of relaunching. This would have been known to mission planners and there is no way they could possibly take such a massive risk. 185.182.71.18 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

NASA knew there was a risk. So did the astronauts. They had all seen the results of the Apollo 1 fire and they decided to continue on anyway. They did all they could to mitigate the risks down to a sensible level but nobody deluded themselves into thinking that there was no risk. In fact, each mission had several prepared speeches for when things did go wrong. These covered things like if the vehicle crashed, if they got stuck on the moon, if they got stuck in orbit, if the craft lost all its oxygen, etc. They also had multiple backup system where possible and did massive training to cover practically every eventuality. Eg, the LM lifeboat technique that saved the lives onboard Apollo 13 was initially a theoretical exercise that was never expected to be used but they practised it anyway - just in case. There is no such thing as zero risk in such an environment at the leading edge of technology and they all knew it.

Also, the majority of pilots were from the armed forces that knew all about risk. Many of them came from flight testing centres where the risk of dying is even higher than the rest of the armed forces - testing new aircraft with new, untried technology. Risk was their constant companion.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to what Stepho said, here is a NASA assesment of the risks involved in the Apollo and Shuttle programs. Donald Albury 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Plus the equipment and Lunar Module were extensively tested in flying conditions. Many forget things like the Apollo 10 mission, which flew to the Moon in order to take the Apollo Lunar Module out for a test drive. Successfully completing four lunar orbits on its own, unattached to the Command Module, astronauts Stafford and Cernan then docked, proving that an independent LEM could complete all phases of its mission. An interesting nugget: NASA did not give the Apollo 10 Lunar Module enough fuel to land and take-off, as they were a bit worried that the astronauts, seeing the Moon so near beneath them, would decide to break-mission, mutiny, and land for the historical first exploration. Stafford and Cernan could have done so if they had the fuel, and the success of Apollo 10 proved that it was possible to fly, maneuver, and function relatively safely within the Apollo Lunar Module, setting the stage for Apollo 11 and beyond. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

New Section

Would it be possible to include an "In Popular Culture" section with the following information? :-

In the 2024 film " Fly Me to the Moon", a NASA director hires a marketing specialist brought in to fix NASA's public image and stage a "back-up" plan for a fake moon landing in case the transmission from the real moon landing fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe but probably not? While "In Popular Culture" sections used to be popular, they're becoming less so. Wikipedia isn't a place for random trivia, after all. If Fly Me to the Moon and real-life Moon landing conspiracy theories are widely connected in reliable, secondary, independent sources, then it's best to incorporate that into the article somewhere. Woodroar (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)