Jump to content

Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Saturn 5?

b) Hoax proponents say that blueprints for the Apollo lunar module, rover and associated equipment are missing or never existed.

  • Jeff Foust of The Space Review [18], the sci.space FAQ, [19] and the AFU and Urban Legends Archive [20] report that it is an urban legend that the Saturn V blueprints are missing, and that they are on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
I havn't seen anyone claim that the Saturn five blueprints are missing (at least, not the moon hoax people) - can someone explain why this is even here? It is the Apollo module and rover that they claim are missing, and those do seem to be missing. Carfiend 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this: * Jeff Foust of The Space Review [1], the sci.space FAQ, [2] and the AFU and Urban Legends Archive [3] report that it is an urban legend that the Saturn V blueprints are missing, and that they are on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. In addition, Paul Shawcross (of NASA's Office of Inspector General) says that some 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents are stored in the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia. [4] (Note that the East Point archives were transferred to a new facility in Morrow, Georgia in 2005.) [5].
since I can't find any evidence that hoax proponents say Sat 5 prints are missing. Carfiend 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that may be the case, but if so I'd say you should remove the claim that the blueprints for the Rover appear to be missing unless you can provide a NASA (or similarly definitive) source to that effect. I know there's a link to a web site, but the claim is from some unidentified poster saying that the blueprints aren't on NASA's web site... hardly a conclusive and verifiable source. In any case, this suffers from exactly the same problems as the other blueprint claims, in that lack of blueprints says nothing about the existence of the hardware. Mark Grant 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make sure that statement is attributed. Carfiend 20:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's better. Mark Grant 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, these people claim to have LEM blueprints: http://www.space1.com/About_Us/Our_Approach/Drawing_Archive/drawing_archive.html and included part of one on that page. Mark Grant 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read carefully, they don't really claim to have the full blueprints - I couldn't find them anywhere on the site. Carfiend 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No, but they claim to have built their LEM simulator based on '200 Grumman drawings'. That would be difficult if they didn't exist. Mark Grant 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So where are they? Carfiend 23:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ask Grumman. Do you honestly believe that every document ever created is available on the web, like the guy claiming the LRV blueprints don't exist because he couldn't find them on NASA's web site? Mark Grant 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We're supposed to believe that they exist without any proof being offered? Gravitor 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So do I take it we should believe that don't exist because some guy can't find them on a NASA web site? Do you think you can find the Ford Capri blueprints on Ford's web site? (heck, maybe you can, I haven't looked for them: but equally I wouldn't claim that Ford Capris didn't exist just because I couldn't find the blueprints on that site) Mark Grant 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Have you see one lately? Wahkeenah 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Haven't seen a Capri for about three months, but if I wanted to I could find one in a car museum any time I felt like it. Similarly, I believe there's at least one LRV in a museum, which any Apollo-denier could visit. If they believe that lack of blueprints on the web means no LRVs were built, I guess their head would explode at that point in a tsunami of cognitive dissonance. I don't know whether there are any actual flight-worthy LEMs in museums. Mark Grant 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on there being any flight-worthy LEM's around, since most of them would be on the moon. If an Apollo-denier claims the Saturn V was never built, then the citizens of Cocoa Beach and other places who watched them take off must have been watching an image projected onto the clouds. Wahkeenah 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspect all the flight-worthy LEMs were used in lunar missions too, however given a couple were cancelled fairly late on the LEMs may have been at least partially completed. Mark Grant 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears the Apollo 18 LEM is in a museum... guess we can make new blueprints from that one if Grumman can't find them :) : http://www.cradleofaviation.org/exhibits/space/lm-13/index.html Mark Grant 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is not whether you think it's important, but that, since these are publicly owned documents, why are they not publicly available? If they exist, they should be easy to find. If NASA went to the moon, these documents should exist. If they simply mocked up the fakes, you would not expect them to want to produce blueprints or nav tapes, because errors would become apparent on close examination. Gravitor 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Apollo is more than 30 years old, and maybe they just don't feel like posting every last tedious detail on their website. Are there shuttle blueprints on the site? I don't know, but if there aren't, does that mean the shuttle does not exist? 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If they exist, they should be easy to find Why? I mean that as a serious question: this is 1960s technology, printed on paper, maybe transferred to microfilm, that no-one plans to use again. Why should it be 'easy to find'? In particular, why would they be on the web? And lastly, what difference would it make? Somewhere in my parents' house I still have a set of blueprints of the USS Enterprise from Star Trek: does that mean that the Enterprise exists? Or does the fact that they're not 'easy to find' mean that the Enterprise doesn't exist? Mark Grant 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the statement "if they exist, they should be easy to find" is untrue. How many times have you lost a sock in the laundry? It obviously exists, so why can't you find it? Also, as I and others have said repeatedly, the existence or non-existence of the blueprints has nothing to do with whether Apollo was real or not. You can draw a blueprint for anything, it doesn't mean the object exists. The blueprints question is just another red herring thrown out there by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that NASA want's a get out of jail free card for having 'lost' all of the detailed evidence that they havn't faked yet. The fact is that if they went, this stuff should exist. It's not like my sock drawer - this was a big deal at the time, and the science data and engineering drawings should exist. It's ridiculous to just say 'oh, they're somewhere, don't worry about it' and expect the question to go away. Gravitor 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if they turned up, what difference would it make? Wahkeenah 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, ya know what? Instead of badgering us, why don't you contact NASA directly, and ask them why the blueprints aren't online? While you're at it, check and see if shuttle blueprints are also online. Also, what about Mercury, Gemini, Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab? If Mercury is there and Apollo is not, then you might be onto something. Wahkeenah 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'badgering you'. I'm helping to write an article on the apollo moon landing hoax accusations. There are accusations made on various site, and in books, by hoax proponents, this page is about reporting what they say, and what NASA and it's defenders say in response. Please don't feel badgered! Gravitor 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel badgered, no worries. But I still want to know why you think the presence or absence of blueprints has anything to do with this article. Neither their presence nor their absences proves anything either way. Wahkeenah 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The quest for the tapes and blueprints is probably not of much interest to those who are religiously attached to either postion (pro or anti). They do provide the equivalent of an 'alibi' for NASA though - if they had the telemetry tapes, it would pretty much proove that they went, because they would be so difficult to fake convincingly. Those interested in the truth want them because of that. Without them, it's not that there's proof of guilt, but it does look suspicious, and warrent more investigation. Gravitor 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not religiously attached to any position except facts. I keep waiting for the cons to come up with something to contradict the historical record, and they haven't done it. Moreover, I get offended by their approach, which is filled with ignorance and willful deceptions, all the while claiming to be innocent little lambs. The telemetry tapes might be useful, assuming they are even readable after 30-35 years. Maybe they are sitting next to the Lost Ark in some warehouse. The blueprints would be interesting, but their presence or absence proves nothing. If they turned up, the cons would simply claim they are fakes, so it doesn't matter either way. Wahkeenah 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, another thing: What basis does anyone have for saying it "looks suspicious"? How much stuff from 35 years ago is still floating around? Labeling as suspicious, in the article anyway (which no one has overtly done yet) constitutes original research and point-of-view bias... because there is no contextual basis for declaring it any more suspicious than anything else from 35 years ago that's not around. Wahkeenah 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The historical record from what NASA says was the first time people left earth orbit? No, nothing significant about that. Toss it with the garbage. As often is the case with NASA shills, you are accusing people of things they have not done. Frankly I find it hard to imagine why anyone would not be interested in keeping this data. In fact, as you point out, other people are interested in keeping it, but, interestingly, NASA wants to destroy the only machine that could read it. Are you up for a wager? I'm betting NASA's pretty determined to destroy that machine.... Gravitor 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, NASA couldn't care less what the moon hoaxster cons think. The hoaxsters like to think that NASA does care, as it feeds their fantasy. Wahkeenah 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it seems they couldn't care less about record keeping too - that annoys more than the hoax advocates. Gravitor 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Write to your congressman. Wahkeenah 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea: I'm sure NASA would love to see their record-keeping budget substantially increased. Mark Grant 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
They are probably in Area 51, the top secret government site that everyone knows about. That facility is where they also have Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, and a large collection of unmatched socks. Wahkeenah 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The latter fact is causing the government some heat due to the site not being SOX compliant. Wahkeenah 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
seriously, why are you so unconcerned about the actual facts of the case here - surely, actually having the telemetry tapes would be a huge coup for the landing believers, and yet they seem startlingly unconcerned with actual evidence, instead telling people 'just believe'. Carfiend 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it would not be a "huge coup" for those who already accept the historical record and what they saw with their own eyes. That's not to say it wouldn't be interesting. But to the hoaxsters, it's irrelevant, because they will say those items are fake. So it would be a wash. Wahkeenah 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying - the tapes have value for those who have not already adopted a religious position irrespective of the evidence. Plus, when you say they saw it with their own eyes, that's not true. They saw it on TV. I, for one, don't believe everything I see on tv. You keep wanting to speak for the hoax proponents, I think you should stick to articulating your story, and try to do that well, instead of trying to put words into others' mouths. Carfiend 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The tapes are only of any real value for the video footage they contain, or to a small extent for any useful information they might contain for building the next generation of lunar spacecraft. That's the reason why they've been stuffed away somewhere and never looked at for decades: no-one has any use for the other data on the tapes, and until recently they thought the standards-converted video footage we do have was as good as the original footage on those tapes. It's only people who don't understand spaceflight who think there's anything else of great important on there. People who'd claim that a real, actual LEM isn't as convincing as a few blueprints aren't going to be convinced that people went to the Moon because they can now see that Glycol Evaporator 2 Temperature was 137.5F at MET 134:07:56... which is the kind of useless information which fills up most of the tapes. Mark Grant 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
They are evidence that NASA actually built it. You keep saying it's a real LEM, but you only have NASA's word for it, not any independent verification. It's an article of faith for you. Again, please don't try to put words into others' mouths. You know perfectly well it is not the temparature of the evaporator at any given point, but the huge effort in faking ALL of that data. It looks like NASA doesn't want to have to go to the effort of trying to fake it all! Carfiend 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. You're not helping your case by pretending that LM-13 doesn't exist, or that you'd be able to tell that telemetry tapes were faked, you know. Mark Grant 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if you feel that the information should be available, you can make a Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to NASA. They will charge you the minimum fee for duplicating the drawings/tapes/film and mail it to you. If you are unwilling to do this, then it's time to go. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As your claims that this is a hoax rely on tens of thousands conspiring to keep the largest secret ever, they are pretty extraordinary. It is not the job of those who have scientific training or engineering backgrounds to prove a positive to you, it is up to _you_ to take steps to prove your claims to us. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on so many levels. The tens of thousands figure was made up by Phil Plait (see below). A FOI would not help, since NASA have admitted that they DON'T have the data (see the article). Carfiend 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it me, or is Astronaught's, uh, sorry, Carfiend's neutrality mask slipping? Adhib 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's right - when you run out of places to hide on the facts, accuse people of being sockpuppets. Carfiend 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He does seem to have been getting increasingly desperate lately. Mark Grant 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's clear to me that Carfiend's interpretation of that little gag proves he is indeed a sockpuppet. Comparison of identical spelling mistakes the two 'separate' logicians have made raises reasonable doubt. Carfiend's denial is entirely unscientific. Come on, Carfiend, prove scientifically that you are not the sophist formerly known as Astronaught! JOKE! Adhib 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(For the record, I don't bother arguing the "facts": For reasons I spelled out quite clearly in the material recently 'archived', that's a fool's errand, one I recently grew out of. I stand here on matters of methodology - the robustness of the theoretical tools with which one sets about compiling a case. I see no evidence that the research methods of Apollo deniers are qualitatively different to those of Holocaust deniers. I look forward to being offered some such evidence, and in the meantime find I feel no compulsion to seek hiding places. Adhib 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Gravitor

Nice to see someone else contributing here, but you might want to add sources for some of your additions. Mark Grant 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I did - which ones don't? Gravitor 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
although NASA states that only a couple of pounds were actually picked up by astronauts, the rest being collected automatically for example. Mark Grant 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wonder what, exactly, that is supposed to mean. "Collected automatically" by what? An arm on the lunar rover? Also, the issue of the neutral point has been debated here before. It would either be on this page or on one of the archives. I think Bubba concluded that the so-called "facts" about it were out of whack. Wahkeenah 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Would that be during his original research? Let's have a genuine scientist, not 'Bubba'. Gravitor 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In reading the posting on the neutral point, it makes no sense. Someone needs to do some actual research on this instead of blindly quoting several contradictory websites. The moon does not have 64 percent of the earth's gravity, unless all my science teachers lied to me. Wahkeenah 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that website a few weeks ago and it was so ridiculous, I didn't see the need to respond to it. I did comment about it on the talk page here - how the neutral point has nothing to do with the surface gravity. The surface gravity of the moon is almost exactly 1/6 of the surface gravity on earth. It is 0.1654 of earth, 1/6 = 0.1667. Bubba73 (talk), 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The accusation is being made by a hoax investigation website. It's not your job, but rather someone independent to respond to it. If we do the research that is original research, which is not allowed. Find someone from NASA or one of their friends who has looked into it. Gravitor 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
However, we should take care not to post "info" that we either don't understand or do know to be false. Wahkeenah 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know it to be false. I havn't seen any refutation of it. If you have one, please post it. Gravitor 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Then you don't know it to be true, either. Why would you post something here (or anywhere) if you don't have at least some intuition as to its truth value? Wahkeenah 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, what exactly is that paragraph trying to prove? That there's some notable disagreement about where the "neutral point" is? Any grade schooler could tell you that the moon is nowhere near 64 percent of the earth's gravity, so any calculation that suggests that is obviously wrong. Also, the "neutral point" is not a "point", it's a range. According to my World Almanac, the perigee and apogee vary from 225,744 miles to 251,966 miles. So the neutral point is also going to vary by over 10 percent. Wahkeenah 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
According to one page I saw where a guy did some math, based on the inverse-square law, the neutral point should be about 9/10 of the way to the moon, or between 22,500 and 25,000 miles or some such. Also, now I see what you're getting at, that every measurement taken by astronomers that demonstrated the relative masses of the moon and earth are now to be considered invalid because of something that someone supposedly reported in 1969. I'm seeing that assertion parroted all over the Internet. Someone needs to go back to the source and see if they really said that, or if this is just another lie by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I see where Bubba73 made his initial comments, still on this page, and quoting that same statement that many have parroted about 43,000 miles or whatever. His comment reminded me that the path to the moon was not a straight line, but rather a curved trajectory, so it is perfectly obvious that there is no mystery about this at all, it's just another example of the ignorance and/or deception constantly practiced by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In short, it's false. I can either take it out or post the explanation. Which would you prefer? Wahkeenah 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and posted the explanation. Since it is effectively now in the typical question-and-answer format, it could theoretically be moved to the question-and-answer section. The one missing piece is the 1973 E.B. statement. I would like to know whether that's true, or if it's just another hoaxster con fabrication; and what the E.B. says currently. (Maybe you get the idea I don't believe a word they say. Their 2001 Fox TV special destroyed whatever credibility they might have had.) Wahkeenah 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fox, BBC, EB, they're all in conspiracy against you... Actually, if you could attribute the claims you make, that would be great - at the moment it looks like original research by a Wikipedian. Gravitor 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought so. >:) It's documented in many places that the flights took a curved path toward the moon. Also notice that the Time reference did not use the term "neutral point", it merely indicated the distance from the moon that the Apollo craft would be when it fell under the moon's influence. The misuse of that quote is a typical hoaxsters trick. As for what the 1973 EB said, maybe someone could find it, scan it, and post it here (along with what it says now), since you can't trust anything the hoaxsters claim as facts. They have a long track record of ignorance and/or willful distortion. Wahkeenah 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, where did Gravitor go? He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, you should pardon the metaphor. Wahkeenah 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he got tired of harrassment and decided to take a break? Carfiend 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"People accused of involvement in the hoax"

Now you're engaging in out-and-out slander. You need to remove that stuff from this page, or someone will do it for you. Just because some con website accuses someone of something, don't make it so. Wahkeenah 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It exactly makes it so. That they are accused of involvement in the hoax, that is. I quoted the people who accuse them. That's what this page is about, isn't it? Gravitor 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What's their source? Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't make it true, and if we repeat it, we are party to the slander, and to potential lawsuits. Wahkeenah 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We are simply stating that they say it, we are not 'repeating it' in the sense that you mean, of asserting that it's true. If George Bush says that John Kerry is a drug dealer, and we quote that he said it, it's not the same as if we simply say that he is. Gravitor 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the distinction you're making. Wahkeenah 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of passive voice is a problem here, since it has an "everyone knows this" sort of vibe to it. Instead of "X is accused of.." it would be much better to say "Person X accuses person Y of this." If you report an accusation, then reporting who made that accusation is very important. Algr 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point - I will attribute these accusations more closely. I think it is important to document exactly what the accusations are though. Gravitor 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could also document why these "accusers" have any credibility. Any fool can put up a website and say any fool thing he wants to. Wahkeenah 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit, I was the one who faked the moon landing, while the NASA personal were carefully removed from flight control, I was hurried onto a sound stage wearing a space suite, the result was so unconvincing that they actually sent me to their super top secret sound stage on the moon to reshoot, and then they brought in the "crew" of the Apollo to do the voiceovers--205.188.116.134 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha! At last the truth comes out. So that was your bottle of Coca-Cola some Aussie saw on TV after downing a few too many Fosters. Wahkeenah 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone and direction of article

The bulk of this piece should be about details of hoax theories and related information, not a history lesson, not a rebuttal and not a demonstration of the powers of rationality and common sense. Certainly the information should be laced with disclaimors and asides that point to the improbability and lack of 'authoratative' support for the hoax claims, but for the bulk of this article to be a seemingly heartfelt rant about how wrong the hoax theories are wrong is just silly. I believe the theories could be presented fairly and completed ( with refuting evidence added as counterpoints if you really feel the need) without the necessity of 'proving' that the apollo missions happened. That is after all what the Apollo mission pages are for. This page should be about hoax theories. Link to the histories if you need to. The wikipedia is big enough to be contain them both. Finally, If wikipedia has a page about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, I hope you pro-NASA killjoys don't know about it.Numskll 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is currently fairly well-balanced, although it could stand a little less editorializing from both sides. But if you take away the answers to the questions, you leave the impression that the questions have no answers... which is the agenda of the hoaxster cons. Every one of their questions has been answered, but they want the public to think they haven't been. So they want the answers taken away from articles like this one, to pull in naive "new recruits". FYI, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real. Just not in the obvious way. Wahkeenah 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right Numskull, this is currently a pro-NASA rant. It needs to change substantially to conform to NPOV policy. Gravitor 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is a pretty balanced look at the topic of the article. There is no listing of the evidence that the landings took place, only a detailed look at major claims of the hoax proponents. Bubba73 (talk), 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the usual general whining about NPOV, without offering any concrete suggestions on improvements. Wahkeenah 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do have a concrete, if general, suggestion: remove the bulk of the information refuting the hoax theories and replace it with a series of disclaimors (This element of the theory like all Apollo hoax theories is widely disputed and wholly debunked in mainstream culture) and links to content that supports these refutations. Perhaps there should be a separate page for refutations of Apollo hoax theories. My point is not to bolster the hoax theoriest's claims (I'm as sure as I can be without having actually gone that the apollo missions happened)but to make this particular article more focused on it's stated topic: 'apollo hoax theories' which are american pop CULT/ural artifacts and deserve pointed attention as such. The idea that by including all the refutations you're somehow preventing innocents from being preverted by these theories is silly and a little insulting to us laymen. Also, seriously engaging hoax theorists in debate is a waste of time. You're talking two different languages -- one faith-based(broadly defined), one data-based. This is the place for the faith-based content. BTW: it is the Burden of proof section specifically that prompted me to write here. That section seems ridiculous in context, akin to a discussion of gavity proplulsion and aerodynamics to 'prove' that eight flying reindeer could not if fact power a flying sleigh. Numskll 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that the current page subscribes well enough to the pseudoscience policy, though I haven't compared it to any other pages in that category. I'm sure we all know that debates with CTs are a waste of time in convincing the CTs that they are mistaken, but such debates allow the CTs an opportunity to make themselves look silly in the eyes of less devoted readers. And, frankly, I'd love to see the Apollo-deniers produce a list of actual, verifiable and disprovable claims about the 'Apollo hoax' so they could be disproved... they won't, of course. Mark Grant 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Perhaps there should be a separate page for refutations of Apollo hoax theories." - this is called "forking", and we are not supposed to do that. Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the pro-NASA stuff is faith based. For example, look at the missing telemetry data. We are constantly being asked to believe on faith that it existed, and stop asking NASA to produce it as evidence. Gravitor 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting Apollo, and nothing to counter it except the imaginations of the moon hoaxster conspiracists. Wahkeenah 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that, while never providing it. Gravitor 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Every question they have raised has a reasonable explanation. It's not up to me to prove that the historical record is true. Go visit your library, study the subject in print and visual media, go visit the museums. There is tons of stuff about the Apollo flights. The hoaxsters have no evidence, only their fantasies. Wahkeenah 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
More bluster. Still no evidence. Ho hum. Gravitor 19:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you mean there is no evidence that Apollo was faked, you're right. Wahkeenah 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blueprints

I think it looks very weak to have this section in:

  1. Despite the questions concerning the existance or location of the LEM blueprints, what is said to be a flight-worthy LEM is on exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum. LM-13 would have landed on the moon during the Apollo 18 mission, but was instead put into storage when the mission was cancelled: it has since been restored and put on display. Four flight-worthy Lunar Rovers were built, but three flew to the Moon and the other was used for spares after Apollo 18 was cancelled: the only Lunar Rovers on display are test articles and replicas.[19]
Basically you're saying - yes - all the documentation 'disapeared', but there are replicas available in a museum! Look at those instead of asking awkward questions! We should focus on the point, which is why are there no blueprints or tapes? Gravitor 05:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think that section is weak, maybe you shouldn't have edited it to make it so. You are the one claiming that LM-13 is not a real, actual, flight-worthy LEM that would have flown to the Moon. I suppose I should have guessed that even when presented with an actual, real LEM capable of a lunar landing that Apollo-deniers would stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and claim it didn't exist. I'd imagine that anyone who would focus on blueprints and ignore the actual, real existence of an actual, real LEM is probably beyond salvation. Mark Grant 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited it to make it factually correct. It's weak because it misses the point. How do you know it's real? Oh, right. NASA says so. Gravitor 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No you didn't. You edited it in such a way that it's pedantically correct, yet ignores the fact that pretty much the entire world accepts that it's real. The only reasons I haven't removed that change are because it _is_ pedantically correct and because it helps to show the wacky extremes that Apollo-deniers have to go to with their 'theories'. I really don't think you're helping your case by claiming that the Apollo 18 LEM doesn't exist. Now you want to remove it because you claim it's 'weak', after you deliberately made it so... why don't you want people to know there's an actual flight-worthy LEM they can go look at any time they choose? Mark Grant 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure - we can put it in the models and replicas section - this section is about missing blueprints and tapes. It's a smokescreen. Gravitor 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of these aren't "replicas" - they are the real thing, but weren't used. That is what is meant by "flight-worthy". The lunar rover is pretty much irrelevant, though. That wasn't instrumental in getting to the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And I must ask you (and whoever else), yet yet yet again, what does the presence or absence of blueprints prove, to either side of the issue? I say it proves nothing, either in support or contradiction of either side. What say y'all? Wahkeenah 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I answered above - the point is that the telemetry and documentation are the side effects of producing an actual vehicle. If you just make a model for a museum, you don't typically have all of the masses of technical drawings etc that go alongside actually testing and developing a vehicle. While the absense of the blueprints is not a smoking gun, their presence would pretty much proove the landings took place, or at least that a good-faith effort was made. The lack of them is dissapointing for those of us who want to see proof of the landing, since, at the very least, it indicates negligence in the archivists. It's pretty suspicious that these are the ones missing, frankly, and is circumstantial evidence of a hoax. Gravitor 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. A factory shows you what looks like a car. They refuse to start it, or let you drive it, but show you a video of it being driven. How do you tell whether they made the car, or a mock-up, and a fake video? Well, one way would be to ask to see the development documentation and the transcripts of the test. If they had all of that, you'd feel better, if not, it would further raise your suspicions. Gravitor 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How many cars from the 1960s can you find the technical drawings for? --ScienceApologist 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that if you offer to buy LM-13 and fly it to the Moon then the museum will let you do so. I'm equally sure they won't let you 'test drive' it on Earth where it can't even function, what with being designed to land on the Moon and all. Mark Grant 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is sarcasm the best response you've got? Obviously, NASA's claim about this differentiates it from other vehicles made in the 60s. Gravitor 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
NASA doesn't "claim" anything "about this" other than the rocket exists. That's like saying "Taunus could run for 2500 miles between oil changes" is a "claim" of Ford's. While you can see the rocket for yourself, good luck finding an intact Taunus. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argument would be that blueprints and tapes by themselves don't prove much, but they add to the "preponderence of evidence?" If so, I can accept that. If that's what you're getting at, maybe that point could be made more clear in the article, in place of the "it doesn't prove anything" counterargument. Wahkeenah 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's hard to imagine government archivists being negligent, but I suspect that it happens from time to time. Wahkeenah 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my argument, but if they existed, blueprints and tapes would be powerful evidence. Absence of them does not proove the fake, but their presence would be very hard to explain by hoax proponents. Gravitor 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? Hoax proponents explain away every other piece of evidence including hundreds of pounds of moon rocks. I guess moon rocks are easy to fake but blueprints and tapes are not? --ScienceApologist 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just another hoaxster cons' red herring. Wahkeenah 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, asking to see publicly owned evidence of the moon landing (or scientists wanting to see it) is not a 'red herring'. Asking for evidence is the scientific method. Gravitor 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a red herring, because it's just something for the hoaxsters to whine about. If they did exist, the hoaxsters would say they were fake. So it's a "win-win" for the hoaxsters, or so they think. While they may be publicly owned, that doesn't mean they have the budget to go looking for them. There's a war on, you know. Maybe you would like to make a donation to the government, with the stipulation that the funds be earmarked for finding the "missing" Apollo stuff? I hope you have deep pockets. Wahkeenah 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between 'just something to whine about' and a legitimate problem? The evidence that would proove Apollo is missing. There is no independent data. Surely you recognize that that IS an issue? 'Terrorism'. 'Child mollesters!'. Great. Carfiend 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What 'evidence that would proove Apollo'? Are you making an actual claim that the LEM blueprints would prove that the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon (but an actual, real LEM doesn't)? Mark Grant 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that if the Apollo program looked more like an engineering development program, with technical drawings, test data, logs etc, it would be more convicing than something that looks like what's left over after a film crew leaves, with some models in a museum that are claimed to be real, but can't be tested. Carfiend 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this right. Your one and only reason for believing that the Moon landings were faked is that NASA hasn't put every last technical document on the web? You're not claiming the photos are faked, you're not claiming they couldn't get to the Moon, you're not claiming that the Moon's gravity is much higher than accepted, you're just claiming that the vast amounts of technical data which _is_ available isn't enough to satisfy you? Mark Grant 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the fact that NASA does not produce information that they should have that would be very difficult to fake is evidence in favor of the hoax theory. The 'real LEM' is not convincing. The documentation of how it was made and the logs of its activities would be. But we don't have them... Carfiend 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'real LEM' is not convincing. I think that says it all, really. Show an Apollo-denier an actual, real, flight-worthy LEM and they'll claim it doesn't exist because they can't find the blueprints on the web. Mark Grant 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your 'scare quotes' are appropriate. How do we know it's real? Because NASA tells us. Again, we are asked to take it on faith. When we ask for the documents to prove it, we are told we are being unreasonable. There's a model of Godzilla in a museum I saw, it doesn't prove she's real. Carfiend 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't matter to the hoaxsters whether these items exist or not, because either way they will use it in support of their "theory". Wahkeenah 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is typcial. When faced with evidence, instead of engaging, you begin speculating on why it doesn't matter, since you think you know what the other side would do even if the evidence against you were not damning. Great reasoning. Carfiend 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gravitation

I took this out, because it's not true. "This is based on a misconception that the surface gravity of the Moon somehow depends on the neutral point between the Earth and Moon.". Gravitor 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SA - please explain why you put this misleading statement back in. Gravitor 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not misleading, it's true: the 'neutral point' depends on the mass of the moon, the surface gravity of the moon doesn't depend on the 'neutral point'. However, I don't think that section makes much sense, and I don't understand what claim you're trying to make (if anything). If you could elaborate on what this 'gravity' thing is supposed to prove, maybe we could find a wording which is acceptable to everyone. Mark Grant 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, if people make the claim that the surface gravity and the neutral point are related (as they do above) then this is a misconception. They conflated surface gravity with the mass of the moon. A common problem for students who are unfamiliar with basic physics. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In the real world scenario being discussed, they are related. The case being made is about the neutral point not being correctly computed. That is a funcation of the mass and distance of the moon. Since nobody disputes the radius of the moon, a change in it's mass will result in a change in it's surface gravity. Gravitor 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But that's not the argument that's being made. They are equating the strength of gravity at a Lagrange point with the strength at the surface claiming that the strength at the surface of the moon compared to the strength at the surface of the Earth should represent a ratio that is similar at the Lagrange point. Are they mathematically related? Yes. But these people are confusing the terms. It is clear from their math. --ScienceApologist 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And a change in the neutral point will not result in a change in the mass of the Moon, even if it had occured. Are you seriously claiming that the mass of the Moon changed during the 60s, or that the surface gravity of the Moon is higher than the accepted value of roughly 1/6 of Earth surface gravity? Or are you continuing in the grand tradition of Apollo-deniers never actually making a claim that can be proven or disproven? Mark Grant 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you should find someone who has some credentials, and quote them. Our own original research re the math is not a good idea. Gravitor 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about a compromise. Either you rewrite it into something along the lines of 'Joe Bloggs claims that the surface gravity on the Moon is higher than NASA claim because of the neutral point, blah, blah' or 'Joe Bloggs claims that the surface gravity of the Moon changed in the 1960s because of the neutral point, blah, blah', or similar, or we just delete that section. Currently it makes no sense to me because it makes no verifiable claim, it just points to a couple of magazine and encyclopedia articles. Mark Grant 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can try to make it clearer, but which part don't you understand? Xenophilia says that there are inconsistencies with the data about gravity that would cause NASA's fuel claims aobut Apollo to be wrong. Gravitor 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Xenophilia has taken a quote from Time and misinterpreted it, typical of the hoaxsters. The neutral point is 22,500-25,000 miles on a straight line from the moon to the earth, but there are an infinite number of points where, at any given moment, the earth and the moon's gravitations balance out. The Apollo craft came toward the moon on a curved path, not a straight line. There is no problem with the numbers, just with the hoaxsters misinterpretation of them. Wahkeenah 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But you never seem to make an actual claim, other than that two magazine and encyclopedia articles differ. What claim is being made that's actually relevant to the Apollo program? The only conclusions I can draw from what you've posted are that either they believe the entire astronautical community is lying about lunar surface gravity and the mass of the moon, or that they believe that the mass of the moon changed in the 60s. Without an actual Apollo-related claim, I'd say that section is irrelevant and should be deleted: 'inconsistencies' between some Time article and some encyclopedia article are not the topic here. Mark Grant 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim is right there - NASA is wrong about the neutral point, and the amount of fuel required is much higher than they say. Find someone external to refute it, and cite it. Gravitor 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not. You cite no such claim in that section at all. You say that a Time magazine article says one thing and that an Encyclopedia Britannica article says something else. Where is any actual, real, verifiable claim made in that section which is relevant to Apollo? You claim that two articles say different things and that if the Moon's gravity was higher then the Apollo missions couldn't have had enough fuel to get there. So what? Mark Grant 19:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My back-of-the-envelope calculations show that, with a E-M distance of 250k miles and a neutral point 40k miles from the moon, the ratio of the Earth and moon masses is 21*21/4/4 which is about 27. If the Moon was the same density as the Earth, this would give a radius of 1/3 and a surface gravity of about 1/3. With the moon being less dense (it contains less iron), its radius is bigger and surface gravity is smaller giving 1/6 the gravity. The neutral point quoted is not so surprising. Who said it was doesn't have a cite. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite someone on that, or is it your original research? Gravitor 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Basic physics doesn't need to be cited. Back of the envelope calculations are either correct or incorrect. --ScienceApologist 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a neutral encyclopedia, not 'Ask a science apologist'. People come here because the content is based on sourced material that is not the original research of the contributors. Gravitor 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there's any requirement to cite a reference to prove that 2+2=4. A reference to gravitational theory or a definition of 'neutral point' would be a good idea, but there's no reason I can see to have to prove that such simple calculations are correct when they'd be so easy to disprove if they weren't. In any case, this article: http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/neutral.html claims that the Earth's gravity and Moon's gravity are equal at 24,000 miles, but that the gravitational minimum is at 43,000 miles... so either could be correct depending on your definition of 'neutral point'. I haven't checked their calculations myself, but two minutes on Google found their page. Mark Grant 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And where does it say (in a non-hoaxster site) that NASA is wrong about the neutral point? Wahkeenah 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I havn't seen it anywhere else - the hoaxer sites are the ones making the claim, as with the flapping flag etc. The point is that they claim it, not that NASA claims it. Gravitor 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But what are they actually claiming? If they're claiming that the Moon's gravity is stronger than the accepted value, then fine, put that in. But so far you're claiming nothing relevant to Apollo at all there. Mark Grant 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's right there - "A neutral point of 43,495 miles would give the moon 64% of Earth's gravity, which would require much more fuel than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions." Gravitor 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But who's making that claim and what claim are they making? I could say 'If pigs could fly then I'd have to wear a construction helmet to work', and it would be true, but pointless. As it stands that's a total non-sequitor: it doesn't follow from the earlier claims about the articles, there's no source, and there's no explanation of why they would believe that the moon has 64% of Earth's gravity... a suggestion that pretty much anyone in the spaceflight community would laugh at. Unless you can cite someone claiming that the moon's surface gravity is 64% of Earth's, I say we delete the entire section, because it's irrelevant to the subject. 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to do your work for you, it would appear that the source for this bizarre claim is a guy by the name of William Brian, who apparently claims in Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program that yes, indeed, the lunar surface gravity is 64% of Earth's, even though pretty much the entire scientific community believes that it is around 16%. What I can't find is a reliable cite to that effect, only the odd book review and other uncited quotes on the web. There are some supposed quotes at: http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Science/Space/Planets/Moon/moongate.txt, which imply he really does believe that the Moon's surface gravity is 64% of the Earth's surface gravity, not the one-sixth (or 16.7%) value predicted by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation! So he doesn't seem to believe Newton's laws either.

If you can find a reliable cite for his claim then feel free to rewrite that section to say 'William Brian claims that Lunar surface gravity is 64% of Earth's, based on neutral point, blah, blah, so Apollo couldn't have had enough fuel.'. Mark Grant 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting is that according to http://www.crosslink.net/~blackcat/moonhoax.pdf, Brian reportedly _does_ believe that the Apollo astronauts went to the Moon, but that it had an atmosphere and that the footage was faked to pretend that the gravity was only 1/6 of Earth's! Apparently the book was self-published (not surprising), and therefore it's now very hard to find. This gets funnier all the time. Mark Grant 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, to summarise the available information:
William Brian saw two different values for his 'neutral point'. He decided that this showed that the moon has 64% of Earth's gravity and not 16%. He also decided that the moon has an atmosphere, and that the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon but the footage was faked to make it appear to only have 16% of Earth's gravity and no atmosphere.
However, back in reality, the two different values are probably measuring different things. One gives the distance where the Earth's gravity and moon's gravity are equal, the other appears to be the distance of the Moon's sphere of influence, which is far more important to NASA, as it tells them the point where the Moon's gravity is having more influence on the spacecraft's trajectory than the Earth's gravity. So both are correct, and the Moon is not four times heavier than the scientific community believe.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/09_Day3_Pt2.htm also mentions that the lunar sphere of influence was the point NASA used: we're scheduled to cross that mythical line known as the lunar Sphere of Influence, the point of which we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity on the spacecraft. Our displays here in Mission Control shortly after that point are generally switched over to Moon reference from Earth reference. The velocities that we have been watching decrease steadily up to now, will then begin to increase as the spacecraft is accelerated toward the Moon..
Unfortunately without access to a copy of Brian's book it's difficult to give reliable cites. The sites above have some information, http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm has more, and http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#_edn57 points out the way to calculate the gravitational sphere of influence. All in all, it appears to be a total non-event, but shows how wacky some of the Apollo-deniers may get.
BTW, I've just noticed there's already an uncited reference on the page to Brian claiming that the Moon has 64% of Earth's gravity. Mark Grant 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've done the best job I can of fixing up that section to say something meaningful, with citations. Mark Grant 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Those involved

Wakeena - I have some questions on your edits. 1. Why 'thought to be involved' rather than 'accused'? They are accused, we name their accusers, and this page is about accusations - let's not introduce weasel words.

2. " although many could interpret this statement as a joke" - who? Let's not make vague statements about what people 'could' do. Gravitor 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • 1. "Accused" is a legalistic term and carries an inherent point-of-view to it. 2. The statement is being cited as if he were serious, which is not necessarily a correct interpretation. It's more likely typical word-twisting by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's very straight forward. The hoax proponents have accused them. There's no point of view to it. If I accuse you of something, you are accused. It's as simple as that. Gravitor 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. What's your point. Gravitor 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That "accused" implies they have evidence. They don't. Wahkeenah 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I can accuse you without evidence. There is no presumption of guilt. Gravitor 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could rewrite it to say that Aldrin "accused" Kaysing of being "wacky", and since the libel case was thrown out, effectively the judicial ruling is that Kaysing was "wacky". That's one more court decision in their favor than the moon hoaxsters have, ja? In fact, I suspect that Kaysing is standing in front of the Pearly Gates right now, arguing that they don't really exist. Wahkeenah 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you're obviously nal, the verdict was that the statement was not libelous, not that it was true. They are two different things. Carfiend 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So what is Wiki policy on potentially libellous statements? I also notice a number of uncited claims in that section (e.g. mentions of 'some proponents' rather than specific verifiable cases, use of 'say' rather than 'claim', the former implying to me that they're in a position to have personal knowledge, and statements that astronauts and others said or did things with no cites). Given this is potentially libellous I think you should be very careful about what you write in that section and ensure everything is clarified and cited. Mark Grant 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed most of the "claim" to "say", because reporting that they "say" it is true, and is a fairly neutral word, while "claim" is a word with a built-in bias. I took it away from both sides of the fence, FYI. And the reason I say it has a bias is that it was almost always posted by someone on the other side of the fence... like they're saying "NASA claims this but I don't believe it" or "moon hoaxsters claim this but I don't believe it." There's no arguing that they "say" something, provided they are quoted accurately. Wahkeenah 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
'claims' is preferred for the following reasons:
  1. 'Says' it not generally used in writing with a formal tone. This is supposed to be formal
  2. 'claims' doesn't presuppose speech in the way that 'says' does. you want 'Stated,' 'writes,' holds,' or 'beleives.'
  3. 'claims' is literally accurate as the facts that are stated are in dispute. Claims only has a built in bias in casual language and that is based on a faulty premise that 'claims' are inherently false.

Spacecraft testing

"Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job." Does anyone have any statistics about how dangerous, when compared to other jobs, or is this just speculation? Gravitor 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, how dangerous is it? Do you have any statistics on how dangerous it is compared to being a police officer, or a fire clerk, for example? I think it's just speculation. You have this vague notion that it is romantic and dangerous, but no data to back it up. Like most of Apollo, actually. Gravitor 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Especially to those who know nothing about either. Wahkeenah 17:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice evidence there, Wahkeenah. I suppose you don't actually have any. How about we take out that speculation until you find some. Gravitor 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't enter it in the first place. But if you want to argue that test pilots don't have a dangerous job, go right ahead and look silly. Wahkeenah 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything about it, but I'm simply saying there is no data on which to make a determination. Gravitor 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What's your basis for that statment? Wahkeenah 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That there is no data presented to make a determination. Prove me wrong - show some. Oh. Right. We're at that problem again. Gravitor 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ergative - I looked at the article on test pilots. Apart from making the same unsourced claim, it provides no statistics for whether being a test pilot is any more dangerous than anything else. Gravitor 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, working at a desk is almost as dangerous. You never know when a comet might strike the building. Wahkeenah 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
More sarcasm to cover up the fact that you have no idea how dangerous it is. Gravitor 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
See what NASA says, or what an actual astronaut and test pilot says, or even what homebuilders say.
Well, that's something I suppose: "Being a test pilot is an incredibly demanding and dangerous occupation!", and "It’s pretty dangerous to be a test pilot.", but no statistics on how dangerous. Gravitor 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's almost as dangerous as being a writer. Wahkeenah 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a fair question, and you don't seem to have answered it. Exactly how dangerous IS being a test pilot? If you don't know, don't make claims about it. Carfiend 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to the Test pilot article herein, for example. Wahkeenah 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Which has no data. It simply says it is regarded as dangerous, but how dangerous? Who says so? We are left to speculate. Best find some facts, I think. Oh, that old thing? Yes. Carfiend 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"In the 1950s, test pilots were being killed at the rate of about one a week." No, not very dangerous. However, it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about it that test piloting is dangerous, and I don't intend to waste my time looking through actuarial files to prove it to somebody who thinks otherwise... nor do I see any point in hammering that obvious fact home in the article. Last time I checked, it said almost all the Apollo deaths were job-related, and that fact speaks for itself. Wahkeenah 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever taken a statistics class? If so, you'd know that the number killed per week means nothing without knowing how many there are. 20,000 people are killed in traffic accidents every month in the US. Is it more dangerous to be a test pilot, or a car driver? You don't know unless you know how many of each one there is. We're also not talking about the 50s. I think some real data is needed. I'm baffled that you don't. Carfiend 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to do some actuarial research and find out the insurance premium rate for test pilots vs. automobile drivers. I have other things to do. Wahkeenah 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of seconds of Googling shows that the auto fatality figure is way off: 43,000 in all of 2002, for example. Is this the quality of research that will be making its way into the article? Ergative rlt 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put the statement in, and don't believe it, so I think it should go in the interim. Carfiend 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Wahkeenah 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sibrel often gained access to the astronauts by claiming to represent organizations that he did not, and by otherwise assuming false identities.

Can someone verify this? Gravitor 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gravitor, may I respectfully suggest you do some looking up yourself, rather than burdening the editors here with all the work of clearing up things you're personally not certain about? I appreciate you're simply applying a 'healthy scepticism' to all the material that tends to support the point of view you doubt. But it would do you credit if you were to do a quick Google on sibrel and "false identity", say, and brought your own cites to the case. Otherwise there's a risk people will come to think of your contribution here as entirely negative and burdensome on everyone else. Adhib 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Adhib, I appreciate your feedback, however, I could find no evidence in a brief search for this slanderous accusation. It's pretty serious to accuse people of that, and provide no evidence. I think it should be removed in the interim, and I will continue to look for evidence. Gravitor 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think badastronomy.com has something about it. I'm sure it's every bit as strongly based as the slanderous accusations about Slayton, Von Braun, etc. Wahkeenah 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that we say who made the accusation, whereas with this one, we pass it off as fact. Gravitor 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then reword it to say "Phil Plait says..." whatever. Wahkeenah 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Did he say that? Gravitor 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is CBS good enough for you, or does it need to be some random guy's web site? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/entertainment/main521663.shtml says "witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible and that Sibrel had lured Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses so that he could interview him." That's at least one example for you. Mark Grant 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great - it's unsourced accusations I'm nervous of! Thanks! Gravitor 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see parallels

I'm beginning to think that User:Gravitor is a sockpuppet for User:For great justice. Some of his phraseology and syntax are very similar. What think you all? --ScienceApologist 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a pattern emerging too - anyone who asks too many awkward questions gets called a sock-puppeet and banned! Great tactic if you have no effective argument to make! Gravitor 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This response makes me even more suspicious. Okay, User:Gravitor, are you a sockpuppet for User:For great justice.? Yes or no? --ScienceApologist 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. Gravitor 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same person as the person who used the User:For great justice. account? --ScienceApologist 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not, and your witch hunt against anyone who disagrees with you is pretty desparate. Are you a sockpuppet of Wahkeena? Gravitor 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh you are quite the troll, ScienceApologist. Not everyone will always agree with you, learn to live with that! Carfiend 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Now we'll find out if Gravitor is a sockpuppet of For Great Justice or not. FGJ got angry anytime someone used the term "conspiracy theory" here, and would have gone balastic over the page being renamed this way. Wahkeenah 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is pathetic. Just because Gravitor is destroying everybody with his arguments doesn't mean he is a sockpuppet. Stop the witch hunt already. Good job Gravitor. This page is a huge violation of NPOV and needs to be edited dramatically.Noodle boy 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel destroyed, yep. Wahkeenah 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think he means you don't stand up very well to logical arguments. You come back with sarcasm, instead of refutation, and subject changing instead of answers. Carfiend 04:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, get a grip. Your 'if we wreck the page, the ONLY user who will mind is banned' argument is complete rubbish. Anyone in their right mind would object to your POV jihad. Carfiend 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Your quotation is a misinterpretation of what I was saying. Moon hoaxsters typically lack (1) the ability to interpret evidence and (2) a sense of humour. >:) In any case, I'm not seeing much evidence that FGJ has returned here, unless he's now become Mr. Mellow. Wahkeenah 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What, specifically, do you all regard as being "not neutral?" I have some ideas in that regard, but I'd like to hear y'all's, since y'all are the ones complaining about it while not citing anything specific. Wahkeenah 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'burden of proof' section is probably the most egregious. Carfiend 23:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. It's like using a sledgehammer on a thumbtack. Obviously, the burden of proof is on the accusers. While I don't disagree with that section's sentiments, it's a lot like an editorial, and it's overkill. Wahkeenah 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm, you faux naievete is charming, but the problem is that it is misleading. The accusers present what they consider to be proof. The accused obviously dispute it. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. Carfiend 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Be ye friend or faux? They consider it to be "proof" because their underlying premise won't allow them to accept the explanations, starting with the "waving flag" nonsense that they keep bringing up. Anyway, I didn't write that section. Take your complaints to its author, if you wish. Wahkeenah 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What's misleading? The vast majority of people in the developed world accept that the Apollo astronauts went to the Moon. It's down to the Apollo-deniers to prove otherwise, and they're a dismal failure at it because they're just plain wrong. Mark Grant 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Public opinion has nothing to do with proof. You're confusing two very different concepts there. The implication is that NASA is applying the scientific method, whereas, in fact, they are not. There is no independently verifiable evidence of the moon landing. Carfiend 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
NASA is not applying any scientific method to this bogus "theory", since the hoaxsters have yet to prove anything. Every question they ask has a reasonable explanation and is consistent with the historical record. Not that the hoaxsters care. Wahkeenah 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. NASA is not applying the scientific method. Their whole case is "believe us". Carfiend 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to challenge the majority belief, then it's down for you to provide proof to do so. There is no 'independently verifiable evidence' of _any_ historical event, because any event could have been hoaxed by a large enough conspiracy: but that doesn't mean that anyone should take you seriously if you claim that, say, the Vietnam War was a hoax. You know, given the amount of money to be made from historical denial books and documentaries, that may not be a bad idea.... Mark Grant 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's simply not true. There is masses of independent evidence of nearly every historical event. There's no independent evidence of the moon landing because, unusually, it is claimed to take place on another planet (yes, I know, moon...). Carfiend 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Prove to me that the Vietnam War happened and wasn't just a hoax created by the Military-Industrial Complex to justify vast amounts of defence spending. Mark Grant 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There are millions of eye-witnesses, endless amounts of reportage by anyone who cared to turn up. All the moon data is NASA, there is no third party verification. Are you really arguing that there is no difference? Carfiend 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The "independent verification" complaint is yet another hoaxster cons' red herring. However, I say it's not about "belief" in Apollo (which is yet another hoaxster red herring) but about observable facts. I saw the Fox special in 2001 and was offended by the apparent low regard in which they held the intelligence of their audience. They've got nothing. Wahkeenah 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So why is it a red herring to point out that there is not independent evidence of the landings? Repeat the mantra 'they've got nothing' ... refuse to engage on the issue of why there is no independent evidence... the media is in conspiracy against us... FOX, BBC, all of them... Carfiend 00:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
the media is in conspiracy against us... FOX, BBC, all of them... Exactly. They all deny that the Vietnam War was hoaxed. Mark Grant 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And they're all part of the conspiracy, like the vast numbers of people involved in the Apollo hoax conspiracy. Prove otherwise. Mark Grant 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The millions who saw the Saturn V's launch from Florida on TV, along with the thousands who saw it live, were all part of the conspiracy. Wahkeenah 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
They saw it on TV? Oh, it must be true then! Nice logic! Carfiend 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the differnce is that for the Vietnam war to be faked, millions of people would need to be involved. on the moon, the claim is that there were three. I don't believe you think that these are comparable. Carfiend 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So, um, explain how you would hoax the Moon landings with a whole three people. We'll be waiting. Mark Grant 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You might be right that it was faked, but you have to prove it, and you can't. Wahkeenah 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not "you" as such, the general "you". Or "they". Wahkeenah 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, everything that happened before the Gen-X hoaxsters were born never actually happened. It's all a conspiracy. I know, because I saw that documentary, The Matrix. Wahkeenah 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So, back to the point - are you really saying that there is no difference between the vietnam war and the apollo landings in terms of the evidence provided? Try to stick to the point... Carfiend 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is this: you cannot prove that the Vietnam War happened, because it's a historical event which happnened in the past. So if I was to claim that it was a hoax, I would have to prove it was hoaxed. You just don't seem to want to accept that the same applies to any other hoax claims. Mark Grant 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really not see the difference between something with countless first hand witnesses that took place where it could easily be observed, the evidence of which can still be seen by anyone who travels to vietnam, and something that happened on another planet, that no one else can observe? Carfiend 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
'Witnesses'? They're all part of the hoax. 'Evidence'? Come on, you can't seriously expect me to believe that dumping a few burnt-out helicopters and tanks in Vietnam proves that a war happened? Where are all the blueprints? Where is all the technical data? Why do the photos look like they were shot on a war movie set? Heck, you can't even prove that this mythical country of 'Vietnam' exists. Mark Grant 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are really claiming that there is no difference then there is no point in continuing this discussion. There are many independent sources and first hand reports in Vietnam. There is one account of Apollo. If you don't understand that, I don't know how to explain it. Carfiend 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then obviously I'm right and the Vietnam War was hoaxed. If it wasn't, you'd be able to provide the proof, and you can't. You just don't like being on the other side of a crazy conspiracy theory. Mark Grant
You know, the premise of this page is that each person tries to explain what they think using logic. If you're going to just spout nonsense, you might as well just type "how now brown cow". You are ignoring the point of hundreds and thousands of independent accounts, vs one. What part of that do you not understand? Carfiend 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement that "Apollo is the only source" is yet another hoaxsters red herring, part of their own 'mantra'. Wahkeenah 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
But you don't dispute that NASA IS the only source? You just want to ignore it, and push it under the table so that your belief that everything is fine can carry on undisturbed. Carfiend 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you want we should do? Invent a time machine, go back to 1969, and demand that Bill Kaysing be allowed to go on the missions with them? All these stories were brought up after the missions were done, when Kaysing and his looney-tunes pals knew they could make their phony-baloney charges "safely", because they weren't going back. Wahkeenah 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, as has been stated many times, the notion that NASA is the only source is just another lie spouted by the moon hoaxster cons. The rockets were seen taking off by people at the Cape, and were seen landing; other countries tracked them on their journey, etc., etc. Of course NASA is a primary source of data. They were the ones conducting the missions! Good grief! Wahkeenah 04:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA is a large institution comprised of a many, many individuals. The space program was a huge project involving many many individuals inside and outside of NASA. The hoax would have had to involve some sub-set of those individuals in whole or in part. That subset would have to be more than just the guys who landed on the moon or else there would have to be a whole group of unknowns who fooled the folks at NASA who theorists say fooled us. The idea that NASA is one unitary thing belies logic.Numskll 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA was a monolith. That's another clue, from 2001: A Space Odyssey: The monolith anomoly. Wahkeenah 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Look. The question is simple. Do you disagree with the fact that the moon landing was ONLY observed by NASA staff? Yes, people saw a rocket take off in Florida, and there are some people who say they tracked 'something' where NASA said Apollo should be, but ONLY NASA saw the landing. I'm not talking about what conclusions you draw from this, but do you disagree? Carfiend 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do subcontractors, the military or media count?Numskll

Rename/rewrite the page

This page needs a complete rewrite. It is currently a silly tit for tat laundry list. it needs to be in some respect a coherent presentation of the various theories, the elements there-of, and, lastly, their refutations. The exchange between editors (except for my bit of course . . .) that occurs under the heading "tone and direction of the article" perfectly illustrates how ridicluous the article is. I'm working on said complete rewrite that will include most or all of the pertinent claims and counter claims in the current article in a topic-focused, realtively even-handed way. My method is to simply reword each sentence so it doesn't sound like a zealot (of either stripe) wrote it and to rearrange the sections so the cart is behind the horse and the leg bone is connected to foot bone or whatever. So far it's working pretty well. While I feel perfectly competant that I can improve this article via revision in the manner I've described (we'll see how it all works out anyway), I have no special knowledge about this topic and I'm relatively new to wikipedia. The presentation is simply so bad and the exchanges on this page so silly, that I'm sure I can do better.

I welcome input from anyone on exactly how to proceed either with respect to the collaborative revision process, the relative wieght to give the various sources, the importance of key features of the theories, or the actual content of the finished piece.

For starters, I'm boldly renaming the page (if i can). The current name is obviously and needlessly perjorative.

Tomorrow evening (24 hours notice), barring someone convincing me otherwise, I'll remove the burden of proof section (which is hopelessly off topic-- you reference Occam's Razor for God's sake) and regroup all of the current content in a sensible manner that puts the theories first and refutations after in a claim/refutation format as opposed to the inherently POV Q&A format.

I do have a question. Why aren't there flags or tags on the article ( or how do you do it) to indicate the weakness of the current piece Numskll 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) this was me or whatever

In what sense can the title 'Apollo moon landing hoax theories' be considered 'obviously and needlessly perjorative.'? Other than that, rewriting and tidying may be a good idea, though I'd suggest putting up a version on your talk page first so people can raise any objections before you replace the current version completely. Also there's a tag to say that you're carrying out a major revision which you could put on the current page: underconstruction.
As for 'weakness' tags, I don't understand what you mean there either, other than the fact that the 'moon hoax' arguments are extremely weak. Mark Grant 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"In what sense can the title 'Apollo moon landing hoax theories' be considered 'obviously and needlessly perjorative.'? " the old title was 'Apollo moon landing hoax accusations' I think theories is more accurate and would argue that accusations is perjorative
It was 'Apollo moon landing hoax theories' when I was reading it, with 'accusations' being a redirect to it: since you renamed the page it appears to be impossible to use the history to see the old name. In any case, I still don't see why 'accusations' is perjorative, over the top, perhaps. Mark Grant 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"In what sense can the title 'Apollo moon landing hoax theories' be considered 'obviously and needlessly perjorative.'? " the old title was 'Apollo moon landing hoax accusations' I think theories is more accurate and would argue that accusations is perjorative.
As a point of clarification, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and won't argue the rightness or wrongness of this theory, but I came to this page looking for information on this particular conspiracy theory and found a mess.
and I'm sorry about the renaming thing. I'm not trying to break stuff, but the old name was needlessly perjorative Numskll 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see the histories now. It all seems OKNumskll 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, looks like you were right, I must have checked the name in the middle of your renaming. I'd still suggest putting the 'underconstruction' tag on the page if you are planning to do a complete makeover... then others shouldn't lose edits if they update while you're working on it. Mark Grant 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
At present, I have no strong opinion one way or the other about the name change. However, is there any cogent hoax theory that has been put forth? I've never seen one - only "accusations" of a hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As Bubba73 indicates, there is no actual "theory", just a list of questions. However, as a "conspiracy theory", the shoe fits pretty well. Now let's see how long it lasts before one of the hoaxster conspiracists gripes about this. Wahkeenah 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be good to see the Apollo-deniers actually tied down to an actual theory, rather than just random claims of 'inconsistencies'. Mark Grant 10:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is a theory, with four or five major variants. They are listed on the page. Carfiend 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there are hypotheses. There are no theories. Wahkeenah 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've no plans to do that -- create a cogent defense of the conspiracy theories. I don't know much about the topic and am not interested in doing the research. I'm only going to edit/revise the content that exists now in the way I've described. I beleive that alone will improvee this article. My POV is that this is a cultural phenom, akin to UFO sitings or Bigfoot legends (I'm not judging but . . . ), that merits being addressed in its own right. If the theory consists of a series of claims of inconsistencies than that is what the theory consists of. That said, I don't think this is a good place to hash out whether or not the theories make sense. There must be pro and con fan sites for that.Numskll 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
At the suggestion of another user I've added the in use tag to the top of the page. I'm not sure about protocol concerning how long I can reasonably leave the tag up, but i anticipate this effort will take a couple of days. Please let me know if that is overly long. Numskll 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you do to it. It could get reverted back in an instant, if one side or the other doesn't like it. Then the Revert Jihad could resume. I agree it's a cultural phenomenon. The difference between this and Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and such is that it doesn't really matter if those critters exist or not (except to the few who make their money from tourism), but this does, as it has to do with alleged government coverups and such. Wahkeenah 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I am in FULL SUPPORT of a rewrite. This page is a serious violation of NPOV. Good job numskull.Noodle boy 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wahkeenah - please discuss your changes before hand to avoid unpleasant situations. If there's reasonable rationale, you'll be fine, but don't poke a stick around just to provoke a fight. Carfiend 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm not really interested in contributing to this article, but I do have a comment on the name. I came here via a user's contributions page where I noticed the various rename/redirects. Is "conspiracy theory" supposed to be POV or something? Otherwise, why is Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory a redirect? There's a Conspiracy theory page, a List of alleged conspiracy theories, and a {{Conspiracy theories}} category. And, for the record, a Googlefight between "conspiracy theory" and "hoax accusation" is won by the former, 6.29 million to 331. How can Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations be considered the most appropriate title? -- DeLarge 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the Apollo-deniers think that 'accusations' is a nice title and 'conspiracy theories' is an insult. I don't get it myself either, though I suppose it's fair to claim that since they can't actually come up with a consistent theory that calling it a 'conspiracy theory' is probably overstating their case. Mark Grant 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The hoaxster cons don't like the term "conspiracy theory", because it makes people think they are wackos. Wahkeenah 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on a process of how to chose which name is best? I like the googlefight idea.Numskll 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For a process on name-choosing, you can create a voting area something like the following, and editors put their username under the option that they prefer by typing '''~~~'''. The last voter changes the votecount and over-writes when the last vote was cast. After everyone who wants to has voted and you get a period of voting inactivity, you hopefully have some consensus.

Vote on proposed article title

Those who support the article being named Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories:


Those who support the article being named Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations:

  • Algr
  • Gravitor - keep it simple - there's nothing wrong with it now.


Those who support the article being named something else (insert your suggestion after your name):

  • <insert signature>


Those who think voting is evil (Wikipedia:Voting is evil), and that on an issue where one side is numerically superior, the title can be easily changed to something derogatory:

Total votes so far, 1-2-0-1. Last voter, Algr 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy with either of the first two, though Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories sounds better to me. Mark Grant 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"Accusations" is better, because if you examine texts from actual accusers, they never discuss what they think actually happened at any length. In fact, I think that the notion that their _are_ alternate hoax theories originates here on wikipedia. (or from their detractors.) Algr
Agreed: I don't think they have anything that could be called a theory. Mark Grant 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Accusations is clearly the most neutral title. They are accusatons. Carfiend 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

alrighty then, you like 'accusations,' but 'theories' is somehow derogatory. How about Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Accusations? as the pro hoax group is surely accusing NASA et al of a conspiracy

You know, thinking about it, I'm not sure they have anything much that could be called 'accusations', either. I mean they say 'the telemetry data is missing, that's a bit suspicious, eh?' or 'the blueprints are missing, isn't that odd?' but they rarely actually say what any of it is supposed to mean. Mark Grant 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
conspiracy theories are clearly the most accurate and meaningful, but I've given up on the 'theories' argument for now. Let's just add the word conspiracy in the interest of accuracy.Numskll 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What, then? Apollo Moon landing dubiousness? Certainly to honour it with the label "scepticism" would be over-generous. My personal suspicion is that Any Big Human Achievement cynicism would be nearer the mark, but that probably wouldn't cut the mustard on NPOV, ya think? Adhib 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I favor Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theory. I think "hoax" should be in the title, ptherwise a reader not familiar with the subject may not understand what the article is about. I know it is a bit long... Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Project Apollo would certainly be the best, most neutral title. Carfiend 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This theory is not in parity with the whole of the Apollo program. The claim is incorrect on its face. But whatever. I have questions: Once the voting is done how do we decide? We don't,l right? I mean as long as one person doesn't like it it gets reverted? correct? Numskll 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's your point of view, but to write a meaningful encyclopedia, you have to move beyond it to look at a neutral point of view. Re your question, we try to reach concensus. Carfiend 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We 'try' to reach a consensus by negative reinforcement? Nice. Numskll 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Page name

I am renaming back to the neutral title it had. We can discuss the title if you want, but unilatteral changes are not helpful. Major POV assaults on the page without developing concensus on the talk page go nowhere, and just lead to acrimony. Please discuss major changes BEFORE you make them. Carfiend 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, I rose above this, by not re-naming the page The truth about Apollo. Please do the same in future. Carfiend 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Good job. the NPOV violations on this page are atrocious. Thanks for bringing back reason to this page.24.7.34.99 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you make general complaints about its alleged POV without specifically citing anything. Meanwhile, I had wondered how long it would be before the page got renamed back. Several hours! Wahkeenah 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Why should I rehash what has already been said. This page does not conform to NPOV as has been discussed in great length on this talk page.Noodle boy 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a question of false balance, but whatever. Are you saying that that people who beleive in the moon landing hoax don't beleive it was a conspiracy? Or are you objecting to the fact that calling it a conspiracy theory( in which it is theorized that a conspiracy took place)is prejudicial? The title I changed I chose was literaly true and descriptive. This title seems more pro-NASA to me, a relatively disinterested observer Numskll 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The hoaxster cons don't like the term "conspiracy theory", because it makes people think they are wackos. Wahkeenah 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not appropriate because the term is abusive. This discussion has been had in the archives time and again. A theory about a conspiracy is not the same as a 'conspiracy theory'. Google is not an appropriate way to settle this, since the most common term in a highly charged debate is abusive. The hoax proponents virtually never use the term to describe themselves. 'Accusations' is litterally true, and carries no bias. The proponents make accusations of NASA. No one disputes that. We don't comment on whether they are true. Carfiend 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The term "accusation" is not neutral either, but it's true enough. The fact that the hoaxster cons don't want to call themselves conspiracy theorists doesn't mean they aren't. However, it does carry an even stronger bias than "accusations", so it should probably stay as "accusations", unless someone can come up with a new and different title. Wahkeenah
How about Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Accusations Numskll 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's less POV, but I would oppose it because it is too long. The title we have now is fine - you might as well have US Apollo Moon Landing Mission Hoax Conspiracy Accusations - it's just more verbose than it needs to be. Carfiend 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

too long. LOL I can see you'll say whatever to support your desires. So whatever Numskll 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypotheses

Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

The Nasa case clearly does not meet this requirement. Carfiend 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness - I find it hard to understand how you can have any self respect. You have such obvious double standards for things that don't fit your religion. Why should NASA not meet this basic requirement of the scientific method? Carfiend 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Because they don't need to. The burden of proof is on the accusers, who will never admit they were wrong no matter what evidence is presented. Wahkeenah 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Multiple "experiments" -- Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. -- ArglebargleIV 04:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Each of which built upon the previous. Everything done in Apollo had been tested in Gemini, and Mercury before that. And after Apollo came Apollo-Soyuz, and Skylab, and the Shuttle program, and the International Space Station. It is all a logical progression of experimentation, learning and evolution towards whatever goals were set. Anyone who actually bothers to study the history of the space program would see that. Anyone who starts with the premise that NASA lied will, of course, not be swayed by any information, so why should NASA waste their time trying to kiss up to them? Wahkeenah 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, testing of the hypothesis that they went to the moon - the one that's in the article in the burden of proof section. Carfiend 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. The existing evidence is entirely on the side of the historical record. Wahkeenah 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So you agree that the Nasa case clearly does not meet this requirement? Carfiend 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As was pointed out above, the repeated experiments where Apollo 8 through 17. Where were the hoaxsters while the flights were actually going on? The answer is nowhere, because to make such a claim while the flights were ongoing would have labeled them for sure as wackos. Once Apollo was cancelled, it was "safe" for these nutcases to come out of the woodwork and make their phony claims. Wahkeenah 17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, repeatable observations of evidence for each landing. Not more NASA produced soundstage work. Carfiend 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of that assertion. Wahkeenah 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you miss the point. NASA's claim is not based upon multiple observations ... in the form of controlled, repeated experiments. "but the hoax proponents wouldn't believe it!" Never mind. Getting a rational, related response to a question from you is probably impossible. Carfiend 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wha-? Putting a man on the moon was a feat of engineering, not a scientific experiment requiring duplication in the lab. There was definitely science there, but it was the science we employed in building the rockets that took us there. The "repeatable" part of those experiments was in building and launching the next rocket, which worked better than the previous. To say that we didn't go to the moon because it's not repeatable without a budget larger than the GDP of most countries is faulty logic.--Ryan! 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So you say. But the issue here is that there are two competing theories (landing, or hoax?). Science is the tool we use to decide between competeing theories. NASA does not want to be subject to scientific methodologies. Of course, if they really went to the moon, they would have nothing to fear. Carfiend 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

It doesn't meet this one - pretending to go to the moon would be far simpler than going to the moon. Carfiend 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, it wouldn't, because carrying off a large-scale conspiracy is very difficult. And there is no evidence that any such conspiracy occurred. Wahkeenah 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it's almost impossible to manage a conspiracy of more than about a dozen people, and hoaxing the Moon landings would have taken hundreds at an absolute minimum, and more like thousands. In addition, faking the lunar photos and video was way beyond movie technology at the time: just compare '2001' to the actual lunar photos and video... it's garbage in comparison. Hey, now there's an idea: you want to prove to people that Apollo was faked? You go out there with 1960s movie technology and reproduce photos and video of the same quality as those we have from Apollo. We'll be waiting. Mark Grant 12:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get that hundreds of thousands figure? That's a figure Phil Plait made up, hoax proponents project a couple of hundred, absolute tops, more like 50. Bear in mind that many were killed by NASA, and it's fewer. Carfiend 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of hundred? Many killed by NASA? Where are your stats for *that*? Wahkeenah 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Explain how _FIFTY_ people could have faked the Moon landings. Hoaxers claim the LEM and LRV were never built, they claim the photos and video were shot on a sound stage (even though they're vastly superior to the shots in 2001, a big-budget movie of that era and often considered the best 'hard SF' movie ever made), they claim that the telemetry was fake, they claim that the lunar gravity is four times higher than the accepted value: how can you possibly think that you could get away with that kind of conspiracy with only fifty people? Even two hundred would be difficult enough: fake telemetry alone would require that all the engineers in Mission Control were part of the hoax. Mark Grant 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's easy. There were many people involved in building the thing, and they believed they were going to the moon. On launch day, the rocket is launched, but there are no astronauts inside, or they go into orbit. Only a few people know what is really going on, the other hundred thousand or so think they are building a moon mission. Carfiend 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that the LEM and LRV were built, that the Apollo spacecraft did go to the Moon, that the telemetry really was real, but the astronauts weren't aboard? And that the entire moon footage, which is VASTLY superior to any movie made in the 1960s, was made by about a dozen people? Mark Grant
Sibrel and Kesing say that the LEM and LRV were built, and that it is possible that the craft went to the moon, we don't know whether the telemetry data is real, because there isn't any. They claim the footage is full of errors. Carfiend 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How could the LEM and LRV be built with no blueprints? Do you see why no-one takes you seriously when you keep changing your claims like that? Mark Grant 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of that. Wahkeenah 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point again. Are you a bot? The question is about parsimony. Carfiend 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

NASA does not seem to accept this, either. Carfiend 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • So let me get this straight -- NASA is supposed to say "Hey, maybe we didn't go to the Moon"???? Right. One is tentative about conclusions, or the correctness of data -- one isn't expected to be tentative about whether the experiment was performed or not. NASA knows darned well that they did it. -- ArglebargleIV 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So you admit they don't meet this criteria? The question is entirely about did they go. If their only response is refusal to answer the accusations, then we should just put that on the page. Carfiend 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, actually the page is about "did they not go", and there is no evidence supporting that notion. Wahkeenah 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it is a misapplication of the criteria. If you ask them whether they went, they say "yes". NASA used to answer the myriad accusations beyond that, but they got so ridiculous that there wasn't any point anymore. -- ArglebargleIV 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but there clearly is. Carfiend 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly is what? Wahkeenah 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence against NASA. Carfiend 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence against NASA, only the fantasies of the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but there clearly is. Carfiend 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but there clearly isn't. Wahkeenah 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, you school yard 'tis', 'tisn't' tactics certainly end rational debate. If you're not willing to point to any evidence, there's no point discussing it. Carfiend 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Empirically testable and falsifiable

NASA does not provide any way for external organizations to examine their data, for example, the telemetry. Carfiend 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Pony up the bucks, and maybe they'll go searching for them. The Apollo program is ancient history. They have other, more pressing priorities than trying to satisfy a tiny minority's unsubstantiated complaints. Wahkeenah 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, who among the Apollo-deniers has enough technical knowledge to make any sense of the telemetry in the first place? We could dump gigabytes of Apollo telemetry in their laps and they'd just claim it was false for bogus reasons: 'LOOK! Fuel Cell 2 outlet temperature was 195.6F at MET 067:39:02! That proves it was a hoax, it should have been 195.5F!' Mark Grant 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, they'd whine, "Hey! It's just a bunch of 0's and 1's! Where's the data???" Wahkeenah 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it funny that every time evidence is produced against NASA, or they fail to produce any your response is "well, it doesn't matter, because we think the other side would not believe it anyway"? Your logic is astounding. You have failed to address the fact that NASA fails this test, instead responding with predictions about what the other side would do IF you had any proof! Carfiend 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the flights did not occur, and my assumption about their likely reaction is based on their past behavior. Anything that appears to undermine their premise is automatically dismissed. Wahkeenah 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So you agree that NASA's case is not empirically testable and falsifiable, and your defense is that it wouldn't matter, since you have so much insight into the other side? Carfiend 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure it's testable. Go back to 1969 and watch it yourself. Wahkeenah 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. Your answer to a reasonable question is another smartass comment. As usual, you have nothing to substantiate your position. I think you're just trolling. You never present any evidence, never answer any questions. Carfiend 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The only way to test it is to reproduce it using 1960s technology. Do you really want to spend your tax dollars re-building the Saturn V and the lunar modules? Wahkeenah 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And, by the way, I have contributed to the article in the past. I have tried to neutralize it. It used to be worse than it is now. Wahkeenah 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your logic is faulty again. Rebuilding Saturn V would not prove it was done in the 60's. Producing documentation like blueprints and telemetry that would be difficult to fake would go a long way to proving it. Sworn testamonials by key people like Buzz Aldrin would help, admitting up front that some photos were faked, and declaring which ones were not would help, allowing third party invesstigators into NASA would help too. There are many ways to show a preponderance of evidence. Carfiend 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it won't prove anything to the hoaxsters. Even if we go back to the moon and see the remnants, the hoaxsters will claim they were put there on the latest mission. Wahkeenah 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So once again your only defence is claimed prescience about the response of others? Great. Carfiend 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof section

"Application of the scientific method to this scenario would allow each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this. . . Hoax hypothesis: NASA's portrayal of the moon landing is an orchestrated simulation"

"Thus, a first obvious problem with the Hoax hypothesis is its lack of narrative cohesion. The Truth hypothesis is a single story, but there are many Hoax hypotheses that each address specific aspects of the moon landing, but conflict with each other if taken as a whole."

If under the scientific method each explanation of an event is a separate hypothesis, then the "hoax hypothesis" is in fact multiple hoax hypotheses. Since the "hoax hypothesis" is actually multiple hypotheses, no single "hoax hypothesis" actually exists. Therefore the hoax hypothesis cannot be flawed due to its lack of narrative cohesion. The hoax hypotheses cannot be taken as a whole because then by definition as a whole they would not be a hypothesis. The problem is not with the individual hypotheses but with the incorrect application of the scientific method.

Since this section is unscientific, illogical, in violation of NPOV, and has a title that does not describe the section (as the super majority of the section does not discuss the burden of proof) it should be deleted in 2 weeks unless there are any objections. William conway bcc 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are failing to see the forest for the trees. There is no point in poking holes in someone's story if you can't provide an alternative. The incompatible fragments of the hoax hypothesis are not hypotheses because they don't individually describe any possible sequence of events. Algr 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The 'hoax hypothesis' is that the Moon landings did not happen. The problem is that a) there's no actual evidence for it not happening, just a collection of supposed 'inconsistencies', and that b) the different gangs of Apollo-deniers disagree about how, why and by who the hoax was conducted... if they can't even find enough 'evidence' to agree about that, who's to believe anything else they claim? I do agree that that section seems somewhat out of place, though. Mark Grant 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That is simply not true. There are several different versions, but there is plenty of evidence presented. What you mean is that you are not convinced. Carfiend 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no "evidence", there are only questions, every one of which has either a reasonable explanation or is based on ignorance and/or willful distortion by the moon hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Where's this 'evidence' of a hoax? And if it exists, why can't the different Apollo-deniers even agree on what it proves? Mark Grant 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's all listed on the page. Carfiend 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What's listed on the page are questions, not evidence, and every one of them has a reasonable explanation that fits with the continuity of the historical record. Wahkeenah 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
They are not questions - they are evidence. Your interpretation is different, but they simply are not questions. Carfiend 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, evidence that the hoaxsters are either morons or liars, or both. Wahkeenah 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you're high on personal abuse, low on facts. Carfiend 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The facts are in the article. And who have I personally attacked? Wahkeenah 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice, sidestep the issue again, and move the debate to whether your abuse is general or personal. You're teflon when it comes to answering the question, arn't you!? Carfiend 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Carfiend, what question did you ask in this section that you think Wahkeenah should be answering? (Although I'll give you that the "morons or liars" comment wasn't helpful.) AlgrAlgr
I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one of you even tried to address MY point, that the argument against the hoax (at least in this section) is flawed. The 'hoax hypothesis' is criticized for being multiple hypotheses. The problem I was pointing out was that that is not a problem for any of the individual hypotheses at all, because there isn't just one hoax hypothesis. Did any of you actually read what I wrote? I never endorsed that the theory that the moon landing was a hoax, I simply stated the argument that is made in the burden of proof section is flawed.

"The incompatible fragments of the hoax hypothesis are not hypotheses because they don't individually describe any possible sequence of events." I am sorry but this statement is untrue. The sequence of events used to explain the situation can be as far out and crazy as anyone wants, and it would still be a hypothesis (it might not be correct but it would be a hypothesis). "A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.” An example of hypothesis is that since there are no stars in the background that proves that it was not actually in space (I don't believe this, it is just an example). Another hypothesis is that the earth is flat, and since the pictures have a round earth they must be fraudulent (I definitely don't believe this, but again just an example). Do you deny that these are two separate hypotheses? Can you then still argue that there is only one hypothesis?

The specific argument in this section uses the application of the scientific method in an incorrect way, and should still therefore be removed in two weeks unless someone objects with a counter to my arugment. One of you provided a counterpoint, which I have adressed with a counterpoint, to what I said, please respond to the arguments I have made, tell me why the argument I made was wrong instead of continuing the debate about whether or not it the moon landing was a hoax. William conway bcc 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your application of logic here, but it's probably fruitless to expect logic in return from the landing believers. They are very opposed to solid logic or facts, prefering to simply parrot the lines that we should believe NASA regardless of the facts (eg see Wahkeenah's comments above that NASA does not have to abide by the scientific method). I agree that this section should go, it's an embarrasment. Carfiend 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL, please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am being civil, that's what he said. I'm simply stating the facts of the discussion above. Carfiend 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the burden of proof section 'AS IT STANDS' doesn't belong. There is some resonable content in it. I advocate (without much hope) taking the specific hoax refutations, since they speak to general a anti-theorists view of the methodology of conspiracy theorists, and redrafting it as an introduction to the claims/counter-claims section. The 'theory of knloweldge' content should be removed. I did that in a series of rewrites that carfiend reverted without specific or detailed comment other than claiming it was ALL POV. I also included rational for why the hoax theorists use the evidence in the manner described. I further propose that the introduction should reference the disputed nature of the data on both sides (did that too) by way of explaining the whole tit for tat methodology of the claims counter claims sxection.
Sorry it I sounded harsh - let's try to draft something here. Carfiend 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

but it's probably fruitless to expect logic in return from the landing believers. They are very opposed to solid logic or facts, prefering to simply parrot the lines that we should believe NASA regardless of the facts sure doesn't sound civil to me or equitable or accurate, but whatever.Numskll 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again, but the general aversity of pro-landing folks to facts or scientific method is very frustrating. Carfiend 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
so in your frsutation you revert? Nice. Are you over you 're frustration now? Can a confiednetly rstroe the section minus the in sentence you had a problem with? BTW, This: general aversity of pro-landing folks to facts or scientific method is not what I understand as civil. I'd call that troll-baitNumskll 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
My frustration with POV-pushing does occasionally lead me to revert. Why not draft it here? I stand by my comments about facts. Read the dialogue above - getting a straight answer is almost impossible. Carfiend 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your frustration leads you to revert? you happy with that method? Aren't you supposed to respect the contributions of others? Don't you see your own actions as POV pushing? Oh no, you see that as simply stating the obvious truth. You won't engage in discussion. I've read your arguments carefully. There just a smoke screen for your POV reverts. Numskll 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My frustration with POV jihads leads me to revert them when I see them. I respect the neutral contributions of others, and have been scrupulous in adding only sourced and cited material that conforms to the NPOV. I don't know why you think I do not engage in discussions constructively, and don't know which arguments you have issues with. Carfiend 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
POV Jihads. That's a start. If you don't personally agree with something apparently it is a POV jihad. you took issue with one sentence (which was facutally correct and not blatently POV) and so you reverted it all. That's a good editing method? Also your tone is in general condescending and your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is that they are pro-NASA. Start with your own POV Numskll 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well let's try to move beyond that - why don't you propose something substantive instead of slinging mud? Carfiend 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about rewrite

Numskll, I have to say I am rather concerned about your rewrite, as it sounds like you may just end up making us rehash discussions that have already been settled. Particularly as a new wikipedia user you may not have the experience to build consensus, and may end up with hurt feelings if lots of your work gets reverted. While the article certainly has problems, it's been far worse in the past, and everything there has good reasons for being there that you'll need to support in your rewrite.

You start by criticizing the "laundry list", but it seems like that is where you are headed with your "claims and counter claims" model. [| Phil Plat] observes why this model unfairly favors the hoax advocates: Accusers throw hundreds of false-premise questions and drill through technical minute to the point that they force an entire physics education as a reply. This overwhelms most readers, who then just end up seeing two "experts" disagreeing with each other. This gives a false appearance of equality, and is thus biased.

For the article to be unbiased, the "hoax" version of events must be subjected to equal scrutiny to that of Nasa's version. But no such version of events exists - we would have to invent one in order to analyze it. (A violation of NOR) Failure to violate NOR violates NPOV by putting the entire burden of evidence on NASA. The article would then become it's own subject - people asking uninformed or malicous questions, and making NASA supporters do all the work of putting out the flames and explaining the truth.

The article appears biased only if you assume that their is a coherent alternative to NASA's version of events. But no one has been able to produce such an alternative - so this is in fact an article about belief. Why do some people believe one thing, while others looking at the same evidence reach the opposite conclusion? Algr 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense! You're saying that NASA's story can only stand up to scrutiny if the other side does not get a chance to put their case? Nice. Carfiend 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not even close to what I said. Please try to read more carefully. Algr
Again my intent is to edit/revise the article for clarity amd to return the focus to the hoax conspiracy theories. While some content related to counterclaims is appropriate, I contend that the conventional space program related articles are the place to go to for science. It is a mistake to view this as having parity with controversies in the realm of accepted science. This isn't science. This is pop culture. This is a modern media phenomena. The article should be a description of the beliefs of this fringe group - Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theorists. As such it should contain content that places this group and their beliefs in an appropriate context with respect to society at large. This contextualizing should satisfy the concerns of the 'enemies' of the hoax conspiracy theorists. As it is this article is a psychophrenic non-encyclopedic rant. I beleive that the views of the pro and anti conspiracists are inreconcilible (because their is and probabably can not be any agreement on what counts as evidence) and that any attempt to do so would result in simply making stuff up. It is fine if the pros and cons like to debate the issues. Perhaps some general reference to this debate is appropriate if it is in the context of the theories as a whole. But this article should not be that debate Numskll 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you try to reduce it to a social phenomenon, i.e. "just another conspiracy theory", the hoaxster cons will be all over you for it. Wahkeenah 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And if you make it a list of claims by the Apollo-deniers with no mention of why the claims are wrong, then to me that would definitely appear to be a violation of the NPOV unless you can produce examples of a few other pages about similar conspiracy theories which treat them in the same way. It's very hard to find a compromise between reality and Apollo-denial: as stated above, they'll freak if you try to treat it as a 'cultural phenomenon'. Mark Grant 14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you take out the claims and counter-claims, and take out the editorializing or commentary, then you are left with a couple of sentences that define what it is, and then a mess of links pro-and-con. But maybe that's the solution. Wahkeenah 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that might not be such a bad idea: just a brief comment on how some people believe we never landed on the moon, mentions of a few of the Apollo-deniers and a list of links. I don't know whether the Apollo-deniers would accept it though. Mark Grant 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that they'll buy into it, because what they really want is to present the questions unchallenged, leaving the false impression that the questions have no explanation. Wahkeenah 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to have both sides present their case - that's the only neutral way to do it. Carfiend 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So the article is fine as is??? Wahkeenah
Not fine exactly, but I don't have major issues with the format. There are a few sections I have issues with, but not the way it's layed out. Carfiend 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I seriously recommend we all go take a look at how the editors at Holocaust denial handle that little hot patootie. Wahkeenah, when you take out the claims and counter-claims, and all the editorialising, what we ought to find left over is a social history of the phenomenon. Just such a solution has suggested itself from different directions to Numskll, Algr and myself over recent weeks.

I think Bubba's quite incorrect to suggest this represents content forking. It's simply defusing the 'controversy' over this article, which should be an accurate documentation of the history of these accusations - ie, their epidemiology, as a cultural phenomenon - and locating it within a defined space, where controversy may express itself ad infinitum without clogging up the article and making it essentially unreadable. Adhib 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the rate at which the Apollo-deniers produce new 'inconsistencies', it's pointless to have a page trying to cover them all... the numerous web sites do it better. Mark Grant 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've edited i've noticed I'm getting wiki's this page is too big messages. That seems to argue for forking or trimming down this articleNumskll 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Talking about this as similar to holocaust denial is offensive. Please show some restraint. It's not even logically reasonable. Carfiend 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You find it offensive that I'd draw the parallel at the level of methodology. Boo hoo for you. I find it offensive that deniers are ready to accuse anyone upholding the mainstream account as dupes, manipulators or outright murderers. Boo hoo for me. So let's get away from our subjective emotions and consider exactly what parallel I've asked y'all to consider - a methodological one. Just up the page Carfiend was telling us how important it is to adhere to the scientific method. Yet the method Apollo deniers apply here is, so far as I can see, identical to the unscientific method of the Holocaust deniers. Do we agree that the methods of Holocaust denial are unscientific, as a common starting point for this discussion? Adhib 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounded like forking to me: "Perhaps there should be a separate page for refutations of Apollo hoax theories." Here is the page about it: Wikipedia:Content forking, so maybe we should read that (including me). As far as "too large" - some obsolete browsers can't edit files larger than 32KB or 64KB or something like that, but I don't know if that is still much of a concern. Bubba73 (talk), 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the whole thing is a content fork already. The Pro Nasa people get the Apollo page, and the skeptics this one. To fork further would be even worse. Carfiend 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again that is false balance. This is not a fork of the Aopollo program page which represents quite properly the broadly accepted historical record. The hoax believers don't own the hoax and wikipedia shouldn't be a soapbox.Numskll 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a false balance, these pages are both about the Apollo program. The Apollo page describes NASA's version, while this page describes both, but is heavily biased towards NASA's story. While some 80-90% of people believe NASA, the term 'historical record' is misleading, we've already established that most of the historical record has been lost or discarded (according to NASA), or more likely never existed. No, the hoax proponents don't own the issue, but neither should NASA. This page should be merged with Apollo. I recognize that politically that will not happen, since there are a majority of NASA POV pushers on the Wiki. The next best thing is for this page to be a fair representation of the dispute. Carfiend 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
hyperbole is not helpful. Please try to be factual when discussing this issue. saying that 'we've already established that most of the historical record has been lost or discarded' is untrue on its face. Who is 'we?' What is 'most?' what do you mean 'or more likely never existed?' That's just troll-bait. The term 'historical record' is not misleading makes no claim to the veracity of that record. Let's try to debate in good faith. Numskll 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am being factual. The 'historical record that has been lost or discarded' is the Grummond drawings and data for the LEM and rover (missing, Grummond says they tossed them out), the rest of the blueprints for the Apollo missions, the telemetry tapes and the original hi res video. These make up a substantial portion of what I would think of as the HR. Apologies if you use the term differently. I think it's more likely that this stuff never existed. Certainly very convenient that it is ALL missing, and that NASA is currently trying to decomission the only machine left that could read the tele tapes, even if they existed.
The term 'historical record' implies that there is one. There really is not. Carfiend 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, I can only ask a third time that we all consider what to make of the example set by the article Holocaust denial, especially thinking in terms of how successfully it carves up its material. For my money, it's a neat way to give deniers their head, in the appropriate place, while leaving the basic entry both readable and credible. It appears to be able to handle uninitiated incomers more intelligently than the structure employed here is capable of. Adhib 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only ask one more time that you please desist from trying to smear this topic with comparisons to genocidal nazis. The only Nazi in this story is Von Braun. It's inapropriate, disrespectful and incendiary to keep making this comparison. Carfiend 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Adhib was drawing a direct parallel between the two groups so your offense, if it is geniune, is misplaced. I included the aside becuase Adhib's point seems so plain that I can't help but think you've misunderstood it either purposely or by not reading what he wrote at all. If I'm mistaken and you simply misunderstood I apologize. Adhib's aim seems to be looking at high level ways to improve this article, rather than arguing about which side is right. In any case I think he was referring simply to the structure of the article in wikipedia, not the larger, false connection to which you've alluded. Since there is such a gulf between what I see as three sides of this issue: Moon Bats, NASA nuts, and err. . . an interested third group we'll call cultural critics, looking at the way a similarity devisive topic is handled may well be instructive. Also, there are certainly parallels to be seen in the treatment of evidence by holocaust deniers and moon hoax conspiracy theorists, though you may be loathe to see these parallels and the stakes are much higher in the case of holocaust denial. In the event that you've thought about these similarites but not seen them or don't think they're valid, you may consider that you hold your preferred version of reality too close to see beyond it. Finally, there is asymmetry. Most people beleive the holocaust and moon landings both happened. Two separate groups of activists don't. That's a real similarity as well. Numskll 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(What he said.) Adhib 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another idea

What if we got away from the idea of 'sides', and represented the views as a sliding scale, with the extremists (a complete hoax, on one extreme, and NASA on the other), and in between varying degrees (partial hoax, landing with cover up etc)? Carfiend 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a false parallel. People who simply accept the official NASA record could not be labeled extremists Numskll 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Aye to that, and raise ya - accepting the spectrum as defined by a denier is already to make 99% of the possible positions tend in his direction. Cheap trick. What about a 'competency in sociohistorical research methods' spectrum, from highly competent to tragicomically incompetent? Adhib 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, but re-writing from the point of view that the whole thing is a curious social phenomenon is neutral? Carfiend 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
you include the word 'curious' of course to inject a negative POV in the idea of the treating topic in terms of what people beleive that simply is not there. Describing it as a social phenom doesn't make the claims true or false. It simply removes the need to decide on one side or the other before improving the problems that exist with this article. Numskll 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the premise that it is a social phenomenon, rather than a hoax theory is inherently pov. It would be like re-writing project Apollo to be the social phenomenon of why people think the US went to the moon (actually, that might not be such a bad idea...) A significant minority of people believe this version - it's not a quaint psychosis, it's a real theory. Carfiend 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that you seem unable to distinguish a difference (however you might describe this difference) between accepted history and conventional science (for what it is) and fringe group beliefs -which is what hoax theories are, but they sohlud not be treated as equal my an encyclopedia. More to the point is that all science is a social phenomena -- think peer review. think educational institutions. Again treating this as a social phenomena simpy remove the right/wrong argument or at least allows us to deal with it factually and reasonably. What it does not do is allow the hoax theorists to claim parity with institutional science.

it's not a quaint psychosis, it's a real theory. Excellent, then you're OK with the title going back to conspiracy theory.

Numskll 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, a theory != a conspiracy theory. Carfiend 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
err. . .before it was the 'theory' part you had an issue with. Now you don't there is a 'conspiracy' described? discussion with you seems pointless Numskll 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. Carfiend 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
nope. I'm accurate. You're not being sincere or forthright. Numskll 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation?

However, the Soviet Union had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959.[44]. This does not, of course, tell us anything about their ability to track foreign craft in space[citation needed].

Which part of this do you want a citation for? Carfiend 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That fact that it 'does not, of course, tell us anything about their ability to track foreign craft in space'. However, to save you the trouble, I rewrote that section instead. Mark Grant 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still concerned about speculation - can we source the opinions about what tech the soviets had? Carfiend 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Observations

As someone not involved in this, I feel like I need to make some observations. Of course, I beleive that NASA made it to the moon, but the quality of debate on this page is appaling. Both sides have some guilt, but the pro-NASA side are particularly bad. Refusing to provide evidence, logical falacies, changing the topic, abuse are all common tactics. If I was not convinced, I certainly would not be by the generally poor standard of scholarship. You come over as arogant and uninterested in the facts. I'm not interested in arguing about this, it's just my observation. Trollderella 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweet of you, but you have missed a large amount of water under the bridge. Apollo deniers keep charging over the top, fresh faced and ill-equipped. Their opponents here have sickened of blatting away at them with their high-tech weaponry. They're attempting to find ways to appeal to these poor chaps' common sense, through the fog of ideas. Current strategies being explored include humour and appeals to higher cognitive functions. I agree the success rate isn't great, but if you'd seen the carnage in Spring, you might accept this was better. Adhib 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
...and it's "fallacy", by the way.Adhib 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Every time an Apollo-denier comes along with some 'fact' it's debunked, often requiring a few hours of research on our part, then they often deny the real, actual facts (like claiming that LM-13 is not a LEM), before they pull another accusation out of nowhere, requiring more research to disprove. Eventually people get tired of being treated like performing poodles. In any case, if you're interesting in Apollo-denier 'facts' and the explanations of those facts, you should be reading the article, not the talk page. Mark Grant 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha - case in point. "claiming that LM-13 is not a LEM"? How about "claiming the fake LEM is not a LEM"? Your assumption that NASA is telling the truth without independent confirmation is very sweet! Carfiend 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're making a claim that it's a 'fake', with no evidence. As I said, even when faced with a real, actual LEM built to land on the Moon, you deny that it exists. Mark Grant 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I agree it exists, just deny that there's any evidence it is 'real'. Carfiend 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a well known fact..

..that there is no moon, thus we could not have landed there, case closed--64.12.116.131 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

err . . that's 'there is no spoon.' Numskll 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Close enough--64.12.116.131 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Numskll's work

Please, discuss major changes before you launch in. You know it's controversial, please show some common sense. Carfiend 21:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please recuse yourself from editing this article as you are unable to be objective and seem disintersted in reaching a consenus70.160.231.246 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? What right do you have to exclude others because they disagree with you? Carfiend 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
correct. my apologies. That's just what happened 70.160.231.246 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


70.160.231.246 is me. Blanket reverts of my edits are not the answer to make this article any better, but alright. Numskll 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to be an ass about it, but really, please can we discuss it first? Carfiend 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I kind of thought we had been discussing it up above? Mark Grant 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not the massive POV edits that just went in.... Carfiend 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
they weren't POV. They were fully as neutral and factual as it was reverted to. And the structure was more clear.Numskll 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ - you opening paragraph about what it is 'safe to assume' set a very pov tone. Carfiend 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

it is backed up by the polls given later as you well know Numskll 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement that polls show the majority of americans believe NASA is, so why speculate on what it is 'safe to assume'? Carfiend 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So why not change the sentence and not do a blanket revert. Numskll 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because that's just the opening paragraph. The whole thing is shocking. Please propose radical changes here before you make them. Carfiend 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What's shocking about it? I just read the opening paragraph of the version before your revert and it seemed factual to me: what did I miss? Mark Grant 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean it conformed to your point of view? Take, for example, the liberal sprinkling of the term 'conspiracy theorists'. I know, you want to argue that this is a factual term. Well, let's use the term 'NASA shill' for Plait - that's factually true too. Carfiend 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
'conspiracy theorists' versus 'NASA shill'??? Do you honestly believe they're parallel? Numskll 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
They are both equally POV. Carfiend 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Apollo-deniers don't have conspiracy theories? If that's the case, why does this page even exist? If there was no conspiracy, there's no reason for this page. Mark Grant 20:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a dictionary. Read the definitions. 'conspiracy theories' is literally accurate. 'Shill,' except in its archaic sense (do you speak elizabeathen english?) is generally perjorative. You've no idea what POV means do you OR are you just baitingNumskll 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a dictionary, and both are 'literally accurate', while also being derogatory. Plait is a shill because he took money from NASA and behaves as an enthusiastic supporter. The term conspiracy theory is used only to denegrate. Hoax proponents never use it of themselves. Carfiend 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The term conspiracy theory is used to describe. please back up your point on it being used to denigrate. Numskll 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The term is derogatory. Even the Wikipedia article agrees that it is. Only one side ever uses it, that should give you a hint. A theory about a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory. You don't hear talk about conspiracy theories about Ken Lay, do you? Carfiend 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil, i.e. no perjorative metaphors. The term 'conspiracy' is, in fact, derogatory but it is perjorative to those involved in it, i.e. the conspirators. The hoax is claimed to be some sort of conspiracy is it not? isn't that literaly true? Yup, it is The title should reflect that, but NO, that would make it too long. LOL Numskll 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
? Let's keep the title as it is. It's plenty long enough, accurate enough, and neutral enough. Carfiend 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
let's try a method of discussing the title other then you giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. That's nothing like consensus building. you clearly have a particular POV, but as you instructed me, we have to move beyond simple POV to create an encyclopedic article. Let's try that. So since you don't like voting, what do you suggest as a method of agreeing on the title?
What's wrong with voting? Gravitor 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The link talk archives to this page are broken

Does anyone know how to fix them? I beleive I broke them when I tried to change the name.

I can't find the archives either, even using old names for the page... I guess they got lost :(. Mark Grant 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I managed to find the old pages and copied them to the right names. I'm not sure what will happen if the page gets renamed again... Mark Grant 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah fresh air.

A break did me the world of good. I'm chilled. What's new? Gravitor 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The funny thing is, they'll complain about people who worked for NASA once 'making money from NASA', but are happy to believe people who make money from selling conspiracy theory books and videos. If taking money from NASA disqualifies you from commenting, surely making money from the Moon hoax claims must too? Mark Grant 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Duh! Those folks are sceptics, Mark! You can trust THEM, 100%. Sheesh! Doncha know nothin? Adhib 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Let's all play by the same rules shall we? I reverted to a slightly less bloated version of the article, so that the scope of the eventual revisons will be less. Please discuss major additions here and reach concensus before adding more disorganized bloat.Numskll 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tit-for tat revert-wars are never a good idea - you and Carfiend need a cup of tea - I highly recommend it! The information you took out looked like it came from the top 10 of Bart Sibrel, so should stay. Gravitor 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a legitimate vision for improving the article,regardless of your assumption about my bad faith. I've eepressed it at length here. That vision does not include adding more content before cleaning up what's here. I ask that you discuss adding any new content here prior to adding it again. You're supposed to assume good faith on the part of editors. I note you haven't done that and ask that you do so in the future. Perhaps you haven't had enough tea yet. If I can figure out how, I'm reverting back until that content is vetted. Thanks for your understanding Numskll 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't revert legitimate content. Your improvements should not stop others from adding things that contribute. Gravitor 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered that maybe it would be more productive to join the discussion up above about what the page should contain before you add more to it? Edit wars are pointless and dumb, and I'd say this page could definitely do with a rethink. Mark Grant 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Here, as a courtesy, is the bloat. Let's figure outr a big strategy before adding other stuff

Technological capability of USA, especially when compared to the USSR

At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US. They were the first to achieve:

  1. First manmade satellite in orbit.
  2. First man in space.
  3. First man to orbit the earth.
  4. First woman in space.
  5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft.
  6. The first spacewalk.
  7. The first of two orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing.

In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The congressional inquiry found that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. Two years later all of the problems were 'fixed'. Bart Sibrel and others say that this led NASA to conclude that the only way to 'win' the space race was to fake the landings. [6]

  • NASA and others claim that these achievements by the Soviets are not as impressive as the simple list implies, and that they were built on a dangerous program of balistic rocket research, not a gradual program aimed to get to the moon. [citation needed]

Numskll 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think you'll get the Apollo-deniers to stop adding bloat. Their position basically relies on throwing out a lot of crap and hoping some of it sticks. Mark Grant 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As an optimist and a relatively disinterested party, I hoping to get a back and forth discussion going where we can agree on some neutral strategy for revising the article as a whole. If not I'll do what I can to keep it from getting worse. Numskll 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
ah, a newly created pro hoaxer just added it back in. Wonder how they found out about the change so quickly?
Chill out. We're not back to the old "If they disagree with me then they must be a sockpuppet" games again are we? Please, learn to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with you. Carfiend 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we'd like to turn the page into less of a bloated mess, something which the Apollo-deniers here seem to have no interest in discussing: only in making it ever larger and more convoluted. Mark Grant 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

please follow your own advice with respect to adding content. In good faith you should remove the content you addedNumskll 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's bloated. It lists the evidence for the theories, and the counter claims in an organized and thorough way. The only reason to cut evidence is if you don't think NASA has an answer. Carfiend 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's because it's pointless to have a list of 'accusations' and rebuttals here when there are far better web pages out there. All this page should do is give an overview of both sides, and leave it at that. Or do you think the 'Holocaust Denial' article should be edited to be a list of deniers' arguments and rebuttals too? Mark Grant 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

again, I ask that you follow your own advice regarding adding content and edits. Please repsond to that directly Numskll 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you delete relevant, sourced, neutral information from the page, that's vandalism, and needs to be reverted. Carfiend 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

in my opinion it was not directly relevent and certainly not neutral and as i have siad i'm most concerned with the format and organization of the article. That makes new content suspect. You asked me to discuss changes prior to making them . Why do you refuse to do the same? Please repsnd to that. Calling my edits vandalism is silly. Numskll 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto: as far as I can see that's merely repeating a claim that's already in the motives section. Where's the need for it? Mark Grant 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It adds a lot of information not in that section. Carfiend 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
again, please follow your own suggestions and discuss the content in question here or explain to me why you have a different set of rules. Numskll 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think you're trolling. Vandalism needs to be reverted, good faith edits should not be. It's that simple. Carfiend 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil. Please respond to the question I've asked: why are there two sets of rules. What makes you think my edits were vandalism and not an attempt to clean up this piece?Numskll 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The two rules are 1. Vandalism should be reverted, and 2. Good faith edits should not be. I think yours are vandalism because they remove relevant, sourced and neutral information from the article. Carfiend 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

and you and you alone decide which is which? I stated my reason for doing the revert. You directed me earlier to only edit after getting consensus here. You didn't even attempt it let alone reach it. and you accuse me variously of being a vandal, a troll and a POV jihadist? Am I getting all that? I repsectfully ask agian that you remove the blaot and discuss it here prior to adding it AS you've diected me to do. Please remain civil.22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Why don't you try suggesting something relating to content (not simply removing useful information)? Carfiend 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I'm trying to improve this article by editing the existing content. I bleive that is a valid method. You don't, fine. We disagree on that point
  2. I'm trying to understand your criteria for valid content which seems to be, If I like it stays in if not it doesn't.

I've stated this repeatedly and gotten nowhere. Please remove the content under dispute as a courtesy. Please stop attacking my edits. Please remain civil. 70.160.231.246 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, make constructive changes, by all means, but don't remove valuable content. Carfiend 22:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

One or two of the main "theories" state that the landings did occur, so there is clearly no consensus among the hoaxsters. So, how about this, or something like it, as this article's title? Apollo program alternative theories. Wahkeenah 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, pedantically speaking, I believe the guy who claims the landings did occur but that gravity was four times higher than accepted claims that the video footage of the landing was faked to pretend that gravity wasn't any higher than we thought. BTW, it might be worth pointing out that many (if not most) of these people have had to self-publish, presumably because no publisher would touch it... I believe he's a case in point. Mark Grant 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the Internet (and especially to this page) any yahoo can self-publish... up to a point. Anyway, that title came to me as being neutral and non-inflammatory. "hoax accusations" and "conspiracy theories" and "Apollo shills" and "Bill Kaysing shills" just don't quite cut it. Maybe someone will go for this one, or something like it; or at least maybe everyone will disagree with it, so they'll have some common ground. Wahkeenah 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the title, Apollo program alternative theories,is an example of false balance as it implies parity between the generally accepted historical record and the conspiracy theories. As far as sources go, I agree with Mark. We should point out the various issues with all of the sources. Since the treatment of evidence seems to be a central argument, I think there should be a blanket statement about the veracity of the sources briefly explaining the POVs of 'both' sides. i.e. NASA faked the evidence vs. the Historiography. See the ::introduction of Holocaust denial for an excellent treatment of a similar problem of evidence. I think this statement should be added to the skanty introduction and the 'Burden of proof' section removed entirely.

Look at Holocaust denial as well as a good way to structure the 'top' of this article to make for a good short introduction to the topic. Then we can trail off into the swamp if you want. 70.160.231.246 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You've got an excellent point, the article title gives more legitimacy to the "Apollo skeptics" than it deserves, but at least it doesn't contain any "pejorative" words, I don't think. Although there are some comparisons to be made, Holocaust denial is largely confined to neo-Nazis, and there are few (even the Apollo skeptics) who would argue that Holocaust denial is anything other than patently offensive. This is more of an argument about whether the government, which couldn't even hide a third-rate burglary, could somehow pull off faking the space program. As I said, maybe there could be a better title... maybe "Challenges to the official Apollo history", or something hopefully less wordy. "Apollo denial" is very succinct, but I don't think they would buy into it. Wahkeenah 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
the term conspiracy theory is not inherently perjorative. it is simply descriptive in the case of this topic. 70.160.231.246 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
To the hoax proponents, it is a hot-button issue. Wahkeenah 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
understood and beside the point. This is not a soapboax or a vanity page. it is widely understood as a conspiracy theory and should be labeled as such 70.160.48.35 11:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Theoretically it's beside the point, but in practice it will unleash further edit wars. Read all the junk on this page and you might see what I'm getting at. Wahkeenah 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wahkeenah's entirely correct, except that the point runs even deeper than the title. The problem here is not going to be solved by clever naming; it'll be solved by getting the editorial framing of the content structured in a way which acknowledges the inevitable onslaught of opinion it will always attract - not always from the most patient or 'housetrained' wikipedians. Hence my 'stuck record' insistence that we consider how other touchy issues are handled elsewhere on the 'pedia, to see how other editors maintain articles which might suffer as this one has.
I'm proposing we should keep this article to an account of the accusations in one dimension only - the fact of their existence, as a cultural phenomenon: That's the only aspect of them that is accepted as common ground between Apollo deniers and Apollo defenders - that they are out there, and have a certain history, key individuals, popular resonances, etc. We can join together to tell that story entirely neutrally. Put the substance of the arguments elsewhere, and make it VERY clear in a top-note to the discussion page that contributors wishing to engage in the specific arguments should do so under the "Examination of the claims ... " article. Adhib 20:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1
  2. ^ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/space/controversy/,
  3. ^ http://tafkac.org/science/saturn_v_blueprints.html
  4. ^ http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html
  5. ^ http://www.archives.gov/southeast/
  6. ^ Bart Sibrel
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories/Archive_5&oldid=1171579576"