Jump to content

Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Who can deliver independent evidence for human Moon landings??

If you put on your critical (paranoid) glasses:

  • Russia Russia is dependent of NASA aid.
When did the Soviets receive NASA aid? Of course, it seems like you don't know the difference between the Soviets and the Russians - it was the Soviets who tracked the Apollo missions, although some of them were Russians too! Gravitor 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant present and future Russian lunar missions, NOT Soviet. If Russia launched a moon probe tomorrow, they would not be an independent source, because of their collaboration with NASA. Necessary Evil 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's all speculation. The Soviets, if Apollo took place, should have tracked it - there should be evidence of this if it happened, no? Gravitor 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If the landings were faked, why didn't the Soviets say so? They weren't dependent on NASA during the Cold War, and in fact it would have been a massive publicity coup for them if they could have provided even the slightest bit of evidence that the landings were faked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Finnish 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs) 16:29:3211:15, April 14, 2007 (UTC).

--Necessary Evil 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about the radio telescope in Australia that received video and data? As far as I know, they were independent of NASA. NASA had a radio station in Australia, but it was not as powerful as the one at the Australian Observatory. Also, there were several other missions that were seen by amateur astronomers. In fact, on Apollo 13 NASA was having trouble tracking it (it was straying off course) on the way back and called upon amateur astronomers to help get a fix on it, and many answered the call. Also, Clementine was not a NASA project. Bubba73 (talk), 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Bubba - I added a section for Australia - any clues about this would be great! Gravitor 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And Moon rocks examined by hundreds of independent scientists. Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, feel free to add these things. Although clearly, the 'Moon rocks' are presented by NASA. Gravitor 02:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note about Jodrell Bank observing the Apollo 11 landing. I think that they're about as unbiased and independent as you can get. Mike Peel 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You've added a note about a documentary from the BBC - any chance of something direct from JB? Gravitor 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

reflectors

Since this article is about independent evidence, it would be good to provide some indepedent evidence that NASA's retroflectors got to the Moon in some way other than on Apollo missions. Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about evidence for the landings. Evidence against it goes in the accusations article. This should be nothing to do with the hoax - just evidence. Gravitor 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this article.

Could someone explain the purpose of this article (stub?) before someone puts it up for deletion? Lunokhod 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good question. I'd like to know the answer too. MLilburne 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am very worried that this is going to turn into a big mess. For instance; can we cite russian evidence? Or is this also part of the conspiracy? We could note that that the russian samples obtained from the luna missions are very similar in composition to the Apollo samples (both of which are unlike terrestrial samples). However, one could argue that the Americans only obtained these samples roboticaly! But, one could show NASA images showing the picture of the sample being collected on the surface, and pictures of the same sample in lunar receiving lab. But this evidence will be omitted by this article!
It should also be noted that the only means (besides LLR) to directly verify that the Apollo landed on the Moon would be to show pictures taken by another spacecraft. However, the only spacecraft to have imaged the Moon were run by NASA, or the russians, and the later russian missions didn't image the Moon globally. Therefore, by default, if one throws out all the NASA evidence, there is NO evidence. Lunokhod 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose is to list the independent evidence for the Moon landing. There appears to be quite a lot, but I don't think it has been assembled anywhere. In itself, this is nothing to do with the hoax claims, although one of the key claims of hoax proponents is that there is very little independent evidence. Many people have asked what independent evidence there is. Having an article that lists it will be very helpful to anyone interested in this issue. Of course Russian evidence could be cited. There can be a sister article for NASA evidence if people are concerned about bias. Gravitor 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the whole idea of distinguishing between "NASA evidence" and "independent evidence" is flawed. You say that it hasn't been done before, and I agree. So why hasn't it been done before? Likely because it's not a fruitful approach. The whole idea is getting perilously close to OR. MLilburne 07:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am leaning towards proposing that this be merged with Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations. It just seems to me that if you disregard all US goverment related information, that there probably is no evidence. As the previous poster noted, if this information has not already been assembled in a reputable source, this topic would constitute original research. Could someone supply a single reputable publication that we could all examine before deciding what to do with this article? Lunokhod 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree the merger proposal since the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations recently has been labelled "This article is becoming very long". Necessary Evil 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet even if you believe that subarticles are necessary (and I personally believe that the main article could be written a lot more tightly), it doesn't stand to reason that this particular subarticle ought therefore to exist. MLilburne 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Whyever should it not exist? There are many claims by landing believers that there is a lot of evidence for the landing. There does, in fact, appear to be a lot of observations of the orbiters and translunar flights, radio tracking etc. The issue of independent confirmation is central to the scientific method. There is absolutely no reason not to collate this information, especially given the amount of discussion on the talk page about the existence or not of this information. Gravitor 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

I am proposing that we merge the content of this article (which is almost zero content) into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations. I give the following three reasons

  1. The restriction that this article use "Independent evidence for human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" makes this article pointless. There are no data that currently exist that can prove that humans walked on the Moon if we disregard all evidence collected by US govermental agencies.
  2. As the article states, the only way to prove that men walked on the Moon is to take images of "foot prints" from orbit. These data do not yet exist, and will not exist for a very very long time. All other evidence can be ascribed to "robotic landings" (perhaps bringing back samples as did the russian Luna programme).
  3. A clever crackpot will always be able to come up with a non-sensical argument as to why the information of this page is part of a bigger conspiracy. Lunokhod 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the merger for the reasons that I've given above. MLilburne 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that article is already too long, and this is not about the hoax directly. There are other who are interested in evidence for the landings. Wahkeenah and others have disputed that there is no independent evidence for human landings, and I am certain that they will be able to find some. The evidence for the orbital and translunar elements are likewise of general interest. Gravitor 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that there is nothing to merge. It is very odd that someone would create a page call "independent evidence for human Moon landings" but then not give any evidence. I am still waiting for a singe reputable source that can be referenced for this article giving evidence unrelated to US governmental agencies that the Moon landings actually happened. As for the evidence fo the "orbital and translunar elements", what is the evidence that there were people on board? Lunokhod 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You are a lunar scientist and you do not believe that people went there, and that the rocks that you may have handled actually came from the Moon??? 82.170.18.39 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This page was just renamed from Independent evidence for human Moon landings to Independent evidence for Moon landings by User:Gravitor. Lunokhod 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my nomination given the fact that this page was renamed. Lunokhod 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved reader, I think the merge should go ahead anyway. The Hoax Accusations article is older, and this article makes sense only in its context. Generally when there is a debate, it helps to present both sides of the debate together. Note that I am a college science major, and I believe that accusations of hoax moon landings are nonsense. I just want to structure the articles in the best way possible. YechielMan 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to have this page - it is a single specific topic. If there is lots of independent evidence, then we should catalog it. The hoax page can then merely say something like "there is evidence of the moon landing which is independent of NASA and the US government {see here), and any conspiracy theory would have explain how these independent observers were fooled, or widen the conspiracy to include these observers". E4mmacro 08:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain purpose of this article

Please explain the purpose of this new article. I am inclined to nominate it for deletion. Lunokhod 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To list the independent evidence for, and observation of, the Apollo programs. There is frequent discussion, and common requests for this. It could conceivably go on the Apollo hoax page, except that it is not to do with the hoax directly - others are interested, and that page is already too long. Gravitor 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate that this topic is "Notable" (see WP:Notability). In particular, are there a number of reputable sources (or numerous irreputable web sites) that are claiming human kind DID NOT land any type of artificial object on the Moon's surface? Or is it OK to say that Ranger, Surveryor, and Luna landed on the Moon, but that Apollo was neither robotic or human? Please give me one reputable source that indicates independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings is a notable subject. If there is not a single reference, then this topic can not be in wikipedia based on verifiability and no original research grounds. Lunokhod 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Everything in it is verifiable, and well sourced. There is no orignal research. I think you are trying to make the case that compiling it in a list is original research, in which case, you need to re-read that policy. Gravitor 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This page has been renamed from Independent evidence for Moon landings to Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings by Gravitor. Please discuss renaming a talk topic on the talk page before making such a drastic editorial decission. Lunokhod 11:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep your pants on, it's hardly 'drastic', and was in response to your frenzied criticism. Gravitor 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is drastic. It makes a big difference to the content of the article, and it makes a big difference to the purpose of the article, whose notability as a topic in itself still hasn't been established. MLilburne 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, what would you like to call it? You don't think that there are many, many publications that discuss the evidence for the Apollo landings? Take a look at the references section of the Project Apollo or Apollo hoax site. Gravitor 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain this section: Evidence of human landing

Here is the content: No independent evidence of human landing currently exists - see future plans for missions that might, in the future, provide this. The assumption is obvious, that a exhaustive and unbiased survey of all possible evidence has been conducted, but it is unsourced and unsupported. However, since we've have included it, doesn't this kind of content support this article's inclusion in/merger with the set of articles surrounding the apollo moon hoax? Clearly this article is a response to various questions raised there. Numskll 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I orginally placed the banner "unsourced" over this section, but this was removed by Gravitor. He has shown a very high level of academic scholarship in writing this article, and by assuming good faith, I can only conclude that no evidence exists. Lunokhod 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but unless he is both omniniscient and a rocket scientist then the claim should be softened - or at the very least cited. Assuming such a specific and sweeping statement is true based on perceived credibility of a given wiki-editor is obviously insufficiently comvincing. My purpose in questioning the section though really went to the point of this article - which seems to be an appendix of the moon hoax articles. Why else include such a sweeping statement? Why claim that you've proved a negative when both the proof and the claim are highly suspect? This whole article, as presented, is a violation of wp:point. The majority of the the evidence is a implicit (and purposely declawed)counter to the various hoax claims. Look at the original sources. Wikipedia is not the place for stealth POV pushing. Numskll 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This should not be removed. If it helps you, we can cite the opinion of a hoax proponent who claims that there is no evidence, and any evidence that pro landing folks want to use to refute that. Gravitor 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should do that. Until then I've removed both sentences in that vital section. Numskll 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the assertion that there is no evidence - I am sure there is plenty to refute it. Gravitor 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

proposed deletion of section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon"

I propose to delete the section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon" as this has nothing to do with the topic of "Moon landings". This evidence should be presented in an article called Evidence for the Apollo program. Lunokhod 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Independent evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit or on the way to the Moon is a better title? Lunokhod 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course this should not be deleted. Evidence of the craft in orbit is part of the story of the Moon landings. This is further evidence of your bad faith. Gravitor 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that presupposes that there is only evidence for that. There is some evidence of the lander's presence on the moon, and I hold out hope that Wahkeenah may add the evidence he claims exists for human landing. Gravitor 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

deinition

"By "independent evidence", this is generally understood to mean evidence that has not been presented by (1) NASA, (2) any of NASA's subcontractors, (3) any of the scientists or engineers that have worked for, or have been funded by, NASA, (4) any US government employee, and (5) any person or organization that has benefited from a collaboration with NASA or a US govenerment agency." - who added this? Where does it come from? Can we source it? This page is not about the hoax, so I don't know why the hoax stuff is in there. Gravitor 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article

I think that the title of this article is going to cause endless confusion and debate. In particular, consider the following questions:

  • Is this article only about the "Moon landings" (as is in the title), or does it also include all Apollo missions (such as Apollo 8 and 13 that are listed in this article)?
  • Is this article about presenting "evidence" that may be used to prove or disprove the hoax accusations, or is it about "observations" that might be interesting from a historical perspective?

Gravitor is claiming that this article has nothing to do with the hoax claims, and if this is true, then a more natural title might replace "evidence" with "observations". In this case, we should a priori assume that the Moon landings actually occurred, and present the data as "supplementary" to NASA's claims. Second, as this article discusses Apollo 8 and 13, we should probably replace "moon landings" with "Apollo missions". I don't have a perfect title as a replacement (as I still do not understand the purpose of this article), but something like Independent observations of the Apollo missions, Amateur observations of the Apollo missions, or Independent tracking of the Apollo missions might be better.

Without such a name change, I fear that this is just going to be a splinter article of the moon landing hoax page. Gravitor does not want the moon hoax mentioned in this article, but in my opinion, with the current title, we are obligated to under NPOV and POV-fork requirements to do so. Lunokhod 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed some confusion concerning the scope of this article. See Gravitor's reply in the section "Explain this section: Evidence of human landing" of this page where he advocates inclusion of hoax related material to support the zero evidence statements, albeit grudgingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 February 2:007 (UTC).
This page is not about the hoax. It is simply about the evidence for the Apollo landings. I highly doubt that the hoax proponents are the only, or most relevant sources on evidence for human landing, but if they are, then they should go in. Gravitor 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, did you actually read what I wrote before responding? If this page is not about the hoax, then we should rename it. The phrase "independent evidence" implies that NASA's envidence is not to be believed. What do you think of my specific proposals? Please give specific comments on each describing why you like or disike them. Otherwise I will rename the page myself without your input. Lunokhod 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Calm down and stop behaving like you own the page. The title is fine. Asking for independent confirmation is scientific method, it does not imply a lack of trust. Carfiend 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbskull - why do you keep trying to make this into a hoax page?

Evidence for the landings has nothing to do with the hoax. Gravitor 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

actually it is a part of the cluster of apollo moon hoax articles. It is clear by the way Sibrel's view guides the first and nearly eponymous section of the article -- though it woulds seem more natural to just make that the intro --seems more direct, less POV. I'm not sure why you want to keep him out. Your reluctance to define the scope of independant evidence is also puzzling. Numskll 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing. It is a placeholder - I expect better sources to be added. It should definitely NOT be used as an introduction to the article. Please replace it with something better. The definition of independence is discussed in the article. It is certainly more NPOV to simply describe the evidence, rather than the motives of individuals. Gravitor 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing. repeated for emphasis. The Sibrel quote states the reason for this articles existance. You dug it up. Be reasonable. Numskll 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it's about the worst possible quote. I could not find another. Please replace it with something better. Gravitor 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
to wit: "The result was Keep; possible merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations -- please work out whether to merge and if so, how, on Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. —User:Quarl 2007-02-11 12:07Z" Numskll 04:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's odd, considering there is no direct link. Gravitor 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Now we have one hoax quote. It is about human landing - when we have a better one, please remove it. Gravitor 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why even include it? It's POV. Numskll 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then let's take it out. But then provide something to describe the evidence for the human landing. Gravitor 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Numbskull - please use the talk page rather than reverting. There are NO hoax refs on this page now. Please stop reverting and talk about it. Gravitor 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravytur, You're the one who just had a little hissy fit and started deleting valid content like crazy (all without comment here I might add). You're not the owner of this article and this isn't the place for you to prove some point. You need to chill. Also, it would be nice if your comments here reflected what you actualy have done on this article rather than whatever you want other editors to do. Wikipedia isn't designed to support double standards. Numskll 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would probably be leaning toward Gravitor's version of the article, if I weren't so suspicious of his motives (let alone his overly-defensive attitude). To say it has nothing to do with the hoax allegations is absurd, as this article wouldn't exist without the other one. Wahkeenah 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The purpose is to provide a convenient list of the independent evidence for the landings. It's not about the hoax, it's about the landings. My POV about the landings is not relevant to this article, and the list of evidence should not be couched in the point of view of any individuals. It's just a list. Of course there is some relationship between the hoax and the list, but they are not causally related. The evidence presented is not presented by hoax proponents, it is presented by astronomers who (I think) believe in the landings. I am not sure why Lonokod wants to turn it into a rehash of the hoax page. Gravitor 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
just guessing but perhaps it's you're insistence in quoting hoax proponents, including pro hoax editorializing and your the inconsistency between what you say in talk and od on the page. Numskll 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
?You are not making sense. Please explain you justification for the mess you are making. This is NOT a hoax article. Gravitor 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
you're being inconsistent. please chill. Stop blindly reverting to your preferred version. Justify your POV pushing and your sense of ownership of this topic. justify repeated deletion of valid content. You're making perfect sense for a hoax zealot.Numskll 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to the rest of us Numskull - Bart Sibrel has nothing to do with evidence for the landings. Please explain yourself. Carfiend 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor - Please stop going crazy and violating the 3RR, kthnks =

Dude, get a grip. You don't own this space. Numskll 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you Numskull - please explain why you keep inserting irrelevant material into this page. Bart Sibrel has presented precisely no evidence for the landings. Why would we want to open with him? Carfiend 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you used the wrong login again. Wahkeenah 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you did too, Bubba. Again, you manage to elevate the level of discussion. Gravitor 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the admin has found that you two are not on the same IP subnet, so apparently you're not the same guy; it's just that your respective M.O.'s (such as the specific wording of the above comment), your similar time frames of activity, and your similar one-subject editing, make y'all sound like you were separated at birth. Wahkeenah 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Good, then that's settled. Did the admin check you and Bubba / Numbskull / Lunokod? Gravitor 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you ask him to? Wahkeenah 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record Gravitor inserted and reinserted the Sibrel quote as the only sentence in the first section of the article. This section had a label that was extremely close to the title of the article. Thus, if you've been paying attention Gravitor insisted that it was vital to be the second sentence in the article. When I deleted the redundant nearly eponymous heading and placed the sentence in the introduction. He freaked and reverted back to his prefered version. There is some consensus that this article is a sub of the apollo mooon ohax accusations article. But I've wrote all that before and I've had discussion with Gravyfiend before and I know how they behave. So I've no expectation they they/shim will give this response anymore than a passing thought and reflexive reply. But at least I've attempted to make a case and respect consensus. Numskll 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll also note that the introduction i've put forward makes no mention of the hoax. But, in the eyes of the pro-hoaxers, it wasn't invented by this article's owner so it can't stay. This whole thing is a replay of Carvitor's behavior last summer.Numskll 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You know I've just realized that the text I added contains no assertion about the moon hoax whatsoever. None The Sibrel quote, as I've said, was Gravyfiend's. My stylistically superior additions only added context (e.g. sibrel is a documentary film maker not but a vaguely decribed "critic") absolutely no mention of the hoax. None. And for that Carvitor feels justified by repeated blanket reverts. How childish. If Sibrel isn't supporting your being used to prop up GravyCarvihorfiend's (oh what's the use . .. ) tunnel-visioned POV he's invalid. Numskll 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that tirade supposed to be anything other than personal abuse and inaccurate accusations? This page has nothing to do with the hoax. You know my POV on the hoax, I think that Bart Sibrel is right. If I were pushing my own POV I would be trying to frame this page in terms of how Bart Sibrel is right. I am not. I am trying to keep it neutral - a list of evidence. Gravitor 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You included the Sibrel quote as I've decribed and a bunch of pro hoax comments as I have also described. Your issue, apparently, was my placing the quote in context which you're apparently against. Don't behave like a hypocrite. Also it is very typical of you to focus on everything BUT the content of my post. thanks for that. Numskll 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Call for editor consensus: Is this article related to the HOAX? And should it be mentioned in this article?

Gravitor has been making unilateral deletions and reverts to this page under the guise that anything related to the "hoax" is not permitted here. I would like to determine the consensus of the editors who are involved with this article: Does the "hoax" merit discussion on this article?

Yes: This article is directly related to the HOAX. Nevertheless, it is also useful for non-hoax people. Both communities should be served. Lunokhod 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: The whole thing is framed in the hoax discussion. Simply presenting an undifferiented and acontextual list is a typically dishonest hoax topic. This article should not be a crutch to prop up hoax claims elsewhere - as Gravitor seem to wish it. Numskll 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

who is this? Gravitor 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please identify youself. Lunokhod 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Chill the ID is in edit the edit history Numskll 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: The only reason for the article's existence is the constant (and false) complaint by NASA skeptics that NASA is the only source of information for the Moon landings. It's effectively a spinoff of that article, on which the discussion about this article began originally. Wahkeenah 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. Gravitor 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a spinoff from the hoax article. Wahkeenah 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not really relevant though - the two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. Gravitor 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources of the complaints are hoaxsters (such as Gravitor and/or Carfiend), and those complaints are the reason for this page's existence. Wahkeenah 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No: This is a blatant attempt by pro-NASA editors to imply that anyone who is interested in evidence is obviously a pro-hoax looney. The opposite is true. No one who is sited on this page is a hoax proponent - they are all landing believers. The origin of this page is not the point - the content is. Carfiend 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No: Evidence for the landings are not directly related to the hoax. Certainly it is not the case that the only person who wants to see who observed the craft is orbit is Bart Sibrel. In fact, the one thing that sets Bart Sibrel aside from every source on this page is that he has presented no evidence for the landings. This page is a list of evidence, not a discussion of Bart Sibrel and his hoax theory. Gravitor 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you previously insisted on including him (but only exactly as you thought appropriate) then? Oh, you wanted to push your POV and still claim NPOV? That doesn't work when everyone can see your edit history. sorry. Numskll 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not insist - I included him at someone (I think your) request for a comment on evidence for human landing. I said at the time I thought it was a poor source and should be replaced asap. Gravitor 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You did insist right up to the moment I placed him in context. Then you freaked. You know it wasn't me asking for that evidnece and it wasn't evidence in the first place but a claim about its absence. Shame. Shame. Why be so dishonest when it is simple to check? what do you bleive you gain other than a bad reputationNumskll 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it was someone who behaves and sounds exactly like you. It's easy to confuse the different accounts that you have. Gravitor 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to make sock-puppet accusations. See WP:SOCK for guidance on how to proceed. Lunokhod 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
He won't take it to an admin, he's just jerking us around. Wahkeenah 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of somethng? Please be clear. Oh, that was simply another dishonest deflection. Rats! I'm caught feeding the trolls again. Numskll 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Wahkeenah 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
still can't be honest? Is it not in you? Doesn't your alleged quest for the truth include actually speaking it? That's not the truth you want? LOL Numskll 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is related to the hoax. "Independent evidence" has been discussed on the hoax talk page for months, and this article was first proposed there. As far as I can tell, it is only hoax proponents who demand "independent evidence". Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not sort topics based on how they are discussed on the talk page. Please see below for the reasons why this is NOT a hoax page. Gravitor 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Its genesis was commentary on the hoax page suggesting that this article be written. I don't know what you mean by "wikipedia does not sort topics". Wikipedia doesn't do anything. Editors do. And the hoax talk page is where this page came from. Wahkeenah 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll Summary

4 users think that this topic is related in some manner to the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations, whereas 2 do not. In the interest of trying to achieve a NPOV, as well as following this editorial consensus, I kindly ask that Gravitor and Carfiend stop reverting edits that mention the hoax accusations. I kindly call on both sides of this debate to follow this recommendation under resolving disputes (see WP:DR)

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

Lunokhod 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a majority, not a consensus. Besides, the truth is not a vote - you can't change facts by voting them off the island. These observations took place a decade before the hoax accusations - they are not related. Your vote does not change that. Gravitor 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, but it shows that the majority of people feel that this article is directly related to the "hoax accusations". I think that we are all willing to compromise, but unilateral reverts of large portions of text with no logical explanation on the talk page does not seem like you are trying to compromise. As I suggested below, instead of reverting an edit, try to modify the material to suit your purposes. You are in the minority opinion here, so please try to help us work towards consensus. Lunokhod 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Gravitor, your editing is becoming very disruptive. Please explain why the material that you deleted does not deserve to be mentioned in this article. Before removing several paragraphs of material, it is common courtesy to exaplain why you did this on the talk pages. See WP:Civility.

"The existence of Moon rocks" can be used as independent proof of the Apollo manned landings, as was described in the text you deleted. In particular, all scientists (independent ones too) agree that they are from the Moon. The argument that these are not Moon rocks is countered by similarities to Luna samples. The argument that they are robotic (or lunar meteorites) is countered by the sheer mass of samples that NASA has given independent scientists to analyze. We can give both sides of the debate. Please feel free to exapnd the text if your POV is not adequately described. Lunokhod 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been talked about on the page. Your relentless attempts to turn this into a rehash of the hoax page is what is disruptive. If you want to add independent analysis of the moon rocks, then do that, but if it is embedded in lots of nonsense about Bart Sibrel it risks getting reverted. Gravitor 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Moon rock section had nothing to do with Bart Sibrel, and I did not add this person's name (in fact I DELETED IT; it should not be in the intro, but a citation to him could). Your revert was unilateral, and you did not look at the edit history to determine what had and had not been added. You arbitrarily reverted to your previous version of the article, even though much had been added by several editors since this version. This is very disruptive, and if it continues, will be dealt with administratively. Lunokhod 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? Gravitor 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? Could you please specify as to what you think is irrelevant? Be specific please. If I was not neutral, I would say "the moon rocks provided by nasa proves that they went to the Moon. Independent analysis shows that they are really from the Moon." As this is not neutral, I added that one could say that the Moon rocks are faked, and I gave evidence as to why this is probably not the case. This is called taking a "neutral point of view". Please familiarize yourself with this wiki policy: WP:NPOV. Lunokhod 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? Gravitor 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be specific. What exactly is irrelevant as to whether the Apollo Moon rocks are independent evidence or not? Lunokhod 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read posts before responding to them. Gravitor 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have re-read your posts, and I ask again, what is irrelevant? Could you please give me an example? As you seem not to be interested in not responding, I will replace the section that you have deleted. Lunokhod 09:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your disrutpive editing and reverting Please explain why you reverted the last 20 or so additions. Some of this was just adding background material as to what each Apollo mission is claimed to have done, and some was the evidence from the Moon rocks. Please give me a detailed explanation as to why any of this material is inappropriate. As is describe in WP:DR, please attempt to edit the material that you disagree with, instead of just reverting it. Disruptive editing is a violation of wikipedi policy. Lunokhod 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read anything on this page it would be obvious - it is your continual POV pushing that this page has something to do with the hoax. When you embed sensible additions in a slurry of rubbish it is liable to be reverted. Sorry about that. Gravitor 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You do not own this page. Individual ownership of pages is against policy. Wahkeenah 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted an edit that blanked large parts of the page for no good reason. The edit summary mentions something about a hoax, but since the page is Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, not Things that happened after a Moon landing hoax, I'm not sure what that has to do with it. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Step-by-step : Working on the introductory paragraph

OK, let's step back from the poo-flinging by everyone, deserved or not, and start at the beginning.

Here is my proposal for the introductory paragraph (modified version of what I originally had):

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, meaning evidence that did not originate with NASA, would be an important link an a chain of proof demonstrating that the Apollo Program successfully landed astronauts on the Moon, if the evidence was reliable and trustworthy. For proponents of the theory that the Moon landings did not happen, a perceived absence of independent evidence casts doubt upon NASA's methodology and claims. However, independent evidence for various aspects of the Moon landings has been gathered by a wide range of investigators and observers.

This paragraph (1) doesn't use the word hoax (2) No longer has any reference to Bart Sibrel, even via link (3) Has the title of the article near the front (as per WP:MOS) (4) Establishes what the article is about, and (5) Establishes notability, necessary for the existence of the article.

Okay, people, Yes? No? Changes? and most importantly, Why? -- ArglebargleIV 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. First, thanks for the suggestion to step back. I will present to you why I am 100% against opening with a paragraph about Bart Sibrel and the hoax:
1. Not one piece of evidence on the page is presented by Bart Sibrel or any hoax proponent (or "proponents of the theory that the Moon landings did not happen). None of the sources that the evidence come from have anything to do with the hoax.
2. Not one piece of evidence on the page was collected as a rebuttal to the hoax. In fact, nearly all of it (perhaps all) was collected before the hoax accusations were even made. To present this as part of a back-and-forth between the hoax proponents and landing defenders is a gross misrepresentation.
3. The people who collected this evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers. They collected it for their own reasons, certainly not as part of the hoax discussion.
4 The discussions on Wikipedia that produced this page are not a good reason to structure the information.
In summary - this is not a hoax page. A sentence to say that the hoax proponents reference a lack of evidence is one thing, but an opening paragraph that sets it in the context of the hoax is utterly misleading. Gravitor 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, since the paragraph above seems to meet your requirements, I'm going to put in as the opening paragraph, especially since each of the two choices being reverted between have issues. This need not be the final version, but I think it's a good start. -- ArglebargleIV 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it really doesn't. It still puts the issue in the context of a discussion about the veractiy of the landing. That has nothing to do with it. Why even go there? Why not simply say the facts? Gravitor 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Articles need context. "Why" something is here is just as important as what it is. Independent evidence wouldn't be needed without the people who require it. -- ArglebargleIV 12:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • If you read point number 2, you would know that that simply is not true. This evidence was collected before the hoax accusations were even made. It was not in response to a need to prove the landings. Gravitor 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes The context of this topic is the hoax discusion. I'll note again that gravitor has included a notable amount of pro hoax editorializing as well as the Sibrel quote he's so rabidly opposed to prior to other editors setting those items into a relativley NPOV context (example Bart Sibrel was simply a 'critic' too gravitor. He's dead set afgainst him being labeled anything so perjorative as documentray filmmaker) Also furing the recent AFD discussion some degree of consensus was reached to make this article a sub of the Moon Hoax article. Numskll 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that responds in any way to Gravitor's legitimate complaints. Please at least try to look as though you are trying to be constructive. Carfiend 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite. No response to the issues I raised. AFD discussion and talk page discussions should not be used to frame issues. If you and I decide, while discussing the bubble gum page, to form a new page on quantum physics, that does not mean that the physics page should be framed in terms of bubble gum. Gravitor 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was simply responding to the poll. My reply wasn't directed at Gravitor's response to the poll. The poll prompt didn't say I was supposed to respond to whatever Gravitor said. Did I do it wrong? Numskll 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Gravitor 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok.

:1. Not one piece of evidence on the page is presented by Bart Sibrel or any hoax proponent (or "proponents of the theory that the Moon landings did not happen). None of the sources that the evidence come from have anything to do with the hoax.

My assumption is that the very notion that independant evidence is wanting (and possible given the history of the events - who but the astronauts really know they went to the moon) is related to the hoax proposition and that people who do not actively beleive in the hoax tend to assume (right;y or wrongly) that the evidence you say is tainted by NASA is in fact practically/provisionally independant by virture of the public nature of the events - to the extent non hoax beleivers think of it at all.
Feel free to take that one up on the Scientific method page. Seriously though, all this independent evidence was collected before the hoax accusations were even made', so it's really not true that it's related to the hoax proposition. Why did independent observatories track Apollo? It certainly had nothing to do with Bart Sibrel. Gravitor 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the way YOU wrote the retroflectors section in this article. Look at the two possibilities you present. Trace back the source of those possibilities. NASA versus Marcus Allan, hoax proponent. Please try to be honest on the talk page, at least. Numskll 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:2. Not one piece of evidence on the page was collected as a rebuttal to the hoax. In fact, nearly all of it (perhaps all) was collected before the hoax accusations were even made. To present this as part of a back-and-forth between the hoax proponents and landing defenders is a gross misrepresentation.

First you santitized the article of all the hoax language and derived assumptions just before the recent edit war presumably in an effort to make just this case. I agree with your back and forth comment. I'm only interested in properly contextualizing the discussion.
But this is not the proper context for this evidence. As I keep telling you, all of it predates the accusations. Gravitor 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the way YOU wrote the retroflectors section in this article. Look at the two possibilities you present. Trace back the source of those possibilities. NASA versus Marcus Allan, hoax proponent. Please try to be honest on the talk page, at least. Numskll 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:3. The people who collected this evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers. They collected it for their own reasons, certainly not as part of the hoax discussion.

While I tend to agree with you on motives I note that you're simply speculating here. Also the use of independant is extremely suspect as has been pointed out.
It's not speculation, because, as I keep telling you, none of these people had ever heard of the hoax when they made these observations. Gravitor 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
it is the context of the way these particular observations have been included coupled with the idea of independant (from NASA )"evidence" to which I was referring. As you can see we're talking apples and oranges again Numskll 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:4 The discussions on Wikipedia that produced this page are not a good reason to structure the information.

While that is true the discussions that produced this particular article are not incidental in my view to the content and, in fact, they give shape and significance to this particular set of facts, chosen by the loosely or ill-defined term independant. In other words this stuff is signifacant and unitary (part of one class of things ) precisely because the discussion takes place in the context of the hoax.
The key phrase there is "in my view". Where this page started in terms of Wikipedia discussion should not decide it's taxonomy. If we agree here to start a new page on Tigers, it does not become part of Project Apollo. Gravitor 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
By taking pains to point out my judicial use of the phrase "In my view" as some fundamental weakness of my response you seem to indicate that your opinions on this topic are not merely opinions but some kind of fundamental truth recived from on high? Do you belive your expressing fundamental truths or opinions? As for the substance of the point. I responded, repeatedly I might add, above. Numskll 16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:In summary - this is not a hoax page. A sentence to say that the hoax proponents reference a lack of evidence is one thing, but an opening paragraph that sets it in the context of the hoax is utterly misleading.

In summary, to not state clearly the context of this discussion is utterly misleading and seems designed to promote the pro hoax agenda demonstrated on other articles on the topic. Numskll 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the context you want to put it in is clearly wrong. By about a decade. Gravitor 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean "clearly wrong" in your view? Or is there another definition of indepance at play here? Numskll 16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And with a typically impoverished and tunnel vision reading of my position like that you wonder why I didn't bother to respond to you directly at first. Numskll 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is not your personal property. Wahkeenah 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon thinking about it, I think the context belongs in a separate paragraph near the front instead of the opening paragraph. On the other hand, the context is important, and should not be removed.

Just because the hoax theories appeared a decade or so after the landings doesn't mean that independent evidence (or for that matter, ANY evidence) collected at the time of the landings is irrelevant to the hoax claims. Clearly, the context of the evidence changed when the hoax theories gained their limited prominence. The hoax claims HAVE to placed in the context of the evidence that existed at the time, as well as any evidence collected afterwards. If the hoax claimants say that there is no evidence for the landings, then they cannot summarily dismiss the independent evidence for the landings, even if it was collected before the hoax theories. (Conversely, the collection of the evidence before the hoax claims strengthens the evidence's quality, for it removes a possible source of bias.)

I strongly fear that the purpose of having a separate article of the independent evidence is for the hoax claimants to then be able to dismiss it in articles about the hoax theories (i.e., "You can't have this evidence there, it's already in a a separate article! Anyway, it was before the time of the hoax claims, so it doesn't count!"). -- ArglebargleIV 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, discussing the "evidence" without context (in the manner proposed by Gravitor) constitutes original research. As far as I know, there are no reputable publications that have been concerned with "independent evidence" that are outside of the hoax arguement context. By framing this article as "only presenting the evidence with no context" we are creating a novel narrative that never before existed. It is probably true that people have written stories about their personal observations of the Apollo mission---I would presume that anyone who saw a Saturn V launch would be very impressed. However, in my opinion, these accounts are non-notable (see wikipedia's defintion of notability). In particular, I have yet to see a single reference that is about "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings". In fact, I am not aware of a publication about "independent observations of Apollo Moon landings". If this article is to remain, it is my opinion that the context needs to be displayed prominently in the introduction---The hoax claims are the only way that one could claim that this article is about a notable subject. Lunokhod 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think ArglebargleIV has hit the nail on the head as to the agenda of this page's original authors, i.e. an IP address and/or Gravitor: to "damn with faint evidence". And you're right about the risk of this page being totally "original research". Of course, we are all sockpuppets on NASA's payroll, which might skew our logic. >:) Wahkeenah 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So you are really making the case that all these people who collected this evidence, a decade before the hoax accusations, did it only to be able to refute the hoax when it came along? There's no other, more relevant motive? Gravitor 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not the case that I am making. What I am saying is that the importance of the already collected independent evidence increased once the accusations of fakery surfaced. Why they did it 35+ years ago is important, but it is equally important to examine the evidence in today's context. The usefulness of the independent evidence in refuting the fakery accusations is as important, if not more so, that the reasons they collected the evidence at the time. -- ArglebargleIV 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, collecting this evidence without consciousness of future hoax accusations is what makes it all the more valuable. Without the hoax accusations, it means rather little. I think you just said that. :) Wahkeenah 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

Support (Proposer) For: I am for the proposed merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations for several reasons. Most notably, the article in isolation violates several of wikipedia's policies, and the small amount of content in this article could easily be merged with existing articles as detailed below.

  1. The topic by itself is not notable; SEE WP:Notability. There are NO reputatable sources that deal DIRECTLY with the topic of "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon Landings". I have asked gravitor numerous times for references, and he has yet to provide a single one.
  2. The topic is becoming a piece of original research; SEE WP:OR. While amateur observations have been published, this article is attempting to create a novel narrative. The original research is related to the manner in which this article is colating information out of context. None of the links or references in this article are directly related to a literal reading of this article's title: Independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings. The amateurs who documented the Apollo missions where not interested in PROVING that they occurred. They were simply reporting observations as a reporter would. Implicit in these amateur accounts is the belief that there was no conspiracy by NASA.
  3. The only reason for having a topic titled "independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings" is to refute claims made by proponents of the cospiracy theory. (Consider the implications of an article entitled "independent evidence for the existence of the Holocaust"). Contrary to the loud pronouncments by gravitor, he has yet to provide a single reputable reference showing that people who believe the landings occurred are interested in collecting evidence to prove that it has occurred. Why one would do so in the first place it s outside the realm of logic. I have attempted to rename this article to "Independent OBSERVATIONS of Apollo Moon Landings", but gravitor has refused to go along with this. Using the word "evidence" and claiming that this article is not about the hoax violates WP:WEASEL.
  4. The largest portion of this article "Existence of Moon rocks" could easily be merged with Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations with no increase in length of that article. I will do this myself as the info on the hoax page needs to be updated.
  5. Each link in the list of observations of Apollo missions could be placed on the specific Apollo mission page. These should go on articles such as Apollo 12, 14, 15, etc, and not Project Apollo. In my opinion, these links should just be added as external links.
  6. The discussion about what is "independent" evidence should be in the hoax article. This is short and will not increase the length of the hoax article. In essence, the conspiracy theorists do not listen to "official" evidence, so it should be spelled out in that article what it is that they consider to be official, and what would be considered believable to them.
  7. The claim that "the evidence exists, therefore it deserves an article" is stupid. As already pointed out, should every phenomenon have an article called "Independent evidence for..." or "Evidence for..."? Consider "Independent evidence for WWII, the atomic bomb, conspiracy theorists, Bart Sibel" and so on. This is just plain silly. Lunokhod 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: (Jerry Lavoie has interpreted the comments left here as one of 5 categories: Strong Support, Support, Comment, Oppose, or Strong Oppose. If I made a mistake, please correct the interpretation. For ease of evaluating for concensus, please use the same format as on an AfD, where your summary goes in bold at the beginning of your statement, which is preceded by a bullet (asterisk). Always sign your posts. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Support For (with Reservations): The moon hoax article is already tremendous long. I'd like to see the independant evidence article as a official sub article (realted article) to the main hoax page, ala [wp:ss] Numskll 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support For, and to address the length of the main article, the section about the hoax in popular culture could be taken out (or perhaps made its own article) in order to shorten the article and allow for more important information (even though I contributed to that section). Bubba73 (talk), 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that your POV of what is important should decide this? Gravitor 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support For. And Bubba73's idea of spinning off the "Pop culture" into a separate article (as is often done when an article gets large) is a good idea, since it has less to do with facts than it does with anecdotes. Wahkeenah 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wahkeenah, here is the link to the wired article I promsied you last week: [1] I include it here b/c there is some feeling expressed in the article that these pop culture artifacts represent one of the primary sources for the hoax. Numskll 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's a good writeup. It shows how popular media parodies can trap the gullible. There were folks who took the ca.1938 "War of the Worlds" radio show as being a documentary, despite several announcements that it was a radio play. I recall some media story in 1964 about how Barry Goldwater opposed the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as being socialistic, and some folks were worried that Goldwater was planning to "take our TV's away". Ironically, in the case of those morons, it might have been a good idea. Wahkeenah 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Note also how the Kubrick accusations seem to have been suggested by a british mock documentary included the idea of kubrick and his imaginary brother as part of the plot AND yet the hoax proponents hold the accusation as just as valid as any of the others. Fiction is truer than truth? Numskll 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't know for sure if Kubrick has a brother or not, never having heard of it outside of the hoax article. That reference in the hoax article, if it's still there, would be a good one to hoist on its own petard, but citing a website that makes the claim, and then demonstrating it to be false somehow. "Raul"? That's the name of Fidel Castro's brother. That might not be a coincidence: someone's idea of a joke, which the ever-gullible hoaxsters took seriously. Wahkeenah 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, obviously this is a POV crusade to remove a valid article. The evidence collected has no direct relationship to the hoax. If you want to merge it with Project Apollo, we can talk about that. Gravitor 15:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I support a merger, as I do think as a subject this isn't quite suitable for an independent article. I do recognize the concern with regards to merging with the hoax section, though perhaps that might be solved by making this a sub-section of both pages? There's no reason you can't merge the information two places if it's appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons I identified in the AfD. Jerry lavoie 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    • "Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. My interpretation of WP:NPOV does not provide for making separate articles for cited POV's. If the information is notable, then it should be cited and reside right next to the contrary position's notable and cited content. By making separate articles each catering to a particular POV, you may avoid conflict between editors, but you do the reader a disservice. Some readers are likley to read just the one article, which devoid of a balanced NPOV, is unfair. If the article is too long, then consider trimming out the fat... if there is no fat to trim, then maybe it is ok to be long... or maybe the article needs to be split up, but not based on the POV of the content.
    • "I was also asked to reconsider the article in the light of further revisions. I want to reiterate that I do not have a problem with the content or context or notability of the article in question. What I do have a problem with is segregating it from the hoax article. Maybe this AfD would have been more tolerable to more people if the other article was nominated for deletion and we all voted to merge it's contents here... I dunno. But I am reconfirming my !vote to merge these two articles, under any name the merging admin chooses."

Note: Jerry Lavoie has merged two sections on this talk page that were the same topic, for ease of evaluating concensus.

  • COMMENT (already !voted) What if we create a page called Evidence for Apollo Moon landings and then merge this article into that one? If Gravitor wants to talk only about the facts, why should we disregard NASA's evidence, or eye-witness accounts of astronauts that claim to have walked on the Moon? If we are not allowed to bring up the hoax accusations at all, it seems that it would be natural to give NASA's evidence equal weight as the "independent" evidence. At the very least, it seems that if Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings exists, that Evidence for Apollo Moon landings should as well. Could someone explain to me why this logic fails? Lunokhod 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT (already !voted) :NO. As stated above (and there has been no response) this has nothing to do with the hoax.
    1. Not one hoax proponent has presented any evidence for the landing.
    2. Not one piece of evidence was collected in response to the hoax claims (indeed most was collected before the hoax accusations were even made). It is grossly misleading to characterize the evidence as some sort of back and forth between hoax proponents and their opponents.
    3. The origin of an article in terms of the Wikipedia discussions that generated it is not relevant to its taxonomy in the article structure.
    4. Please take these facts seriously, and stop your POV pushing. Gravitor 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The hoax claims are related to the earlier observations/evidence by the simple fact of hoax claimants completely ignoring past observations. There is no back and forth between hoax claimants and the observations -- the observations existed before the claims, and the claimants simply ignore them. The evidence and observations are in direct opposition to the hoax claims, and to claim otherwise is dishonest.
      This is going as I suspected -- hoax claimants created this article to move whatever non-NASA evidence and observations that throw the claims into disarray (at best) into a walled garden where it can be conveniently ignored. I support a merge. -- ArglebargleIV 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This page exists only because it grew out of the hoax page, and it is not your personal pet. Ownership of pages is against wikipedia policy. Wahkeenah 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yes. That sounds like a very sensible solution to me. There is no supportable reason for dividing evidence into "NASA" evidence and "independent" evidence. MLilburne 09:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT (already !voted) Yes, but.... Independent observations (as opposed to the hoaxsters patronizing term "evidence") could maybe be included in the Project Apollo article. I doubt that there is a separate article on, for example, evidence that World War II happened. However, if there is sufficient useful info, a separate detailed article could be OK. Wahkeenah 10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The Project Apollo article is quite short now, but I'm planning to do some work on it shortly, and I imagine it'll get pretty lengthy very quickly. I'm not there would be room for a more than a couple of sentences on the specific topic... seems to me that a subarticle is the way to go. I sympathise with your concerns, however. Hopefully we can come up with a workable solution. MLilburne 10:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Just count on a fight from that pair of contentious users, who created this separate page for a specific reason. Wahkeenah 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that reason is to list independent evidence. When this pack of rabid reverters actually read the protests against their sabotage and realise that this evidence was collected a decade before the hoax accusation took place they will stop their ridiculous campaign. Adding this to Project Apollo would be fine, although it would result in an article long enough to be split out. Gravitor 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • If you wanted a list, with no context, you should have created an article called "List of independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings." Lunokhod 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, we can change the name. That's not a problem. The problem is POV pushers trying to imply that the only reason for being interested in evidence is hoax theories, when in fact, not one of the people presenting evdince were even aware of the hoax theories when they collected it. It is hugely misleading. Gravitor 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
              • No, not the only reason, just a reason, and an important one. -- ArglebargleIV 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Gravitor, you have still to demonstate that this article is "notable" according to wikipedia standards. Could you give me a reference to a single reputable source that discusses "Indendendent evidence for Apollo moon landings". The word "independent" and "evidence" must be in the article, and used in a manner that is directly related to this topic. As far as I can tell, the links that you have given do not do this. Lunokhod 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT (already !voted) Yes, but such an article could be extremely long. It would just have to hit the highlights. I think that the information in this article would fit well as a section of the "big picture" of more evidence. There are literally thousands of secondary sources - thousands of journalists covered the Moon landings; thousands of scientists have worked with the data. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

End inserted comments from previous aborted merge proposals.

  • Oppose, if both articles had been very short then I'd support merging. But this is the opposite of the current situation where both articles are long. 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because that section was inappropriate to this article. Your continued attempts to sabotage this page are not appreciated. Gravitor 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations is way too long. Branson03 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to recommend some improvements. Wahkeenah 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, if the length of the hoax article is an issue, the section of the hoax in popular culture is several screens long and adds little important information. It can be spun off or eliminated. Or the article can be done "summary style", which has been discussed before but not obtained much support. Bubba73 (talk), 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not move this to something like Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Organisations. Branson03 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That would work for me, although it would not hold the moon rock stuff. Carfiend 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That section is small, it wouldn't be that bad if it was taking out. Branson03 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I didn't realize most of this section was taking out. Branson03 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of it is not evidence, but commentry - actual evidence about the moon rocks should go in. Carfiend 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I keep what I said about it wouldn't matter. Branson03 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about length: "Existence of Moon rocks" has already been merged with the Hoax article, and all that remains to be merged is the definition of what constitutes "independent" evidence (i.e., one paragraph). The rest of the "observations" will go in the respective Apollo articles. Lunokhod 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So you mean merging with Apollo 8, Apollo 9, Apollo 10, etc. Branson03 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the amateur observations of Apollo 8 should go under Apollo 8, on so on. As I don't think that these observations are notable, I would just add this information as external links, though I would not be against including it in the text if there was a way to do so.
Hmm... an interesting approach, but the list is still needed, just as Project Apollo is still needed even though we have an article for each mission. The Moon Rock stuff is merged because it is not relevant to this article. Carfiend 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the list needed? Why would someone want to look for "independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings" if they already believe that they happened (i.e., they are not a hoax believer)? Lunokhod 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That gives a reason to move it to Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Organisations. It doesn't label it as evidence, but information. Branson03 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with creating such a page. Lunokhod 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And, most of this has nothing to do with the landings, but the missions. Branson03 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Yes I don't see the point of this article in isolation. The only reason a person would want independent evidence is if they had heard of the hoax allegations, and would want to know more, in which case they would look at the main hoax allegation article, which deals with the whole thing in a much better way, and as a result these all belong in there, or simply deleted. I can't even begin to imagine what sort of search syntax you would need to come directly here. I have read the arguments that this is nothing to do with the hoax article, but to my mind the two are inextricably linked. I do not think this should be merged into project Apollo. It would be the same as having some list of independent evidence that Amundsen actually went to Antarctica in the middle of his article, it's non-sensical - all it would do is add credence to the hoax theory (it would be as if Apollo was starting on the back foot to try to defend itself, when it has no need so to do). I agree with the assertion above that this is drifting into original research. I also agree the other article is on the long side, so I'll have a think about that and if I can come up with any suggestions I'll post them on the other talk page. LeeG 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's true that only hoax proponents would want independent evidence, why is it that the only people who present independent evidence are not hoax proponents, and all of it was collected before the hoax was proposed? I have still not seen any explanation for this. Gravitor 16:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The people who collected "evidence" before the hoax was proposed did not call it "evidence". They called it "observations" or "reporting". Please prove me wrong by providing a reference to a reputable source. Lunokhod 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading my paragraph above I said nothing about hoax proponents, I referred to a person who had heard about the allegations and would want to learn more. That's not a proponent, nor is it a debunker, it's a party wanting to know more. Keeping with my (now somewhat stretched) analogy, had I just heard about Scott and Amundsen's ordeal at the south pole, I may come to Wikipedia to learn more. I am not a "South Pole Expedition was a hoax" proponent, I am after information. I stand by my vote, this is inextricably linked to the hoax page, and should be merged or deleted.
To answer the question you set - if I was advocating that the moon landings were a fake, and then present a series of independent verifications that the moon landings actually happened, I would have shot myself in the foot. In other words, a hoax proponent would not present evidence, leaving a population of debunkers and people who don't care. The latter don't care, the debunkers are therefore the population left to present any evidence. If by present you mean "prepare" or "make" or whatever, then the previous post has it right - you could not be a hoax proponent because the hoax allegations did not exist at the time you made your observations.
As this page piqued my interest in this topic, I have been reading the talk archives over at the main article (man, that's a lot of argument there) and I cannot work out what possible "evidence" could be generated post the hoax allegations, short of going back to the moon. If we were to do that, it would doubtless be called a foul, as it would fail the bizarre series of "independence" qualifiers set in this article ("NASA was involved" or "The Government bankrolled it" or whatever). That brings me to another objection I have to this whole thing - that series of criteria makes the rest of this read like original research. I am now more committed to the merger or removal of this article. LeeG 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes vote for merge. if you guys are gonna turn this into another hoax article, then we should just squush them together. --72.224.173.60 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. See below, it does not appear that this is a hoax article. Trollderella 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuation-1

Section added since now on VPP
To help with voting and avoid big edit conflicts/FrankB

Support Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion. An article discussing the "evidence for the Apollo moon landings" is a discussion on the truth or falsehood of the of the Apollo missions. In this context, such a discussion can only be between those people who are skeptical of the existence of the moon landings and those people who maintain the moon landings actually occurred. The subject matter of this article, therefore, is inextricably tied to the question of the moon-landing hoax. However, assuming this article documents evidence, it only documents evidence "for" the Apollo missions, not against. Because it presents only the view that the Apollo missions occurred, this article violates the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. On the other hand, if this is not an evidentiary article, then it is merely a list of unrelated pieces of information on the Apollo missions. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This article violates Wikipedia policy on the above grounds. As this article has already survived a nomination for deletion, the proper course of action is to merge this article with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article.

Suggestion Because this new article would exceed 100K in size, I suggest that the content from the "Hoax claims examined" section of "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" be moved into "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings". At the same time, "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" should be renamed to something like "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Claims Examined" and a link be placed in "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations". The result would be two articles of approximately 50K in size each. This should address concerns about article size.

Comment The current situation is untenable. As they are, both articles are incomplete. The "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article is lacking some needed evidence, and the "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" article is out in left field with no context whatsoever. Put the two of these together as a parent and child article, and you have a proper encyclopedia entry. This merger shouldn't be too difficult. The section on moon rocks has some overlap, and would probably need to be cleaned up and re-written such that it reads smoothly. Most of the other sections from the current article "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" would not need to be changed much and can be dropped right into place as is in its own section entitled "Independent evidence".

Liberal Classic 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support -- having unlinked articles in contention makes no sense. Favor above suggestion by Liberal Classic though. The length is a triviality so that can be evolved into if necessary; there are many very large articles in world history coverage such as History of India and FA Queen Elizabeth. Ideals don't and can't cover every eventuality or need, or guidelines would be policies.

       Would that the warring editors were more dedicated to applying {{fact|{{subst:DATE}}}} tagging. That would have eliminated or at least transformed some of the conflict already. This 'Tit' I asked for..., 'Tat' No you're lying again, I gave you... stuff is childish crap. // FrankB 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging. I think it is a worthy seperate page (let's see how much content there is). A single topic is a good focus. My reasons were given above, in the first section above on the proposed merger. E4mmacro 08:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Surveyor 3

Parts of Surveyor 3 were brought back to Earth, and a major piece of it is on display at the Smithsonian. There is no evidence that these parts got back to Earth in any way other than being brought back by Apollo 12. Does this constitute independent evidence? Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA built, flew, recovered and presented the vehicle - this is not really independent, is it? Gravitor 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
These parts were analyzed by "indepedentent" scientists and the data conclusively shows that they were in a vacuum exposed to the solar wind and galactic cosmic rays for the duration that NASA claims that it was on the Moon. It is possible that the same data could be explained if it was in orbit about the Earth, but it would most likely have to be an orbit that was outside of the Earth's magnetosheath. A hoax explanation for this, while possible, would be very convoluted indeed. Perhaps Gravitor could give a go at explaining where the Surveyor parts were exposed to the space, and how we retreived them? Lunokhod 10:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Then cite that data. Gravitor 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember that Ghislaine Crozaz at Washington University was involved with this. This should help you track down the necessary papers. Lunokhod 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice. It's not me making the claim. If you think there's independent evidence of the Surveyor missions, cite it. Gravitor 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This describes the event in question. It took me 3 minutes on google scholar and I didn't know what the hell you folks were talking about.[2]

Numskll 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the demonstration. It just goes to show that Gravitor is not interested in adding "evidence" to his pet project. Lunokhod 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
When all else fails, make personal attacks. Great. Carfiend 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

. . . nothing . . . else . . . failed . . . Numskll

Gravitor: Stop editing to your preferred version

Please stop making the same set of obviously disputed edits without discussion. Simply deleting evidence that doesn't fit into you agenda borders on vandalism. Numskll 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not. The fact that you have a few sock-puppets who keep re-inserting inappropriate material is the issue. Gravitor 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, you are the minority opinion here. If you would like to make edits, start with the draft that has the consensus of the editors. Your edits are vandalism since you refuse to discuss your reasons, and respond to our questions of you, on the talk page. Your continued attempts to sabotage this page are not appreciated. Lunokhod 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
He's done for the day, unless he wants to (1) violate the 3-revert rule and risk blocking by an admin and/or (2) take his sockpuppet allegations to that same admin. Wahkeenah 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You should all stop edit warring and actually discuss the issue. Carfiend 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it a bird or a plane? Nope. Its Carfiend to the rescue. That's odd. Numskll 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It was expected. They've got everyone playing their game now. They're in warthog heaven. Wahkeenah 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of article, in case it remains un-merged

EVERYBODY is edit-warring at the moment.

There is a fundamental disagreement about what the purpose of this article is. (Actually, there are multiple fundamental disagreements, but let's start with this one.) Let's try this. Please, everyone, give me a one or two sentence description of what you see as the purpose of the article, and how it should be linked into the web of information that is Wikipedia. -- ArglebargleIV 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to wait a few more days for the merge proposal, as discussed above, to pass. In any case here are the major disagrements:

1 Gravitor does not want any mention of the "Hoax" in this article because it has "nothing to do with the hoax." The clear majority of editors acknowledge that the only people who would want "evidence" would be those who don't believe the landings occurred, and hence that the "hoax" arguments need to be discussed in some sense. Attempts to replace the word "evidence" by the more neutral term "observations" did not illicite any response from gravitor.

All this evidence was collected a decade before the hoax accusations. Clearly it had nothing to do with the hoax then, and it has nothing to do with the hoax now, except for the fact that hoax accusers claim it does not exist. That is hardly a suitable 'context'. Carfiend 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If these observations were collected before the "hoax" arrived, then these are OBSERVATIONS, not evidence. When there is a press conference with the president, you don't list evidence that it occurred, you list the observations. Lunokhod 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. NASA didn't just hold a press conference, claim that they had gone to the Moon, and present evidence. It was observed as it happened by thousands of journalists and others. Bubba73 (talk), 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Gravitor continues to revert my section "existence of Moon rocks", which discusses the pros and cons of this "evidence". After numerous requests, he has still not described why the three paragraphs should be summarized into his one sentence.

It looks like the reason that keeps getting reverted is because there is no independent evidence presented - it's just a rehash of the debate on the hoax page. Carfiend 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is the summary of each paragraph: Independent scientists agree NASA has large quantities of Moon rocks. It is not likley that they are lunar meteorites. It is not probable that they were collected robotically. Why doesn't this belong here? Lunokhod 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Gravitor continues to remove simple sentences that give context under the guise that it is "editorializing." For instance, what is wrong with giving a two sentence summary of the Apollo 8 mission so that people actually know what it did (or what NASA claims that it did)? Does everyone know that A10 did? Lunokhod 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be nice for you if Gravior was the only one, but in fact it is a small group of people who have committed themselves to destroying this article (overtly) who are trying various ways to achieve this. First the deletion attempt, now the merge attempt, anything to get rid of it. It is a blatant show of bad faith, and makes it very difficult to collaborate on improving this article, because I am collaborating with people whose aim is not to improve it, but to destroy it. Carfiend 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is editorializing that has nothing to do with the point #3. Lunokhod 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose: To collect, in one place, for easy reference, the independent evidence for the Apollo Moon landings. Carfiend 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why someone would want "independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings?" There is more than enough information on Project Apollo. Lunokhod 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no independent evidence on the Project Apollo page. I would not oppose merging it into a section on that page, although I would want to see it kept as a discrete section, otherwise the utility of compiling it is diluted. Carfiend 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As this is a discussion of the purpose of this article, could you please attempt to address my question? Why would someone look for "Independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings"? Lunokhod 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Independant of NASA only has meaning in the context of the hoax. There for this article must be about evidence that hoax proponents might accept as independant. Otherwise all of this would be little addition to the various Apollo program pages. I personally consider most of the details about the various apollo missions relatively independant in as much as the term means anything is this regard. Numskll 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Why do sites exist that list this stuff? They are not hoax sites. Why did people collect it? Certainly not in response to the hoax, which did not exist. People are currious - 'Why do you want that information' could be asked of almost any article. People want it, it's doing no harm. Stop trying to destroy it. Carfiend 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! You finally admit there was no hoax! Awesome! Wahkeenah 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sites do not exist that list this stuff. Please give a reputable reference to back this claim up. Lunokhod 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense - read the references on the page. Gravitor 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a site (sorry) that defines its content as indpendant evidence of apollo m oon landings or that refers to the concept directly. Numskll 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the refs on the page. Gravitor 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
point me to the pertent ones please. I don't see the references to "independant" or "evidence" or any of there synonyms. Numskll 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was started by hoaxsters, who are vigorously defending their spin on it. The purpose of the article is to push their agenda. Wahkeenah 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spin? I am wanting simply to list the evidence, without spin. You et al are the ones wanting spin. Gravitor 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are a hoaxster, and you are its author. QED. Wahkeenah 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor's recent comments on the hoax page, in reference to possible future mission, leave no doubt as to his point-of-view, which are unswayed by the evidence he himself is supposedly supporting on this page. Thus, his agenda in authoring this page must be assumed to be cynical and self-serving, especially as he continues to spout disproven hoaxster junk ideas, such as the Van Allen belts supposedly being an insurmountable barrier: "The biggest problem is still the radiation shielding - there won't be a real moon mission until someone can get enough shielding up there to get through the radiation belts. But yes, it will kind of suck to be the first, and not to get the credit. Gravitor 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)" Wahkeenah 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is for the information of who tracked what apollo missions. The is little evidence of moon landings, only the missions. As I've said before, it should be moved to "Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Organisations" or by Independent Parties. That title fits better to this article. Branson03 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should become (under whatever title) part of some cluster of pages surrounding the hoax allegations. That article is incredibly long, and needs trimming severely. I noticed that the main people driving the allegations have been hived off, why not other bits too? Into (for example) "rebuttal of the moon hoax allegations" article, and a "list of independent observations of the Apollo missions" article. This would take most of the meat out of the main article, give this page a reason to be (albeit tenuous). In whatever form it ends up, it has to be linked to the hoax allegations, it has no reason to exist without them. LeeG 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you name it what I suggested above, it will have nothing to do with the hoax, it will have to do with people who tracked the missions, not that I have a problem with linking it to the hoax page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Branson03 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm ok with what Branson is suggesting. Carfiend 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources that include the topic "Independant evidence of moon landings"

The fundamental issue that we seem to be grappling with is is that some of us see this issue as entirely embedded in the context of the hoax while others, mistakenly in my view (by way of full disclosure) see it as a separate topic I invite those that see it as a separate topic to present sources that define it as so. Based on my reading of WPs, if it isn't produced we must judge this topic as part of the hoax. Numskll 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange that anyone would think that this evidence has anything to do with the hoax when it was all collected a decade before the hoax idea was proposed. If it's true that only hoax proponents would want independent evidence, why is it that the only people who present independent evidence are not hoax proponents, and all of it was collected before the hoax was proposed? I have still not seen any explanation for this. Gravitor 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure anything is strange about the question. Your nonresponsiove reply might be strange if it was not so familar. Please supply a source that defines itself as "independant evidence" and/or explains what it means by "independant." Those are the key questions at hand. A single source the describes the topic would tend to blunt any pro-hoax talk around this article. Providing that source would seem to promote your view of the topic. It would, thus, seem in your best interest to do so. I spent some time looking for one but to no avail. I'm assuming you'll have better luck. Numskll 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, let's examine your post bit by bit :

Yes, it's strange that anyone would think that this evidence has anything to do with the hoax when it was all collected a decade before the hoax idea was proposed.
If the independent evidence/observations counter and disprove the hoax theories, then they definitely have something to do with the hoax theories, and it doesn't matter when it was collected. Saying that the only related evidence and observations would be those collected and performed after the theories are presented reaches a ridiculous level of rejection. In 1980, for example, one could not use a telescope to observe the Apollo spacecraft heading to the moon because the events happened from 1969 to 1972! For all the going on about how NASA was supposedly unscientific, it's quite amazing how hoax theorists ignore a basic principle of scientific theories -- that one has to account for the existing evidence and observations. A theory that blithely discards preexisting evidence and observations isn't a scientific theory -- and, it really isn't a valid logical theory or not, scientific or otherwise. And accounting for the evidence and observations does not mean saying that "oh it happened before my brilliant theory was proposed, it doesn't count".
Right. Since the hoax theories point out a lack of evidence (they do not talk about the evidence on this page, in fact they claim that this does not exist) the relationship is tangential at best. A paragraph near the end of the article mentioning that hoax proponents say this evidence doesn't exist is fine - pretending that the idea of evidence is embedded in the idea of the hoax is nonsense. Gravitor 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying that is the preexisting evidence and observations are a counter to the hoax theories. To talk about the hoax theories without talking about the status of the evidence and observations from before is intellectually deficient, and would be a violation of [[WP:NPOV}} on Wikipedia. The contents on this page belong as part of the article about the hoax theories and the arguments against them. -- ArglebargleIV 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
BUT THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT HOAX THEORIES! It does not 'talk about the hoax theories without talking about the status of the evidence' - it does not talk about the hoax theories at all! Because the hoax theories came about 10 years after the evidence - they COULD NOT be related. I don't know why you have trouble understanding that! Gravitor 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The word evidence implies that the Moon landings are some form of theory, instead of treating it as an event that was documented. Hoax theories were in circulation at the time of the landindgs. Read the article. Lunokhod 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's true that only hoax proponents would want independent evidence,
False. First, the independent evidence and observations are different that the article about them -- one is a container of the other. The two shouldn't be confused -- the independent evidence and observations' existence does not depend on the existence of a article about them.
Second, both proponents and opponents should want to examine independent evidence and observations. What the hoax theories' proponents, such as yourself and Carfield, want is a separate article for listing the independent evidence and observations, thereby separating them from context, and separating them from any kind of presentation or critical examination of the hoax theories. The point that I have been trying to make is that it seems that the only interest that proponents such as yourself seem to have in independent evidence and observations in the article is to bury them behind a wall so you can ignore them.
Well I'm glad you are able to attribute motivation with such certainty. As I have said, the evidence existed LONG BEFORE the hoax theory was presented, so how is the context of the evidence the hoax? Of course, it is not. Gravitor 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When the hoax theories were proposed, they had to deny or refute the preexisting evidence and observations. The preexisting evidence and observations became part of the context around the hoax theories (note the order of the context there) when the hoax theories were proposed. -- ArglebargleIV 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The hoax theories do not even reference this evidence - they talk almost exclusively about NASA and their evidence. This is utterly unrelated to the hoax! Gravitor 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
why is it that the only people who present independent evidence are not hoax proponents,
Because, perhaps, proponents of the hoax theories wouldn't be the people coming up with evidence against your their theories? Also, perhaps, proponents of the hoax theories want to ignore or belittle the evidence and observations?
Or perhaps because the people presenting the evidence are not involved in any way with the hoax, because the two are COMPLETELY UNRELATED! Gravitor 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
They aren't unrelated -- the independent evidence and observations are a refutation of the hoax theories. I'd call that EXTREMELY related. -- ArglebargleIV 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
They are NOT a refutation of the hoax theories, because they were collected a decade before the hoax was proposed. They were collected for a completely different reason. I accept that one or two people might use them to argue with hoax theorists, and a paragraph at the bottom of the article can be added, but that is not their primary context. Gravitor 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
and all of it was collected before the hoax was proposed?
Because that is when the evidence and observations happened, maybe?
I have still not seen any explanation for this.
Since you have a demonstrably false statement in the previous sentence, it seems to me that you're not going to get a explanation that you'll listen to. -- ArglebargleIV 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can listen to this nonsense again and again, but it does not make it true. The people collecting and presenting this evidence are NOT doing it in the context of the hoax. I suppose you are going to suggest that the article on the holocaust museum should be merged with the article on holocaust denial? Surely the only people interested in commemorating one would be those involved in promoting the other, and the only context for the museum could be accusations of a hoax? What nonsense. Gravitor 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Repeatedly dismissing out of hand valid discussion that is counter to your POV without offering a convincing rebuttal is not productive towards reaching a consensus, why not instead produce the source that was requested at the top of this article. Such a source would tend to end this discussion in your favor. Numskll 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's unclear to me whether "oyur" is supposed to be 'Your', or 'Our'. Either way, you post makes little sense. Gravitor 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I fixed the typo. I assumed, up until this moment, that we were all capable of comprehending text written at what might be a typical adult reading level. Your failure to comprehend what seems to me a simple idea, simply stated calls this assumption into question. I will try in the future to write in a style more suitable for a mixed audience of adults and children. I'm sorry that my ideas have been written with adults in mind. I'll do my best to avoid confusing you with big words or overly complex concepts in the future, assuming, of course, that complexity and maturity is the source of your evident confusion. Perhaps I can re-post what I said above in a manner suitable for a younger audience Numskll 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I still do not follow this line of reasoning. Tigranes didn't collect evidence for Halley's Comet in the context of Halley's comet, but it's still "evidence" for the comet, and, look! It's referenced to the Halley's Comet article. If that doesn't demonstrate the point, then how about the opening lines of the main article that hoax allegations apparently started in 1968. Perhaps some of these observations were done in the light of that revelation? Furthermore, your holocaust example does not survive scrutiny - it is the same as a museum exhibit on Apollo, for example the Smithsonian, which you dissed above as not being independent. You don't go to such an exhibit to because you believe in the hoax, or even because you have heard of the hoax, but because you want to learn about Apollo (or the holocaust, or DNA or whatever). I think you'll find that nowhere in such an exhibit is a reference to independent "evidence". Likewise there is nothing "independent" in a holocaust museum - all the evidence you have (in your terms) is not in the context of a hoax. SO - museum on the holocaust denial, probably merge to the denial, museum on the Apollo hoax allegation, merge with the hoax allegation. (I can't quite believe I have let myself get dragged into this, I only popped by out of interest) LeeG 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You have let yourself be pulled into Gravitor/Carfiend's game, like the rest of us have. "Independent Evidence" for the Apollo mission is a term used solely by hoaxsters (such as those two users) who argue that there is no "independent" evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the Apollo missions. Their specific purpose in building this page is subject to conjecture, but they know what they're doing and why, i.e. as part of their agenda to bolster the hoax "theory". Keep those facts in mind, and their seemingly bizarre approach to "discussion" makes sense, in its own way. Oh, and you can pretty well bet that rather than answering my complaints directly, they'll say, "When all else fails, make personal attacks." That's also part of their M.O. - the "non-denial denial". Wahkeenah 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is, indeed, how you operate. You admit to having an agenda to destroy this article based on your personal differences with some editors. That is not a constructive approach. Please stop, and consider working to improve the encyclopedia, rather than just trolling others who are trying to write factual articles. Gravitor 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This section began with a request to produce a source which, in some way, places the laundry list of items on this article in some context that is not related to the hoax. This request was a sincere attempt to solve the dispute around the issue, as such a source would end the discussion, and sources that request and provide information of this kind in the context of the hoax are abundant. I've looked; everything that even vaguely supports the stated topic of this article is hoax related. This leads me to the conclusion that this article is hoax related at least as far as wikipedia is concerned. All that is necesary to open a discussion on this point is for someone to produce a source that contradicts this view of the article being hoax related. Your reluctance to do so makes believe you can't find one either. That should tell you something. Numskll 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention editors! Discuss Moon Rock Section here

This section is changing from long to short, with the reason of discussing on the talk page before changing. This is the discussion, the best way to get this over with is vote on which version should be on the article. Branson03 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "long" version is necessary because (1) it gives context, (2) it gives some sense of how rocks obtained from a non-indendendent source can be used as evidence when they are analyzed by an "independent source", and (3) as with most subjects, this evidence can be critiqued, so it gives both sides of the debate. I emphasize that this article is not called "list of independent evidence..."; if this were the case, the context could be removed. The majority opinion (based on who is reverting back to the consensus draft) includes the long version. The minority opinion should give detailed reasons---sentence by sentence (yes, I understand that this will involve some work that may be judged tedious by the more lazy among us)---as to why each sentence is inappropriate. I ask that the minority opinion attempt to use logical arguments whenever possible and to stear clear of the use of WP:WEASEL words in their response. Lunokhod 11:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The long version is copied from the hoax article. It is not 'Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings', but rather someone's unsourced opinion on the moon rocks, which, themselves, are not independent evidence. This section should contain references to independent analysis of the moon rocks, not commentary on someone's POV about them. Gravitor 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But the section is sourced. If there are statements you believe need references, then tell me, and I will happily supply them in two days time. Lunokhod 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please provide them. Of course, I have no expectation that you will do what you say. Gravitor 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Tell me which sentences you think need references. Just put a "fact" tag after each one and I'll source it in two days, or you can delete it. Lunokhod 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Lunokhod's approach seems reasonalbe. I note there hasn't been a response. This would be the place to make one. Numskll 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reputatable sources about "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

I have searched though the references on this page, and none of them use the words "independent evidence". Could someone please give me a single reputable source that uses this exact phrase, and which is used in the context of this article? Lunokhod 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I echo your request. I spent some time over the past few days looking for such evidence to no avail. Also, I made the same request above and it was ignored in favor of rehashing the very same discussion that occured in the section above that one. Obviously there is no interest in finding verifiable sources that define the topic of this article or they don't exist. I predict the pro hoaxers will do as they have always done and deflect this discussion back to there comfortable is so/is not territory. Still, I'll say again, a single source that describes independant evidence as it is used here would tend to end this discussion abruptly in the hoaxers favor. Why won't they prodcue it? 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For those who do not understand why the above points are important, please familiarize yourelves with the following wikipedia polcies:
  1. WP:Notability: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself
  2. WP:NOR: any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article..... Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research Lunokhod 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your dishonesty is tiresome, and poisons the well of productive discussion. This issue was dealt with on your (failed) AFD. Gravitor 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, I am letting you know in advance that I will put this article up for redeletion (if, for some reason, the merge proposal doesn't go through) if you do not supply us with references as requested above. Your demonstration that there are no reputable sources for this topic is grounds for deletion. Lunokhod 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are sources, they were provided last time. I am not your errand boy. Gravitor 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This info would be a useful addition to the hoax page, as it is a counterargument to the usual hoaxster claim that there is no independent evidence. There is no apparent reason, at this point, for having a separate article, as its authors have failed to demonstrate any such reason. Wahkeenah 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it would not. You are lying again. Gravitor 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
the request for a source which describes the scope of this article outside the context of the hoax is still needed. I realize this particular section ended with rancor, but perhaps some kind soul could take pity on us and find the source that would end this debate. Numskll 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a single reputable source that mentions the words "Independent", "evidence" and "Apollo" in the context as used in this article. If such a reference exists, it should be added to the article. It would go a long ways toward proving that this article is about a notable subject, and is not original research. Lunokhod 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah - learn to use the talk page

Revert wars are not helpful - if you can't make a cogent argument on the talk page, don't make it into a revert war. Carfiend 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll note and put you on notice that all you have done is revert without discussion. Numskll 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Carfiend, you should realize that Gravitors "version" of the article is a minority version. His reverts are not for a single edit, but for multiple edits. In order to work towards consensus, we should at least work with the majority version, and debate the issues on the talk page. We are still waiting for a cogent arguement from Gravitor as to why large portions of the article should be deleted. If you would like to explain to us his position that might help us to achieve a true consnsus. Lunokhod 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the reason for my wholesale re-reversion, i.e. to undo Gravitor's single-user reversion of the article. Wahkeenah 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravyfiend has gone crazy again and for the past several days has simply been reverting to its preferred version without discussion here while of course demanding that other editors use the talk page to discuss any edits. These actions make it a meat puppet if not a sock puppet. We need to deal with it as such.Numskll 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire. You do not have a consensus. You have an edit war because you think that getting one more editor on your side is what consensus means. It does not. It means discussing the article until people agree. Stop your edit warring, and come to the discussion table. Unfortunately, you have already declared that if you don't get your way you will try to delete the article, and and try to slander users who disagree with you. You've tried both previously, neither got you what you wanted. It's time you tried discussion in good faith. Gravitor 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

your typical insults aside, I agree that we should talk through the edits. where "we" means you too. Numskll 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Great - go ahead - I have listed the changes I made below, I would welcome constructive feedback. Gravitor 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention editors! discuss content here: Significance of Ind Evid . . .

I revised the section and added citations for the tacit claim and counter claims offered by it. A single source that actually defines the sigificance as Gravyfiend seems to see it is wanting. Numskll 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This section really belong in the introdcution as it seems to be the purpose of this page. If another source is found that places the context differently -- See above -- then we could replace that context for this one. This article without context is original research. Numskll 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - we should have a section called 'introdcution', that's where this section really belong... Gravitor 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The current one sentence introduction seem abrupt and not particularly informative. Numskll 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was being sarcastic. Gravitor 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to actually discussing the topic? Oh, I see. You were taking pains to point out a typo. Well, yes. You're right. It is a typo. Imagine that. You found a typo and then used sarcasm to point it out. Wow. imagine that. Numskll 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
the request for a source which describes the scope of this article outside the context of the hoax is still needed. I realize this particular section ended with rancor, but perhaps some kind soul could take pity on us and find the source that would end this debate.Numskll 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

revisions

OK -

  • I moved the significance section to a more appropriate place,
  • removed sourced discussion on the moon rocks (while keeping sourced evidence), and
  • removed irrelevant commentary on the missions which is duplicative of their article.
Let me know what you think, Gravitor 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think five edits that return the page to your preferred version are the same as one revert. Start here before you make changes. Be reasonable.
Please use the talk page. I have described the changes, I have seen NO objection to them, just revert warring. Please discuss things, rather than just reverting. Gravitor 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
gravitor your multiple edits are on topic we've discussed. you know they are against consensus. They all add up to your reverting to your preferred version. be reasonable. Numskll 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
So that's what passes for 'discussion' is it? What's wrong with them? Please look like you're trying, at least. Carfiend 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Each of of Gravyfiend's three bullet points were on topics that he knew were contested. You want discussion on them, scroll up and you'll find them above. I started a section to address the "removed irrelevant commentary on the missions which is duplicative of their article." specifically below as that had not been treated with it's own separate section. So what passes for discussion turns out to be . . . actual discussion . . .I invite you to join in. Numskll 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention Editors! Discuss short short description of each mission issue here!

gravitor has dismissed them as " irrelevant commentary " I see them as useful background for the casual reader (wikipedia's target audience) tell me why I'm mistaken or suggest alternative versions. Numskll 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They are duplicate information. People can look at the articles on those if they want to know more. Carfiend 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
But do you think that everyone knows what Apollo 8, 10, 11, etc did? If we are going to present "evidence" that these missions happened, shouldn't we at least tell the reader what NASA claims to have happened? I agree that we need to have a small amount of context. This page is not a "list". Lunokhod 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Arglebargle removed much of the descriptive stuff about the missions. Maybe there's a compromise possibility, of reducing the mission to a single sentence, as a "reminder", i.e. whether the mission was in moon orbit or solely earth orbit, and whether a landing was involved or not. Wahkeenah 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a short introduction to the list would be that comprimise. Numskll 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor and Carfiend

These users are operating as sock/meat puppets to support a POV war. This is a real nuisance. I'd like the community to advise on what is to be done. Numskll 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said of you and Lunakod / Bubba / Wahkeenah. The fact that a group of users do not share your point of view is not a 'nuisance', it is a fact of life. 'What is to be done'? how about engaging constructively instead of revert warring? Gravitor 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We keep waiting for Gravitor/Carfiend to live up to their own ideals. The similarity between the two users is not in their viewpoint, it's in their style and tone. Wahkeenah 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Late last summer, an RFC was begun against Carfiend, but when he took a vacation and seemed to have left for good, nothing was done. That process could begin again, treating Carfiend/Gravitor in tandem, since their M.O. is identical. Wahkeenah 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please try to focus on editing the article and not personal crusades against users who are trying to improve the article. Gravitor 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor's trolling: see below for a prime example

This extract from Wahkeenah's talk page demonstrates a complete lack of good faith, and a confessed attempt to provoke an edit war. This is called 'trolling'. Please stop it. Gravitor 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"Regreatably, given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited, I think it is getting time to figure out the apropriate policies and procedures when dealing with meat puppets, though I suspect it is really a sock puppet despite the apparently separate IPs. Numskll 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"
"It's disappointing to me that you find it 'regretable' that no revert war took place. Please consider spending more time working in good faith on the article, and less time trying to game the system and troll other users into breaking rules. Thanks. Gravitor 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"
No clue what you're talking about. It is obvious that I was referring to your behavior -- which by the way you've continued unabated. I can only assume its your selective reading comprehension issue again. Numskll 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, you're parsing his sentence wrong, it's a case of comma confusion. "given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited," is one phrase, not split into two. -- ArglebargleIV 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you missed "regretably" from the beginning of that. He regrets that he could not cause a revert war. That's trolling. Gravitor 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, both Gravitor and Numskll have been blocked for 24 hours, by separate admins, for 3RR violation. Wahkeenah 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Another point worth pointing out: Apart from obvious vandalism, I do not typically delete discussion points from my own talk page, the way Gravitor does from his, thus Gravitor had no trouble finding the above comments by Numskll. Wahkeenah 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, while still under the 24-hour block, and apparently not having taken time to reflect on his actions, continues to delete the complaints of his behavior from his talk page, calling it "trolling". This action and labeling mimic Carfiend's style from last summer. Wahkeenah 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup. This is pretty much a replay of last summer. I apparently haven't learned a thing since then. I better start substituting beer for tea. Numskll 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Gravitor is making the same claim in two places, each apparently without reference to or regard of the other I'm copying this here for his reference

Here, let me parse it [the bit he's going on about above]out for you:I regret that because Gravitor and Carfiend's behavior consists of acting in tandem (in the manner of meat or sock puppets), refuse to discuss disputed content on the talk page, and continally provoke revert wars that some administrative intervention is likely required. Is it clear now? Numskll 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. That's not what you said. It's not even close. No rational reading of what you said can make it mean other than that you regret that you were not able to cause a revert war. Gravitor 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This quibble is over the lack of a hyphen between "no" and "discussion". The sentence's meaning is "Regretably, [condition1], [condition2], I think it is getting time to figure out the apropriate policies..." And I am as rational as you are, if not more so. I'm surprised you didn't find some hidden meaning in the mis-spelling "regreatably". Wahkeenah 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So you think it should be "Regreatably, given the tag-team, no - discussion revert war behavior exhibited,"? WTF? That doesn't help! Gravitor 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not about confusion over a hyphen. It's not about issues with my comma error. It's not about misinterpretation of a typo. It's not really about anything other than Gravyfied trying to bait me and deflect discussion from the topic he clearly wants to avoid (sourcing the context of this article) Clearly Gravitor's misreading doesn't make any kind of sense. I've done what I could to clarify the issue. Gravyfiend simply will not engage in anything other than name calling and POV pushing. It's gotten ridiculous again -- just like last summer. Numskll 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're right. I'm just saying that if the hyphen were there, he would have to look someplace else to pick a fight over. It's patently obvious that he's using this just to generate debate as part of the game he's playing. And it's working. >:( Wahkeenah 15:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
true enough. I don't think adding the hyphen at this point will change his behavior. It all about the drama to him Numskll 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding the hyphen, inverting the sentence order, adding, and subtracting words doesn't take away from the facts, which are obvious to anyone looking at this honestly. Numskull was expressing his regret that his trolling had not had the desired effect. Look at it in the context of the revert war that he had just instigated - the whole "Regretably, [condition1], [condition2]" business does not make any sense. Numbskull was caught trolling, and none of the good-old-boys wants to admit it. Gravitor 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Put the word AND where the second comma is, and maybe you'll get the point. Dealing with you is like dealing with my grandmother. Wahkeenah 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Change all the words, and the punctuation, and it isn't trolling! He trolled, he was caught, let's move on. Carfiend 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Gravitor at least your refusal to deal with real world evidence is not simply restricted to things hoax related. You're dead wrong about what I wrote and seemingly willfully misreading it -- whatever . . . I guess making hay with your persecution fantasies is easier than sourcing your personal world view.Numskll 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(cough) troll... Carfiend 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you (gravitor/carfiend) would stop attacking me personally. Numskll 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And I would appreciate you stopping trolling. Gravitor 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

3 main disputes

Here is what we're disaggreeing on. Let's talk it out

  1. Context: Why is/is not this page hoax related.
Yes, again, none of this evidence was collected in response to the hoax, none by hoax proponents, and none of it is referenced by hoax proponents. This is an entirely bogus claim by a couple of users who want to link this to the hoax. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It was collected before hoax theories, true. However, the existence of the observations is evidence against the hoax theories, and it thereby connected to it. Of course hoax proponents wouldn't have collected or referenced it -- the observations stand in direct contradiction to their theories. -- ArglebargleIV 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a small note at the bottom saying that (maybe, what, five people?) actively claim that this evidence does not exist, but that is not the main reason for it by any stretch of the imagination. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Find a source that ties all this stuff together as "independant evidence." it is a very straight forward request. Not nearly as nefarious as carfeind/gravitor make it out to be. Numskll 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the refs in the article. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I've read them. They don't seem to make the required claims. Do you have one in mind that defines the context? Numskll 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then read them again. They are the context. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
so there isn't one that specifically defines the context? are we relying on you to do it for us? Numskll 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Moon rocks and what counts as evidence
Yes - some people seem to have some difficulty distinguishing opinion and discussion from evidence. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Lunohkod offered to source anything you have an issue with, simply use a fact tag instead of reverts. Numskll 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And yet he did not actually do it. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any fact tags in that section. Did he delete them or were there none placed? Numskll 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Most people don't need a tag to tell evidence from opinion. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That is nonresponsive. If you think the stuff is opinion place a fact tag on the disputed item. Numskll 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. descriptions and intros to lists Numskll 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, some people seem to have trouble distinguishing evidence from descriptions of the programs. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a encyclopedia. It is meant to infrom the general reader. It is not a collection of arbitrarily created lists. All I'm looking for is context and coherence. Why make it so difficult? Why not add a line or two of context?Numskll 01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the hoax is not the context to this information. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well then find a source that defines the context. That seems a simple request. Numskll 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the article. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read it. There is no source for the context except your claims. Are you the source? Numskll 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Moon rocks discussion is at the "Attention editors! Discuss Moon Rock Section here" section Branson03 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Branson. Each of the issues has been discussed above, but some editors seem to be having difficulty finding these sections, so I thought I'd make a space for this discussion. Numskll 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like a good plan. Branson03 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

context: why this page is/isn't hoax related (again)

I am unable to find ANY source that is not hoax related that would tie all/most of the items on this page together. Hoax sources are easy to come by. My conclusion is that, for this article to be properly attributed it must be in the context of the hoax. If a source were found that tied them together under some reasonably coherent definition of independance than we could all gladly jettison the hoax stuff (including the hoax related line of reasoning lack of evidence is actually evidence. Failing that, the significance section should be folded into the introduction. Numskll 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So you have not looked at any of the links? None are to hoax sites, all to space enthusiasts who have collected evidence (not in response to the hoax). Carfiend 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This article was spun off from the hoax page, written by hoaxsters to server their own agenda. Wahkeenah 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So what? We don't organize wikipedia based on edit history, but on real world taxonomy. Carfiend 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The exact peculiar wording Gravitor used 12 days ago. "Taxonomy"? A unique choice of words, and used only by those "two". They should be redirecting their energies to writing about the taxonomy of parrots. Wahkeenah 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the similarly peculiarly-worded comment from Gravitor, again 12 days ago, "Fortunately, Wikipedia does not sort topics based on how they are discussed on the talk page." Whatever that's supposed to mean. Wahkeenah 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually claim taxonomy, but wikipedia isn't organized by a single taxonomy in the formal sense, but rather something like a collection of folksonomies. But that's just another silly deflection. The real issue is that we're looking for a source that defines "independant evidence" of the moon landings. What is independant? what counts as evidence? Obviously we're using those terms here in specific ways. I can find sources that support the ways we use the term here but they are all hoax related. The challege, and the requirement, is to find one that isn't. I've looked to no avail, So I'm asking the community for help. Can anyone find such a source that defines our terms, places them in context(of the Apollo missions), and is not related to the hoax? Numskll 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Their argument is that independent evidence preceded the hoax claims and was not "in response" to the hoax claims, and therefore has no connection to the hoax claims. That argument makes no sense, as no one is claiming that the independent evidence came "in response" to the hoax claims. It simply exists, and can be used to further defeat the hoax claims. Meanwhile, their continued insistence on claiming the right to define "what the page is about" smacks of a claim of "ownership", which is against wikipedia policy. If they want ownership, they should start a blog. Wahkeenah 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All of that aside some source that ties all of the disparate items together is wanting. That's the needed source. We use the term independant and evidence in very specific ways. find a source that defines them in context. Numskll 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is directly a result of the hoaxster complaints, going to last summer, that there is no independent evidence. In fact, now that you mention it, the hoax talk page is the only place I have ever seen this question raised. So the only possible context is the hoax. Gravitor/Carfiend's defense of this page's content is based solely on their "vision", not on any other source. Wahkeenah 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point. That's why I've questioned the use of the term "independant evidence" it only means something in relation to the hoax discussions (here and in the wider world) Numskll 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That is such rubbish. LOOK AT THE LINKS IN THE PAGE! They are not to hoax sites. Not one of them. Not one. All of the people who document this stuff do it for reasons other than the hoax. Look at the evidence - what you are saying is prima facia wrong. It does not pass the straight face test. Gravitor 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I can only assume your deliberatly misreading my request and that you have been unable to find a source which defines or describers the topic of this article. Numskll 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Look. If you're looking for a source that says "The Evidence for the Landings are not connected to the hoax" you're not going to find it, because no-one thinks it would be except you. It's like asking for a source that says that the moon is not made from dust-bunnies. Gravitor 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's simple. i'm looking for a source the defines the use of "independant evidence" in relation to the factoids listed in this article. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. I never heard of the dust bunny thing. Is that Sibrel or Kaysing?Numskll 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'factoids' are the independent evidence for the Apollo program. The links in the page are to pages that collect this. They do not list NASA evidence, just independent evidence. I cannot make you read them. Gravitor 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it's independent? How do you know NASA didn't pay them off, in anticipation of future hoax claims? I bet Bill and Bart would say so. Wahkeenah 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's just deal with attribution. Who defines these factoids as independant? Whose defintion are we using? Independant of WHAT and WHY? Source that.Numskll 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you read the page, you would know. These are (for the most part) compilations of eye-witness testamonies of people who observed Apollo phenomenon. Their motives vary, but the one thing they all have in common is that the motive was NOT the hoax. Gravitor 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
right. We're not talking about motives here we're talking about how all of these observations become a single set while other observations that seem similar fall outside of the set. The crieria put forth is that they are "independant evidence" Who/what defines these as such and what values count as independant and evidnence, other than mere opinion. This is a simple question. It's not a trick. The fact that you can't answer it reasonably (outside of the context of the hoax) or source that answer should be telling you something . . . Numskll 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is related to the hoax because it labels everything in this article as "evidence", the moon landings did happen, so why would you need evidence if we all know it happened? Only people who believe the hoax would want to see evidence. As mention once or twice, we could move it to a new title that labels it as information, not evidence, such as "Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties" or replacing "Parties" with "Organisations" Branson03 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts

First Gravitor, and now Carfiend, have exhausted their 3 reverts apiece for the day. Wahkeenah 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If gravitor or cariend continue to make exactly three reverts a day, I am going to report them for abuses of the 3RR policy

Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed four reverts on a page in 24 hours

Lunokhod 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of consensus

Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'm curious how Gravitor and Carfiend apparently define consensus as "2 of us are consensus, 5 or 6 of y'all are a minority, non-consensus view." -- ArglebargleIV 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is agreement on how to move forward. It is not one group ganging up on another - that is majority rule. Consensus means working to gain agreement and collaborating, not edit warring and hoping to carry the numbers game. Gravitor 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to start living up to your own ideals. Wahkeenah 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I love that in every conversation, you want to race to the bottom of the barrel. Everything is name calling with you. Start using the article talk page, and stop trolling mine. Gravitor 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted the admin who blocked you over the weekend, to find out whether the 3-revert rule applies to user talk pages. I don't really know, but we might soon find out. Wahkeenah 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Great, mention the troll who violated the 33 revert rule on my page. Gravitor 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The admin can read, and he'll decide for himself what to do, if anything. Wahkeenah 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


How do we move towards consensus? context

We seem to be miles apart on how to define the context of this article. How do we move forward? No carping please. Let's figure out a process. Numskll 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be linked from both the Apollo page and the hoax page. That would be in keeping with the trend we're seeing, to have a smaller primary article and a series of spinoff articles. Wahkeenah 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
simple links are insufficient in my view. I'd like to see a nice paragraph that introduces the topic and engages the readers. Obviously we need some sources to frame it. Numskll 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, certainly more than bare links. An introductory paragraph, along with the link, seems to be standard procedure. That way the reader can read the main article and get a fair overview, and "drill down" into the moonrocks if he wants more details. Wahkeenah
How about a paragraph that introduces it in the context of the Chinese Cultural Revolution? That would be as accurate. Your fictional introduction is grossly misleading. Gravitor 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Where would I start to find sources for such a intro? I tried googling "independent evidence of moon landing" and got the predictable results. Numskll 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Try the refs in the article. Gravitor 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
um . . you already said that. They don't provide context for independant evidence. I guess, my default position will be to take the low hanging fruit and put together an intro from the source on the first couple pages of the above google search. They are certainly right on topic and address the terms we're using at least tangentially. I'm hoping other users will offer better sources. Numskll 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What a troll. I will pick some refs from the article for you if you really can't read them. Gravitor 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Try this one: [3]. Telescopic observations of the Apollo missions. Now, I know, you're going to say that it does not use the term 'independent', but it also does not list any NASA sources, only independent ones. Gravitor 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
30 seconds later. The academic department that runs the observatory has a history of goverment funding [4]. By our definition the source is not independant. This illustrates my issues with the terms. Please find another. Numskll 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this one. [5]?
Interestingly, that one doesn't list any independent evidence. Funny, that. Gravitor 04:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not playing 6 degrees of separation with you, the academic institution that hosts the userpage of this academic who is listing reports of people who did not get any funding sometimes gets US govt funding - you're really grasping at straws. Stop trolling, and start working collaboratively. Gravitor 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Straws, it seems, are what you are counting as independant evidence. Perhaps you should read the page more carefully. The situation is as I have describe. This illustrates perfectly my issue with the term "indepedant evidence" Numskll 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the prof. whose home page you think should be a primary source and it seems he has worked with nasa in the past. peruse his publications and research interests. Doesn't that disqualify him from the whole "independant evidence" thing in your view. Apologies to the good professor Keel. I realize that his work is peer reviewed and thus validated and vetted. I'm concerned with our provisional definition. Numskll 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
? Stop trolling and start working constructively. Gravitor 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am working towards consensus. I'm simply not clear on how your slippery definition of "indpendant evidence" is supposed to work and I am pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in its application (look the source over beyond simple factoids) in the hope that editors will see the importance of finding a source for its use here and following the guidelines that source puts forward. I invite other editors who might not be so determined to push what I see as an unsupportable position to weigh in on how we introduce, define AND source the introduction to this topic.Numskll 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daring to put my toe in this trouble sea, I did a little rewording to try to clarify the intro. Obviously, much of the evidence was originally collected or observed before the hoax stories gained notable circulation. The current effort is to compile that evidence. The evidence gathering was not "in response to" the hoax stories, as Gravitor continues to point out. But the compilation of it is in response; i.e., the compilation of it in this article. That's what this article is about. Now, if someone wants to argue that this constitutes original research, there could be something to that argument, depending on whether other websites have already tried to write such an article. Wahkeenah 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. There is no reason to think that these have been compiled in response to hoax theories. That's just something that you made up. Gravitor 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, your response does not seem to be designed to move towards consensus.
The consensus, such as it is, seems to be to include the context of the hoax in the introductory material. I suggest folding the "significance" section into the introduction. I know there are some participating editors that have issues with this strategy. Please voice the specifics of these issues and suggest an alternative method. 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we move towards consensus? Moon Rocks

The issue seems to be what to include in this section and how to define the rocks and later analysis of them as independant or not independant. Again miles apart. How do we move forward. Numskll 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sane want to include independent evidence, you seem to want to make it a commentary on the moon hoax. Gravitor 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're building up quite a catalog of name-calling. Maybe we need a spinoff article just on that subject. Regarding the rocks, the best that can be done is to cite the views of knowledgeable scientists on the subject. Which, as I recall, Numskll already did. Wahkeenah 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In amongst a bunch on unsourced commentry. The sourced evidence is fine. The rest is nonsense. Gravitor 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
fact tag what you think is "nonsense" so we can sort it out. And read your talk page. Numskll 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not getting into the situation where you post slurrys of nonsense and expect me to tag it for you. If you can't source it right, don't post it. Gravitor 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How is that working towards consensus? You can't spare ten minutes to fact tag what you think needs it? Have you read the sources? Numskll 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"According to NASA, the Apollo Programs collected a total of 382 kilograms of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide (including those that are government funded, private, and/or foreign) all agree that these rocks come from the Moon -- no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals are known that dispute this claim. " I removed this piece of unsourced editorial. It is not evidence, it is opinion. Gravitor 06:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added sources to these statements. The source is a well respected secondary source. If you do not trust this source, I will find different ones. Lunokhod 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you add some sources about the great wall of china as well? That way we can have a section for irrelevant things? Oh, that's right, we don't put irrelevant things into articles! The commentary on NASA's opinion on the moon rocks is NOT evidence. Gravitor 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning. The Moon rocks are used as evidence that NASA went to the Moon. The commentary is by an independent scientist. The quantity of Moon rocks is important to note, because if NASA only had 1 kg, the claim that they could have been collected robotically might seem reasonable. So why isn't this relevant to this article? I'm sorry if I am being stupid, but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. Lunokhod 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's parse this out with respect to the article's title:
  • Independant: Check. There is language that deals with the particukar flavor of independance to which this section refers.
  • Evidence: Moon rocks are evidence.
  • for: the rocks (evidence) are linked to the landings
  • Apollo: they were brought back from apollo missions
  • Moon: They have been judged my experts as being from the moon
  • Landings: They rocks came from the surface of the moon, QED someone/something landed there and brought them back.

This section seems to be relevent. What, specifically, makes it irrelevent in your opinion? Other, than of course, merely your opinion . . . Numskll 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus there is no independent evidence that the rocks got to the Earth in any way other than being brought back by the manned Apollo landings. Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus such as it is seems to be to keep the moon rock section. I have some questions about the level of detail we give in that section. I wonder if it is too detailed or seems overly long when viewed against the long list of factoids presented below it. At some point, if no one else does, I'll launch a discussion in this space on the topic of level of detail in the moon rocks section. 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is so irrelevant, I suggest moving it here to re-write. Any independent evidence it cites is so hidden in commentary and opinion as to be indistinguishable. Gravitor 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it highly relevent for the reasons I cited above, to which you did not respond. Please do so. Numskll 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have responded. There is NOTHING to link the two ideas. Gravitor 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons I gave above? What are your reasons? Numskll 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The same ones I gave above. You've given no reasons to link these two ideas together. Gravitor 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
er . . the topic of the article was the reason I gave. What was your reason? Oh, because you say so . . . hmm . . . I find my reasoning a bit more compelling. Care to expand on yours a bit? Numskll 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Try to string a sentence together that means something. Gravitor 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, you are trolling. Explain what you are talking about. Give us a concrete example. Lunokhod 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Moon rocks

According to NASA, the Apollo Programs collected a total of 382 kilograms of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.[1] Analyses by scientists worldwide (including those that are government funded, private, and/or foreign) all agree that these rocks come from the Moon[1] -- no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals are known that dispute this claim. The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and terrestrial rocks[2], most notably in that they show a complete lack of hydrous alteration products and show evidence for having been subjected to impact events on an airless body. They have peculiar geochemical characteristics that are unlike terrestrial rocks and meteorites, such as (1) prominent europium anomalies, (2) anomalously high abundances of titanium in some basaltic samples (see Lunar mare), and (3) the presence of a unique geochemical component called KREEP. Furthermore, most are older than the oldest rocks found on Earth. Most importantly, though, they share the same characteristics as the Soviet lunar samples that were obtained at a later date.[1] Thus, independent scientific analyses indicate that NASA somehow obtained a large quantity of Moon rocks.

The existence of Moon rocks as evidence that the Apollo missions successfully landed on the lunar surface and returned safely to Earth could be disputed in two ways. First, it has been suggested that the Apollo Moon rocks could have been collected on Earth. In particular, it is known that rocks have been ejected from the lunar surface during impact events and that some of these have landed on the Earth in the form of lunar meteorites. However, the first lunar meteorite was discovered in 1979, and its lunar origin was not recognized for several years later. Indeed, if scientists did not already possess lunar samples to compare with, it would be difficult to conclusively prove that these meteorites were in fact derived from the Moon. The lunar meteorites are so rare that it is very improbable that they could account for the 382 kilograms of Moon rocks that NASA obtained between 1969 and 1972. Currently, there are only about 30 kilograms of lunar meteorites, even though private collectors and governmental agencies worldwide have been searching for these for more than 20 years.[3]

Even if the Apollo Moon rocks were indeed collected from the lunar surface, it could be argued that they were collected robotically. However, the large combined mass of the Apollo samples makes this scenario implausible. While the Apollo missions obtained 382 kilograms of Moon rocks, the Soviet Luna 16, 20, and 24 robotic sample return missions only obtained 326 grams combined (that is, more than 1000 times less). Indeed, current plans for a Martian sample return would only obtain about 500 grams of soil [6], and a recently proposed South Pole-Aitken basin sample return mission would only obtain about 1 kilogram of Moon rock [7]. If a similar technology to collect the Apollo Moon rocks was used as with the soviet missions or modern sample return proposals, then between 300 and 2000 robotic sample return missions would be required to obtain the current mass of Moon rocks that is currated by NASA. If these samples were collected robotically, then NASA's technological sophistication during the Apollo era would be much greater level that it is at today.

How do we move towards consensus? Introduction to lists

The issue is that some of us want some kind of introduction to this list and some want to just list the factiods. There doesn't seem to be any willingness to move on the "no introduction" front. My issue here is completeness, readability and deference to the casual reader. We need to give them enough context to make sense of this long list of relatively obscure facts -- some of them quite vague -- several sighting are listed in . . ,etc. How do we move forward? Numskll

An introduction is fine, one that is grossly misleading is not. Gravitor 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's pick some sources for that intro shall we? I like describing the missions, but you seem really against that. What else can we include? Numskll 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC
Nineteenth century children's literature? Gravitor 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
One can not argue logically, nor in good faith, that we should not provide a summary of the missions. The "evidence" is being used to back up NASA's claims, so if we have no idea what NASA's claims are, how are we to judge the "evidence"? As I mentioned before, this page is not called "list of independent..." Perhaps when gravitor created this page, and renamed it several times afterwards, it would have been favorable to his POV to have used this title instead of the current one. However, the majority of us do not want to rename this topic to "list....", though you are free to propose doing so after the open merge propsal is closed. Lunokhod 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Because, once again, the evidence is not part of an attempt to justify NASA's claims. It is not gathered as part of a hoax dialogue. There is no reason to think it is. Gravitor 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to think otherwise. Wahkeenah 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to make the same case for the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Nineteenth Century Children's Literature? No, of course not, because you need some justification for pretending that two things are related. There is NOTHING linking this to the hoax idea. Gravitor 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor/Wahkeenah, this section is meant to discuss introducing the lists in the context of the Apollo missions not in the context of the hoax. I fail to see how some account of the missions or the program is inherently about the hoax or POV. What is the objection to giving the readers information? Numskll 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
None. More information is better. And I say again, this page could and should be linked from both the Apollo page and the hoax page, as it adds information to both pages. Wahkeenah 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the objection to giving the readers information here? Numskll 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing, we can give them information on Apollo 11 on the Apollo 11 page, and information on Independent Evidence on this page. Gravitor 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe providing a few sentences of introduction to the lists would be helpful to casual readers Numskll 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And I think a little on Nineteenth Century Children's Lit would be nice too. Put it on the right page! Gravitor 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Your answer in no way attempt to move towards consensus. Numskll 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it did. Your continued attempts to add nonsense to this article is the cause of the problem. Gravitor 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure under what criteria a description of the event the observations document is "nonsense." Is it the same tacit criteria that makes content that doesn't fit into your rigid POV irrelevent? Please try to work towards consensus instead of constantly posting offensive, provocative and conterproductives attacks on users with whom you disagree. Numskll 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus, such as it is, appears to be to include some intrductory material in the list section. I suggest we begin including that material in the article. Numskll 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Gravitor 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that under advisement though I'll point out that you've demonstrated no aptitude for vocabulary and less willingness to discuss differences in a productive manner. Numskll 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah / Numskull sockpuppet revert war

When someone makes an edit, and explains it on the talk page, you should try to move forward rather than simply hit the revert button. Only you can stop revert wars. Gravitor 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

or you. Anyone reading this talk page will have no doubt which editors are trying to reach consensus. Numskll 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The Numbokodkeenah. Gravitor 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be agreeing with me. Numskll 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That you're a sock-puppet-troll? Gravitor 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to add "NASA shill" to that list. Wahkeenah 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So I did. Gravitor 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, we have already done a poll, showing that your POV is in the minority. Please work with the majority version draft, and explain logically your problems with this draft on the talk page. I remind you that accusing someone of being a sock puppet is not civil (this goes for everyone). Lunokhod 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the wikipedia policy on consensus. Your idea that if you have a majority that is it is simply wrong. The truth is not a vote, and you can't just insist that since the majority want to see their pov prevail then that's how the page should look. It have to be with reference to the facts. That's why policies about verifiability are for - facts must be sourced. The stuff you insist is majority opinion is not sourced. Gravitor 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read WP:Consensus. Perhaps we should all take the time to read this again. The sections "Consensus vs. supermajority", and "Consensus in practice" give some advice on how we should proceed. Lunokhod 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

In my opinion, the following two topics need to be resolved before any form of progress can be made on this article. I ask that all concerned parties directly address these below as concisely and as clearly as is possible.

1. Are there any reputable sources that contain the phrases "independent evidence" and "Apollo Moon landings" used together in the same context of this article?

The notability of this topic is still in debate, and merge and AfDs will continue to be proposed until this issue is resolved. Please list below any such sources that might exist that would prove "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" is a notable subject.
Reference 1:

2. Does this topic have anything to do with the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations?

Yes. I have not seen any reputable sources that discuss "evidence for Apollo Moon landings" that is not in the context of the "hoax". While "Independent observations" (i.e., reporting) exist for certain aspects of the Apollo program, these were never framed in the context of "evidence". The word "evidence" directly implies that there is some reason not to believe that the Moon landings happened. If a fundamental assumption of this article is that there is some doubt to the reality of the Apollo Moon landings, the context of these doubts needs to be at least briefly mentioned to give the reader the necessary context. Lunokhod 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes The only sources I can find for the context of this article "independant evidence of Apollo moon landings" are hoax related. When a non hoax source for this context is found we will be compelled to revise this view. Until then I don't see how we can not place this artile in the context of the hoax, given what we can source and attribute. Numskll 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that that is your framing of the issues, but from my perspective the question is:

1. What reason is there to believe that the people who collected this evidence did it in response to the hoax?

Of course, there is none. Gravitor 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
They did not present their observations as "evidence". Rather it was the simple reporting of observations. Please show an example of when they frame their observations as "evidence".
Here it is, again. [8]. Gravitor 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This quote if from the above mentioned web site, it answers your question.
"In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon."
I note that this sentence was at the very end of the article. The rest of the article discussed observations. Lunokhod 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

2. What reason is there to believe that any of the hoax proponents are linked in any way to this evidence (other than statements that no such evidence exists - we don't couch geography in the context of the Flat Earth Society, do we?)

None, of course. Gravitor 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is presented as "observations", I totally agree with you. But when you use the word "evidence", you are casting doubt on the reality of the Moon landings. Is there an article called Evidence for the Holocaust? Of course not. And if there was, wouldn't this imply to you that perhaps the authenticity of the holocaust is in doubt?
Have you read 1984? How on earth can you claim that the idea of evidence casts doubt? Gravitor 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the article "Observations of the Holocaust" and "Evidence for the Holocaust"? Lunokhod 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Is the hoax the main reason, or justification for compiling this evidence?

Of course not. Gravitor 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually the hoax is the main reason for compiling the evidence. By compiling I mean to gather together in one place -- like we've done in this article. There certianly were other reasons to generating specific peices of evidence, but the compilation seems to be the context of the hoax. I invite you to honor the above request for an alternate source for this compilation and for framing it as "indepedant evidence. I've looked, but can't find anything that isn't hoax related that would tie it all together as you've framed it. Numskll 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it absolutely is not. You keep on repeating this, as if, if you say it enough, it will become true. It is not true. Gravitor 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you have not presented any reputable sources that have compiled "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings", we can only guess at your motives for doing so. Please adress my point 1. I can only take you on your work here "Of course it's true that NASA claimes they went to the moon, and of course it's true that there's no independent evidence."
The reality is that attempts to tie this article to the hoax are a crude attempt to hijack any serious work on it. Gravitor 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor: This portion of your response "attempts to tie this article to the hoax are a crude attempt to hijack any serious work on it." violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please stick to the topic and try to be not to insult and deride other editors.[9] Numskll 01:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you take offense, but it is my belief, based on comments that you and others have written, that you are more devoted to having this article deleted than to improving it. Gravitor 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken in that regard and I hope that in the future you will cease making such accusation and begin trying to improve the article. Your latest response was an explicit violation of WP:AGF. That policy is in place for a reason. please adhere to it. You should realize, also, however that doubts about the context of the article do not equal disruptive behavior, especially when those doubts are accompanied by possible solutions to resolve them. Why don't you focus more on working towards those resolutions and less on questioning the motives of other editors. [10]Numskll 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, there is nothing wrong with trying to delete or merge an article if one believes that it merits to be done. This is not "destroying an article", but "improving wikipedia", if indeed the rational for doing so is based on wikipedia policy. As my two points above indicate (neither of which you have addressed), I am first interested in proving that this topic deserves an article, and secondly, if it does, how to proceed concerning the hoax accusations. It is my impression that the other editors have the same goals. Could you please respond to my questions above? In good faith, I have responded to yours. Lunokhod 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Numskll's latest revert

...was to remove a {fact} tag of a piece of opinion. Rather than provide a source, or explain why he thinks one is not needed, simple reverting is the strategy of choice. Thanks Numskll, you really set an example to us all. Gravitor 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is blocked. I reverted to a consensus version. Your your latest post is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Please familairize yourself with these policies and adhere to them in the future. [11]Numskll 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No it's not, stop wikilawyering - pointing out your continuous trolling is not a breach of policy. Your trolling, however, is. Carfiend 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Carfiend, you're remarks above violate WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL please confrm to these policies. [12] Numskll 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Numskll, your accusations that others are not assuming good faith are a breach of WP:AGF. Please conform to this policy. Gravitor 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and subsequent rename to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

Hi folks,

As others have done before, I now propose this article be merged with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. This new article should be named "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax."

Because this new article would exceed 100K in size, I also suggest that a sub-article be created entitled "Apollo Hoax Claims Examined." This new article would contain the content from the "Hoax claims examined" section of Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and the content from Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. This would create two articles of approximately 50K in size each. This should address concerns about article size.

I believe this action will create a complete article. The current situation is untenable. As they are, both articles are incomplete. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article is lacking some information section which examines claims, and the Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings article is out in left field with no context whatsoever. Put the two of these together as a parent and child article, and you have a complete encyclopedia entry.

This merger shouldn't be too difficult. The section on moon rocks has some overlap, and would probably need to be cleaned up and re-written such that it reads smoothly. Most of the other sections from Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings would not need to be changed much, and would likely drop right into place as is.

Also, there exists a precedent in Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers which is also a sub-article of Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.

I'll give people a week or ten days to engage in a flamewar on the topic, and then I'll take a whirl at making some bold edits. :)

Liberal Classic 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, LC, I'm sure that you have read the debate on this issue, and are aware that there is absolutely no reason to link the evidence for the landing with the hoax. I do hope that your suggestion is not simply designed, as you suggest, to provoke a flamewar, but since you don't present any new logic to link the two ideas, I'm having trouble understanding what the logic behind this idea is. It looks like you're not aware of the extensive work that folks have put in here to break out the specific issues of hoax accusations, or the opposition by landing believers to the title 'hoax' without 'accusations'. What information do you think is missing from the hoax accusations page? Please try to avoid provoking flamewars, yours, Gravitor 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I categorically disagree. This entire article belongs within the "Hoax Claims Examined" section of Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. I have tried to catch up with with the current debate by reading the talk for the articles. Therefore, I am not surprised that I should be met with the accusation that I am acting in bad faith and only trying to provoke. Please assume good faith. Liberal Classic 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another, somewhat simpler idea, would be to move "Hoax Claims Examined" into this article. Liberal Classic 06:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, but I am wondering why you think that these articles are related, given that:
  1. Not one of the pieces of evidence given here was collected in response to the hoax.
  2. Not one of the hoax advocates has presented any of this evidence.
  3. The hoax is not a primary motivator for anyone to present this evidence, nor the primary narrative in which it is to be understood. We would not make geography a subset of flat earth, would we?
You have not, nor has anyone else who has proposed this merge, addressed these issues. In fact you have presented no evidence to link these two pages. The proper 'parent', or merge target, if you feel this must be merged, is Project Apollo.
Your timing, in again suggesting that this ridiculous merge take place at precisely the time the page is protected because of acrimonious revert wars over just this issue, is unfortunate. Gravitor 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. I have only made a couple of posts, and you already seem to be looking for evidence of my bad faith. My suggestion is neither ridiculous nor is my timing unfortunate. Reviewing the deletion discussion there are several well reasoned comments suggesting merger from outside editors. I believe this is an indication of a wider consensus. I am here, now, because this article needs an outside voice.
In response to your issues, I find that your questions are red herrings. Of course the moon rocks were not collected as a response to the claims of moon-landing skeptics. To me, your argument seems to be one affirming the consequent. Your premise is true. The rocks and telemetry data were not collected as a response to hoax claims. However, your conclusion that such information should not be cited in the context of the hoax discussion does not follow. To the contrary, such information absolutely belongs in an article examining the claims of moon-landing skeptics. Wikipedia is not a directory. A page containing a potpourri of individual datums concerning the validity of the Apollo missions is, by itself, little better than list cruft. In the context of examining the claims of moon-landing skeptics, however, the data has a purpose.
Liberal Classic 07:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am being civil, and am trying to find evidence of good faith, like, for example, addressing the issues I raise instead of dismissing them as 'red-herrings'. With respect, your timing is unfortunate. I still fail to see any argument for why the hoax is the context for this evidence. The evidence is linked to Project Apollo. The people who collected it were either related to the project in some way, or enthusiasts of it. The people who present it now are the same. Almost the only thing they have in common is that they are not hoax proponents. Why is it that we do not merge geography with flat earth? Because they have nothing to do with each other. The same is true here. Gravitor 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are supposed to assume good faith. "Trying to find evidence of good faith" assumes the opposite.
I also detect some proprietary notions about the article. No one owns Wikipedia articles, no matter who started them or how much work has been done to them since.
Lastly, I did not dismiss your comments. I explained how I find your arguments to be fallacious. Repeatedly telling me my timing is "unfortunate" seems to be a subtle hint to discourage me from editing the article. I don't believe such is appropriate.
Liberal Classic 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very much trying to assume good faith, and am trying to find evidence to back up that assumption. I am not in any way trying to assert ownership of the article, you did, in fact, dismiss my comments by calling them 'red-herrings' and not responding to any of the matters of substance raised. Finally, it is not my telling you that the timing is unfortunate that is the 'subtle hint to discourage me from editing the article', but the fact that it is protected because of a long and acrimonious edit war. Gravitor 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Three things. One: one assumes good faith, unless one has evidence to the contrary. Trying to find evidence of good faith is tantamount to assuming bad faith. Two, I believe that you did assert ownership of the article, when you commented editors have done "extensive work". Three, for me to suggesting that you are making a red herring does not "dismiss" you. It describes the nature of the logical fallacy in your argument. Likewise, when I suggest your argument affirms the consequent. Liberal Classic 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, but I am also trying to find evidence to back up that assumption.
I "commented editors have done "extensive work""? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. Gravitor 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No. "Trying to find evidence to back up" the assumption of good faith is the assumption of bad faith. Editors are to assume good faith. This is important, because it is a foundational ethic of Wikipedia. Liberal Classic 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled we are back here again! There's a merger debate up above, where we discuss the same things. As Liberal Classic I stumbled across this article, and thought "oh, it's about the hoax accusations." Gravitor says "You have not, nor has anyone else who has proposed this merge, addressed these issues." when a quick perusal of my postings above explains them, to my mind, and as clear as day. If you need me to restate it again, because you can't spot it, just ask and I will, but it's going all 2 February. To reverse the question - who needs independent evidence? Nobody unless they doubt NASA's version of events, therefore it is in the context of the hoax. The flat earth/geography is irrelevant as geography is not "independent evidence the world is not flat" it's "geography". Liberal Classic - I have been working on heading towards what you suggest above, I believe it is the best way to deal with this. Sadly due to work I've made no progress since the weekend. LeeG 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi LeeG. We are "back here again" because this is the direction the article needs to take. I don't have time to work on the merge for a week or ten day. I am posting here now to give editors plenty of lead time to discuss changes once this article comes out of protection. As it stands now, this article is simply a list, a repository of loosely related bits of information on the Apollo missions. It is the context of the hoax that gives them meaning. Also, this article appears much like a POV fork from the Hoax article. They should deal with both sides of a topic. This article doesn't, it can't do that. It's just a list. It only has one point of view with no context as to why these bits of information are important or what they are relevant to.
I started by reading the discussion from when this article was nominated for deletion. There are many comments in favor of a merge there. I believe this is indicative of a wider consensus. In reading this talk page it is clear that there is general consensus that this article is related to the hoax and that it should be merged in some way with the article. There do exist a couple of exceptions to this view. With the understanding that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that a plurality does not make consensus, I have tried to get a sense of the larger picture may be. If you factor in the Afd discussion, then I think this tips the scales towards a merge. Wikipedia also does not exist to give undue weight to minority viewpoints. It is not fair for a few editors to filibuster changes, that have broad support.
Liberal Classic 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's make this clear, again. Let's take your question "who has who needs independent evidence? Nobody unless they doubt NASA's version of events." So you are accusing Keel, for example [13], a university researcher, of doubing NASA's version of events? He has one of the largest collection of independent observations of the Apollo missions, and yet, strangely, does not seem to be as hoax proponent. Nobody seems to want to confront the fact that it is simply not true that the people who want this data are hoax proponents. It's as if you beleive that saying it enough will make it true.
I don't think calling this a POV fork passes the straight face test. Why would you not say that the hoax page and Project Apollo are POV forks? A double standard? Surely not!
Also, I'm startled, and a little amused, that you think this evidence is a 'point of view' that needs to be 'balanced', presumably with things that are not facts? Reality is not a point of view. Gravitor 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is easy for anyone to understand why this article is a point of view fork. First, this article has only one point of view. The point of view of this article is that the Apollo moon landings occurred. This article is not neutral. Second, the information in this article which stands as evidence the Apollo missions are not a hoax is lacking from the section of the Apollo Hoax article. Evidence the landings actually occurred should be included in the section dealing with the claims of the moon-landing skeptics. This lack gives undue weight to the claims of the moon-landing skeptics. Therefore, we have two articles, each with a point of view problem. The solution is to merge the two articles, to create an article that has the proper point of view. Liberal Classic 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course hoax proponents don't want the evidence and observations, it's apparent that they would rather ignore them. I voiced a suspicion that the reason why this is a separate article is that it would facilitate hoax proponents' attempt to ignore the evidence and observations. However, the hoax proponents have critics, and the hoax theories cannot be presented without their criticism, and the criticism cannot be presented without the evidence and observations that the critics use to refute the hoax theories. It doesn't matter that much of the independent evidence and observations that are supposed to be the subject of this page were collected before the hoax theories were proposed or became widely known -- the evidence and observations stand apart from when they were collected, and the fact that they are used to refute the hoax theories meant that it is now connected with the theories, and is part of the context in which the hoax theories are discussed. -- ArglebargleIV 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to start. I want to hide this evidence because I am a hoax proponent? In which case, why did I go to the trouble of making it, when it did not exist before? It is linked from the hoax page, and from Project Apollo, neither of which contained it before. You argument holds no water. Gravitor 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You've addressed what is almost a parenthetical aside, not the argument; but I would like to know why you think this should be a separate article from other article that present evidence and observations, and why it is important that "independent" evidence should be separate from other evidence, and what your definition of "independent evidence" is.
This article only has independent significance in the context of the hoax theories, which deny large sections of the evidence and observations due to a NASA connection (or the suspicion of such). -- ArglebargleIV 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the section below - you will see that this is not true. Gravitor 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am 100% opposed to this move. It makes no sense, and has no evidence to back it up. If this page is merged, it should be with Project Apollo, since that is what it is related to. Carfiend 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It should also be referenced in the hoax page, as it helps to counter the hoax allegations. Wahkeenah 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It already is - there's no problem with referencing it there, the problem is with your myopic interpretation that this has nothing to do with anything except the hoax. Gravitor 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Actually, you were arguing that it had nothing to do with the hoax accusations. Apparently you have backtracked from that position. Kudos. Wahkeenah 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you. The topics themselves are unrelated. This is like saying that, because George Washington appears in an episode of the Simpsons, we should re-write the George Washington article as part of a series on characters in the Simpsons. Of course, when you say 'George Washington has nothing to do with the Simpsons', I can point out that you are wrong, indeed, many Simpsons fan pages talk about him, so they are related. The question is, what is the dominant narrative? For the evidence, it's clear that the hoax is an afterthought, not the driving motivation. Gravitor 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So, why did you write the article? And having seen this evidence, why do you still think Apollo was a hoax? Wahkeenah 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I contributed to it to try to understand Apollo better. What you seem to be missing here is that not everybody's actions are 100% determined by their Point of View. Contributing to part of project apollo for it's own sake, and to understand it better, is not necessarily a sinister plan to bring about some victory for my pov. I think perhaps you should try this sometime. Gravitor 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Every comment that you make of that nature adds to the evidence against you in the RFC. They asked all of us to stop already with the sarcasm. I'm trying to. I would ask you to do likewise. Wahkeenah 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, I go to work and there's loads of action. This is a great quote "So you are accusing Keel, for example [14], a university researcher, of doubing NASA's version of events?" Nope, not for a minute, what is interesting is the words "independent" and "evidence" crop up just under Apollo 17, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HOAX, and in that context only. The source you give links that which you cannot understand to be linked, in other words the two are linked. QED. This has to be merged with the hoax, or deleted. LeeG 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you certainly manage to create a lot of 'action' where you go to work, if that's what you mean. His page is a huge list of observations, that he also calls evidence. He does not say that he collected it, or presented it in the context of the hoax, he says that, right now, a by-product of what he and others have done is that it can be used in the context of the hoax. I am baffled by you continued determination not to see that. Gravitor 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the ambiguity - I meant "attend my place of employment", where I investigate frauds all day, every day. I am not determined in any manner, I call this as I see it. i popped by last week for reasons I am now unable to recall, and entered the above debate. I restate my position for the avoidance of doubt - this article should be merged into the hoax one, or deleted. LeeG 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
clarification on my own comment - I am not determined in any way not to see things one way or the other. Thinking about things, I'd like a clarification that "Well, you certainly manage to create a lot of 'action' where you go to work" is not accusing me of trolling, I'm sure it's just an unfortunate collection of words, and commends me on my enthusiasm for my job spreading to others at my place of employment. LeeG 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Gravitor's comment that "His page is a huge list of observations, that he also calls evidence." is misleading, at best. He uses the word observation 14 times, but evidence only once. The only time the word "evidence" is used is in the context of the hoax accusations. I have asked one million times: Why don't we rename this page to Independent observations of Apollo Moon landings? If the Keel reference is Gravitor's sole reference, then this rename (or other measures such as a merge of deletion, which I prefer; I am only trying to help Gravitor here) are required by WikiPedia policies: WP:V, WP:Attribution and WP:NOR. Lunokhod 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is scientists and enthusiasts who want this

Please read Bill Keel's page ([15]) and tell me, with a straight face, that it is hoax proponents who want this type of list of evidence. His own words "Watching satellites in Earth orbit has proven to be a popular and easy pastime. It may not be appreciated these days that it was possible to observe the Apollo spacecraft during transits between Earth and Moon. Many of these reports exist only in printed form, from a time before most electronic indexing has reached. This page begins to document telescopic observations of the Apollo lunar missions. It remains a work in progress, and I welcome further contributions and references." You think, that, secretly, he is a hoax proponent? Perhaps you should write to him, and suggest that he renames his page "Bill Keel's Moon Hoax Page"?! Gravitor 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh la la. This article uses the word "evidence" only one time, and here is the complete sentence

In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon.

What more can I say? Lunokhod 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You can say that he thinks, that "one point", at "this time" is the hoax. Which is why am not opposed to a paragraph on this page saying that one point, at this time, is the hoax. What I am opposed to is you taking this and claiming that it is the only, or even main point, which it clearly is not. Gravitor 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The main point of his article has nothing to do with evidence, it is about observations. This is even clear from the sentence you cite. The fact that the only time he uses the word "evidence" is in the context of the hoax is proof that a list of "independent evidence" needs to be discussed in the context of the hoax. This answers my question number 2 here. As there is only one reference to "evidence", and it is mentioned at the very end of the article in an off-hand way, this source does not demonstrate that this subject is notable. Lunokhod 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The main point of his article is that he is interested in independent evidence on Apollo, not primarily because of the hoax. Stop flogging this dead horse. Carfiend 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article. The only time he mentions the word "evidence" is in the above sentence. (Perhaps I've made a mistake?) If you read the quote that gravitor gives (which is from the article introduction), you will see that the main point is about "observations." Perhaps you think that "observations" and "evidence" mean the same thing? If this is the case, would you find no difference in connotation between the article "Evidence for the Holocaust" and "Observations of the Holocaust"? Lunokhod 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you nailed it. Here's the full quote:
During later missions, press releases distributed before launch included right ascension and declination for the spacecraft path as seen from various parts of the US, assuming an on-time launch.
In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon.
At least the final Lunar Orbiter mission was also tracked optically in lunar orbit. Since Apollo, spacecraft in very high orbits have been imaged by well-equipped amateurs (Chandra, XMM-Newton) and reflections from deliberately oriented solar panels have allowed NEAR-Shoemaker to be detected with modest means at a range of 25,000 km or so. The detection of the Wind spacecraft at roughly lunar distance by asteroid searches, both professional and amateur (2001 DO47 turned out to exhibit an attention-gettoing trajectory change; here's the space.com writeup, since the original Sky and Telescope news note seems to have vanished during their WWW reorganization). These observations also show how far we've come, at least on the ground side of things.
To paraphrase, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate the falsehood of conspiracy theories. Amateurs are even better now than they were during the Apollo missions at these sorts of ground detections.
This list article answers the claims of the moon-landing skeptics. Its subject matter follows naturally from that context. Liberal Classic 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What you've articulated is the agenda for the hoaxsters' insistence that this info "has nothing to do with the hoax theories": It's that it has everything to do with the hoax theories. Hoaxsters are not interested in this information, because it undermines their premise, and that's why they don't want it linked from the hoax page. NASA supporters could be interested in it for two reasons: (1) general interest about the history of the space program and/or (2) further refuting of the hoax theories. If this is to remain a separate article, it should be linked from both the Apollo page and the hoax page. Wahkeenah 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - read the rest of the talk page before responding to a point. Isn't it interesting how all but two of us seem to have read Dr Keel's page in the same way! LeeG 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that he says that 'one reason', 'right now' is response to the hoax. But no sane reading of that article will lead to think that the only, or even the main reason is the hoax. No sane reading. It's like saying 'Well, the atlas mentions that some people beleive the earth is flat, so the entire narrative of the atlas should be interpreted as being about flat earthers. That's nonsense. You've picked up on a one-line comment, and want to re-interpret everything in the light of that. Please leave your POV at the door, and try to see this in it's correct context of a bunch of hobbyists and amateur astronomers thinking it's cool to see this stuff - they are not an army of anti-hoaxers wanting to prove Bill Keysing wrong. Gravitor 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This one falls into the category I mentioned above, about "general interest about the history of the space program". Obviously, hoaxsters don't like this kind of information, because it undermines their premise. All the more reason it should be linked to the hoax page, to try to maintain some neutrality there. Wahkeenah 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is linked from the hoax page, and it links to the hoax page. The question is, is this page about 'general interest about the history of the space program', or is it about the hoax? It looks pretty clear to me that it's about the space program, with a throwaway line about the hoax. As to 'hoaxers' not liking this kind of information, it appears to me that it is only 'hoaxers' who have contributed to it. I don't know how you make sense of that in your little fantasy world. Gravitor 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, I am unsure how to respond to this post. I have already ask you to be civil. "I don't know how you make sense of that in your little fantasy world" is a very uncivil comment, and I do not believe LeeG deserves such abuse. I've already pointed you to WP:CIVIL but perhaps you should read some of the other guidelines, too. I suggest the articles on disruptive and tendentious editing. Liberal Classic 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was talking to Wahkeenah, and, to be perfectly honest, thought that the tone of our conversation was improving. If I could give you a little advice, it would be not to sweat the small stuff. Wahkeenah's a big boy, and when he's pissed, he lets me know. But thanks for pointing that out. Gravitor 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(Gravitor, your statement "I don't know how you make sense of that in your little fantasy world" is incivil. Please visit the RfC concerning your behavior. A response on your part is requested. If your opinion here is indeed correct, it would be more convincing without this type of destructive behavior. Lunokhod 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
Please see above. Re the RFC, I think that you all are demonstrating what's going on perfectly, I have nothing to add. Gravitor 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the good doctor Keel has recently been funded by NASA [16] and , thus, does not meet the completely unsourced requirements for independence defined in this article and upon which this article is supposedly based. I point this fact out, not to impune Dr. Keel --he seem's likable and brillaint judging from his web page and his list of publications is tremendously impressive -- but to again give an example of how the opinion that this article represents some kind of natively independant evidence is ill founded and unsuportable. Thus, some outside source is wanting to define this context for us, some source on which to attribute our basis for picking and choosing what facts to leave in or take out. A good many editors have pointed out that the only justifiable source for this context of "independant" and "evidence" is the moon hoax. I again invite anyone who can come up with a source for the context of this article "Independant evidence of Apollo landings" that is NOT hoax related to do so. Failing that, we should consider this article part of the constellation of hoax articles and revise it accordingly. Numskll 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As you can plainly see, it is not Dr Keel's evidence. He is compiling the independent evidence. We can comment that he is funded, but the real sources here are the things he is citing. Gravitor 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, the larger point is the invalidity of the stand alone definiton of independant evidence and the context of the hoax that gave rise to it. Numskll 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
But you can drive a bus through the holes in your logic. The evidence is independent. It's compiled by someone with only a passing interest in the hoax - the context is his interest, and those whose evidence it is, in the Apollo Project. Gravitor 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
And you habitually fail to see the 1000lb gorilla in the room, that numerous other editors have tried to point out to you, repeatedly. You apparenlty failed to read the article you have been referring or failed to understand it completely, which is understandable space science is arcane to. The only attributable context for the topic of this article -- "independant evidence"-- is the moon hoax. Every reference that I can find that even approaches the subject in the way this article does is hoax related, or in the case of Dr. Keel, his direct references to "evidence" have to do with debunking the hoax. You have failed to come up with any rational for compiling this list of facts and naming them independant and evidence. Google "independantt evidence of apollo landings" and see what you get. 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good grief Numskll, I really don't know what to tell you. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE CITED BY KEEL REFERNCES THE HOAX AT ALL. Keel mentions it once. And yet you keep insisting that this is the absolutely only thing it has anything to do with, and if it doesn't go your way it needs to be deleted. You need to chill out, and actually read the thing in the cold light of day, and not the editing rage you seem to have worked yourself into. Gravitor 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, WP:AGF, take your own advice and turn off your caps lock. Obviously, I'm not alone in my opinion of this article; there is merit in my view and it is supportable (see above). It is not obvious that your view is supportable. Perhaps you should stop trying to push your particular POV as some kind of unassailable truth and start trying to find attribution for it. I'm not sure what to say about your accusation of editing rage other than that that is seems to not adhere to WP:CIVIL. [17] Please try to follow these policies. Numskll 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that spectacularly fails to address the point. Gravitor 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, I've addressed the point over and over. Scroll up. Read my views on the one of the other dozen or so times you've raised this same issue. You've mounted no argument more compelling than "because I said so" If you have a new point you'd like to make, please make it. But this particular claim has been addressec over and over (scroll up) by numerous editors. Please try to take their views into account. I'd suggest, as have other editors, you review WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN and WP:POINTfor some guidance in this regard. Kindly take that advice to heart. Numskll 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That is simply not true. You have not once made a case more convincing than 'someone else on this page agrees with me, so it must be true', and have not once actually addressed the point I have repeatedly asked you to above "NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE CITED BY KEEL REFERNCES THE HOAX AT ALL. Keel mentions it once. And yet you keep insisting that this is the absolutely only thing it has anything to do with, and if it doesn't go your way it needs to be deleted.". Gravitor 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you'll be returning to the topic of this article any time soon or do you plan to continue to attack me? I've articulated my views above. (I'd invite anoyne else reading this to do the same) Please refer to those views or present some new argument. simply repeating yourself, even with creative use of typography, seems contra-productive. I see no need to repat myself when I've responded to this exact point repeatedly. Again simply scroll up.
Besides, the recent edit war revolved around you and carfiend deleting content from this page in a coordinated fashion, (not to mention your repeatedly deletion without comment from you of discussion of your behavior from your own talk page). I acted to restore content to this page and to open dialog with you on your talk page. You, on the other hand, freaked out. I suggest you check the edit summaries. Numskll 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you. You simply continue to avoid addressing the point, apparently thinking that simple repetition of your point of view is enough. You have not once made a case more convincing than 'someone else on this page agrees with me, so it must be true', and have not once actually addressed the point I have repeatedly asked you to above "NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE CITED BY KEEL REFERNCES THE HOAX AT ALL. Keel mentions it once. And yet you keep insisting that this is the absolutely only thing it has anything to do with, and if it doesn't go your way it needs to be deleted.".

Gravitor 03:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"I acted to restore content to this page and to open dialog with you on your talk page. You, on the other hand, freaked out." LOL! I'm glad we got that one straightened out, you were righteous and responsible, I was a lunatic. I see it all clearly now that you point it out! Gravitor 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not qualified one way or another to judge whether you're, as you say, a "lunatic." I do know you freaked our and started a edit war by deleting valid pertintent and well-sourced content you disagreed with. I think that speaks more to your actions on wikipedia rather than your state of mind. Numskll 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I love that in your world you are entirely in the right ;) Gravitor 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It saddens me that you spend your life with your nose against the mirror, admiring the view. Numskll 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of an odd thing to say. Gravitor 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I get that a lot. See narcism (or whatever)for my inspiration for that bit. I was puzzled why you said that "in your world you are entirely in the right " but I assumed you were simply just being insulting again. Numskll 04:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
and if you think about it, not that I would expect you to, my reply more or less eachoed your whole "you think you're so right" scree.Numskll 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except you totally missed the irony. Gravitor 06:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you mean the pot-kettle irony? No, I got that . . .Was there some other irony? Numskll 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That you totally fail to see that what you consider to be exemplary behavior looks to others as disruptive crusading. Gravitor 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't troll me. Numskll 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Gravitor 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see you game the system, As does anyone else who has particiapted in this article. I see the disparity between what you say here and what you've done on the article, and I see your refusal to discuss or modify your behavior as evidenced in your repeatedly deletion of discussion of that behavior on the talk page. I see that you're a troll, a liar and a hypocrite -- in sohrt a griefer. But you know all that because I guess that's your intent. That's what you get out of Wikipedia. A target rich environment for your anti-social tendencies. Numskll 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a break will do you good Numskll, I hope some time off gives you a more balanced perspective. Gravitor 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, troll, I'm going to adopt your methods as they have worked so well for you. I won't have to concern myself with addressing your lies anymore as I can, as you do, conveniently ignore whatever is said that doesn't fit my agenda and cherry pick whatever I think I can use. It been working for you. Learn how to take a compliment. Numskll 17:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Might I respectfully suggest that you don't edit when you are drunk and angry? Gravitor 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest you bite me, trollNumskll 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil, don't make personal attacks, and assume good faith. Gravitor 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
bite me you hypocritcla troll, no offense. Numskll 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the nature of evidence

Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion. An article discussing the "evidence for the Apollo moon landings" is a discussion on the truth or falsehood of the of the Apollo missions. In this context, such a discussion can only be between those people who are skeptical of the existence of the moon landings and those people who maintain the moon landings actually occurred. The subject matter of this article, therefore, is inextricably tied to the question of the moon-landing hoax.

However, assuming this article documents evidence, it only documents evidence "for" the Apollo missions, not against. Because it presents only the view that the Apollo missions occurred, this article violates the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. On the other hand, if this is not an evidentiary article, then it is merely a list of unrelated pieces of information on the Apollo missions. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.

This article violates Wikipedia policy on the above grounds. As this article has already survived a nomination for deletion, the proper course of action is to merge this article with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article.

Liberal Classic 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't knoww where to start - first, we should merge Project Apollo with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article, since, as you say, "policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article.". Surely you agree? Let's get to work! Or is there a double standard at work here? Gravitor 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if we renamed the page observations of apollo missions. Merging with project Apollo might be a valid idea. But as it it named, and as you've presented it, it belongs with the hoaxc articles. That's where we should start. This comment "work! Or is there a double standard at work here? " isn't civil and it doesn't assume good faith. See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. [18] Numskll 02:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, no, you didn't read it - I'm talking about merging the hoax page with Project Apollo - as your interpretation of policy demands. Gravitor 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your last remark. 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not. Since you insist that policy demands we merge articles with differnt points of view, the first task is to merge Project Apollo with Hoax Accusations, since those are clearly POV forks, and unacceptable by your logic. I'll help you do that one. Unless, that is, you only want to apply this rule where it suits your POV? Gravitor 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a link to the Hoax page in the Apollo missions article in the "End of the program and lasting influences" section. I would think that the hoax is notable and a lasting influence of the program. Liberal Classic 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it is. Gravitor 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that there is a reference to the hoax from the Apollo mission page, we can now place the evidence supporting the existence of the missions inside an article in which discusses the controversy surrounding the moon landings. Liberal Classic 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you are absolutely hell-bent on provoking another edit war by going ahead with a disputed move before there is consensus. Gravitor 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
But your suggestion was to merge the Apollo Hoax Controversy with the Apollo Mission main page. That would never do because of the article size. A hyperlink is acceptable, though. Now that the Hoax Controversy is referenced within the Apollo mission main page, why do you still object to "evidence for" the missions being referenced from within the Hoax Controversy main page? Liberal Classic 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, no, that doesn't work, the Hoax Accusation page is already too big as well - thankfully, you've offered to solve that, by breaking it into smaller pieces - we can do the same to Project Apollo - just the way you recommended for the Hoax page - unless, that is, you're committed to applying the rules only when it suits you? Gravitor 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you mean that I am "committed to applying the rules only when it suits you"? Liberal Classic 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Because you want to merge this page and the hoax page (even though it does not make sense) but not the hoax page and project apollo (which does make sense) you want to pick and choose which pages to apply the policy to depending on what suits your point of view. Gravitor 03:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Content_forking. Liberal Classic 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read it. Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations is a clear content fork of Project Apollo - the two must be merged (according to your logic, that is). Gravitor 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor's true agenda is becoming clear now. Wahkeenah 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah - this is not my agenda - Numskll is insisting on this. Gravitor 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, please don't lie. Anyone can read my comments right here in this section and see you're just that you simply making things up. I can't imagine obvious and blatent lies aren't a violation of WP:CIVIL [19] Numskll 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So here's what I don't understand, you are constantly lecturing me about good faith and civility, yet it's just fine for you to accuse me of lying and making things up? Maybe that kind of logic is why we don't agree? Gravitor 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
well you were lying and making things up in this section about something I just said. It's not fine. You should stop. Maybe take a breather. Drink some tea. Read WP:DICK. It's funny. Numskll 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you get to the point - why you can tolerate a POV fork when it suits you, but not when it doesn't? Gravitor 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand you're point. I simply disagree with it. I'd appreciate it if you would address mine and not continually and seemingly purposefully misrepresent what i've wrote. Please WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF [20] Numskll 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually advocating applying WP:SS for this and the whole constellation of hoax articles to which it belongs. This format scheme is expressly designed to avoid POV forks. Check it out. See Holocaust_denial for a fairly good example of how the policy can be applied to controversial topics. Numskll 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop calling people hypocrites. Liberal Classic 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but again, you're ignoring the point. You need to apply that consistently to have any credibility. Let's start with merging Project Apollo and Moon Hoax Accusations. That way, they won't be POV forks, which I know is annoying you, as you keep pointing out. Gravitor 03:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it! Let's suggest a merge. I'll work on the social impact you can diddle around with "evidence." I don't see it as a POV fork though. That seems to be something you've dreamt up. Numskll 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated many times, I think the article should be moved to Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties. That gets rid of "evidence". Branson03 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that there is a need for this article, I suggest that you create it, and then copy the relevant information from this page. Afterwards, we can re-evaluate if the "independent evidence" page is necessary. Lunokhod 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a temporary version for this at User:Branson03/tracked. Because this page is protected, I decieded to make it in my user space. Branson03 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I would not be altogether opposed to this, except that then the moon rocks would not have any place there. Gravitor 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem with me. Lunokhod 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the article becomes a list cruft. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." The proper place for this article is within the context of the hoax controversy. Liberal Classic 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My issue is: independant of whom? See my comments on Dr. Keel above and other more general comments on the flakiness of our definition above. Scroll up. We've covered it. Numskll 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You just have to shoot down any suggestion by anyone but you, don't you. He was trying to move this impasse forward by exploring an option that might meet everyone's needs, but no, no. Your POV must prevail! Gravitor 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I was expressing my views. Thar is all. Numskll 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Will you please be civil? Liberal Classic 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am being civil, I was simply pointing out that there is no need to bite the guys head off because he suggested an alternative to your POV. Gravitor 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but I do not believe you are. Liberal Classic 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should, as I'm constantly being instructed, Assume Good Faith. Gravitor 03:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
disagreeing and stating the grounds does not equal biting a guys head off. Numskll 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to assume good faith, but you are providing evidence to the contrary. I've only posted in this topic for one afternoon, and in it you have accusd me of fanning flames, making ridiculous and unfortunate suggestions, aggressively pushing my point of view, of holding double-standards and being "hell bent" on provoking an edit war. Frankly, I can see why people are exasperated with you. Liberal Classic 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel compelled to interject here that A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor.Numskll 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An olive branch

Wahkeenah, before this got entirely hijacked, I felt like we were getting somewhere. Not sure entirely where, but, for a moment, I glimpsed a future where we both backed away from positions for a moment, and considered the bigger picture, a better, brighter world. A world safe for democracy. Two worlds divide here, in one, you respond: "Yes, but you suck", and in another "I was just thinking the same thing...". Gravitor 06:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If you could find a way to totally stop the insults and sarcasm, to take the high road, even if others still do it to you, it would go a long way toward defusing the RFC as well as accomplishing something here. Wahkeenah 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, it was worth a try. Gravitor 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe Wahkeenah was dismissing your olive branch. To the contrary, I believe what he gave you was meant to be interpreted as constructive criticism. The guideline says always try to remain more civil than someone else who is behaving poorly. Liberal Classic 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was my olive branch back to Gravitor, trying to live up to what the RFC admin asked all of us to do. Wahkeenah 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, I hate to break it to you but that wasn't an olive branch, it was poison ivy . . . Numskll 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, guys. Gravitor 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
as you see Gravitor was only waiting for the slightest wiff of dissent to abandon this tactic. Later, he'll claim he tried to make peace but was instanlty rebuffed and he'll do this same tactic again, since its worknig so well for him so far. 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we're all assuming good faith, and not making personal attacks. Gravitor 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The admin refuses to take any action on the RFC, so you are free to say and do anything you want without reproach. Wahkeenah 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you tried to use a procedure for complaining about behavior to get your way in a content dispute. It's a kind of procedural harassment. Gravitor 16:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say, is the final answer. We defer to your Teflonness. Wahkeenah 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I actually didn't open the RFC and it is your behavior not the content that is at dispute. But it matters little as the process is broken and all your insults and all your disruption are unchecked. Nicely done. Numskll 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This kind of thing is one reason wikipedia will never be any more than a pretentious weblog. If it were a real encyclopedia (1) IP addresses would not be allowed to update it and (2) contentious users would be repeatedly blocked with little hesitation, and would be blocked again if they learned nothing from it. This so-called encyclopedia is more worried about copyrighted photos than about content and credibility. Wahkeenah 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right! We should give all authority on content to you, and you should be able to block anyone who disagrees with you! That's the way to improve Wikipedia! Gravitor 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the admin reproached several of us, he should have immediately issued a block against all of us for some stretch of time, then see who improves their behavior afterwards. But he didn't. Basically, he did nothing. I guess admins don't get paid very well. Wahkeenah 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's still 'everything but you' that's broken. The users. The process. The admin. Ever wonder whether that might be part of the issue? Gravitor 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually referenced that precise issue in the RFC. Have you examined your own behavior? Can you even acknowledge it? Answer one of those questions directly. 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We defer to your Teflonness. Wahkeenah 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: The discussion for merging this article is still open. Add your comments here:Talk:Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Proposed_merge_with_Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

The discussion for merging this article is still open at Talk:Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Proposed_merge_with_Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

Look, the truth is not a vote, and polls are one of the things that the recent rfc identified as the source of the problem. You would be better off trying to build consensus than trying to look for ways to use process to avoid having to. Gravitor 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest you read over WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. it recognizes that perfect consensus may not always be possible and so provisional consensus may be the closest thing -- see the supermajority section specifically. Then you could re-read the various dicsussion we've had on context here. It is not as if we haven't tried to reason through our differences. Again, if you have new arguments to mount, please do so. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to move forward, then make it, but simply complaining that the current provisional consensus isn't good enough because it is not to your liking and them claiming that merge discussions are somehow disruptive and countra productive, as you have done above, when a number of editors have argued at length to the contrary isn't getting us anywhere. Not offering a way forward doesn't seem to get us anywhere, either. I agree there are process issues. Offer a solution that we haven't tried repeatedly. Numskll 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:Merge. I am following stardard wikipedia policy concerning the merge proposal. You, in contrast, have not, by renaming of the article several times during previous merge proposals. I have only given a reminder because the talk page has grown so much that some of the newcomers could erroneously conclude that the merge propososal has concluded. It is customary to close a merge proposal be enclosing the proposal in a boilerplate template.
I also remind you that the taking of surveys or polls is standard wikipedia policy in order to test what the consensus is, or help achieve discussion in how to achieve consensus. Please re-read WP:Consensus.
I also remind you that no one has yet endorsed the opinion that you are citing on the RfC concerning your disruptive behavior, so this opinion (until endorsed) holds little weight. Lunokhod 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2 cents

In cleaning out my watchlist, I noticed that this firestorm has been spun off the Apollo Hoax page. Frankly, I am pretty uncomfortable with the degree of tolerance that we have for hoax theories and other fringe things. However, a brief read of this page leads me to question exactly what fight is being fought here. Gravitor is not someone I have dealt with personally, but he appears to be pretty abrasive. On the other hand, the level of rudeness, childish insults and lack of serious response from others is at least as bad. On the merge proposal, I cannot see any reason to want to merge this page. Consider this a vote against any merge, and a request to have all the heads on this page banged together. Honestly. Grow up and start treating each other like adults. Sorry for any offense, but this level of debate is an embarrassment. Trollderella 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New article: "Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties"

Branson03 has started a new article on his user page called Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties. The creation of such an article has been supported by the following people

  1. "I'm ok with what Branson is suggesting. Carfiend 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

:# "I would not be altogether opposed to this, except that then the moon rocks would not have any place there. Gravitor 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"

I was not initially opposed to this, but it looks like this is an attempt to remove evidence, and break up this article, rather than a name change. Gravitor 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. "No problem with me. Lunokhod 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"

Such an article would have nothing to do with the hoax, though we could add a single sentence mentioning the hoax, just as gravitor's only reference did, and as cited above.

I am going to create this article in the next few days (if Branson03 doesn't do it by then). The only major question I have now is: What is the best title for this article? Here are some possibilities

  1. "Apollo missions tracked by independent parties" (original proposal)
  2. "Apollo missions tracked by independent organisations."
  3. "Independent tracking of Apollo missions"
  4. "Amateur tracking of Apollo missions"
  5. "Tracking of Apollo missions" (is this too broad? it could include evidence from NASA)

I prefer the first, but am willing to change my mind. Also, we could make it a list, but I would be against such a proposal. Lunokhod 11:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a slight aversion to "independent", it still makes me feel as if there is some need for an arbiter about the veracity of the landings. As a result I prefer "tracking of the Apollo missions" (I concede the NASA point is less than ideal) or "Amateur" tracking. I'm pretty relaxed about it though, my big problem with the extant page was the word "evidence" in the title. Just as an aside - is this now simply a list as it lacks any context? If so, (waits for the shouting) could we just drop a paragraph on the bottom of the relevant Apollo Mission page under the title of "other mission tracking" and have "XXX from YYY tracked the mission on his home telescope" and a citation? In any event - well done and thank you Branson03 for making a real move towards a consensus. LeeG 14:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I predict that there will be no shouting on this new page. In the words of gravitor "It has nothing to do with the hoax", and therefor those editors who only edit hoax articles will probably not be interested in it (see his editing summary here). I am not sure if "Amateur" is the best word though, as this would exclude foreign run DSN stations. Just "tracking" is a bit vague for me too: Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect that there is a HUGE technical literature relating to NASA's tracking of these missions. I see nothing wrong with adding a short paragraph of context each mission: The problem with this article was that the "context" was considered biased, and was being used to favor the hypothesis that the Apollo missions actually happened. Lunokhod 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That was also my problem with "amateur" - I had no intent to upset any of the eminent and professional astronomers that we may cite. As I said, I'm quite relaxed about it, it's a great idea to resolve what was becoming an unstoppable force and an immovable object type scenario! LeeG 14:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I put it in my user space, because if this article is protected, it looks like a way to get out (of the protection) if I create a similar article. Branson03 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also somewhat averse to the use of the word "independent" in this context. Independent of what? The current definition is the vaguely paranoid "independent of NASA and the U.S. Government", yet the article includes sources from the U.K. and Australia. The School of Physics and Astronomy at The University of Manchester (who runs Jodrell Bank) works very closely with major universities in the U.S as well as NASA, and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in Canberra is run by JPL. While the Soviets may have been "independent" of the U.S. government, it is no longer true for the Russian Federation, as they work very closely with NASA and ESA on IIS. To top all this off, NASA releases ascension and declination for the shuttle and IIS so as an amateur astronomer you'll know where to look. Excluding mainstream sources also has the negative side effect of preventing worthwhile from being included in the article, such as these wonderful Java apps to help you find the locations of satellites and spacecraft. [21] This is why I am kind of suggesting taking the information that is in this article and expanding on it to create an article on the science of tracking of satellites and spacecraft. There is great deal of interest in this topic within the amateur astronomer community, and I think such an article would benefit wikipedia. It has the added benefit of being an article that can be linked from the hoax page in answer to the moon-landing skeptic question "how do we know spacecraft really traveled to the moon?" Liberal Classic 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't like "independent" either (as if something is wrong with NASA's tacking). I don't like "amateur" because some of them are professionals. How about "outside"? Bubba73 (talk), 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, "independent" and "outside" are pretty much the same thing. If you discount the evidence from the primary source (NASA) and the secondary source (USSR), it could almost be called "third party evidence"... or "tertiary evidence" to get really obscure. Wahkeenah 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure you get Gravitor's approval, because his opinion trumps everyone else's. Wahkeenah 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You just can't help it, can you. I have told Branson what I think of this - I have no in principle objection to "Apollo missions tracked by independent parties", my question is that this eliminates observations of the moon rocks, and means that another page would likely be needed. I prefer 'evidence' because it is a neutral word to describe all of the observations, artifacts, testamonies, etc that remain. I am worried that this page will take a small part of this page, and be used as an excuse to try again to delete the remaining evidence. Gravitor 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You need not worry. You've got the admin on your side. You are Teflon. Wahkeenah 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether that is a personal attack against me, or 'the admin'. The fact is Wahkeenah, that you tried to resolve a content dispute by launching complaints against a user who has a different point of view to you. It's transparent that your real concern on the rfc is not anyone's behavior, but getting your own way on the content. Gravitor 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand you. You deleted my Moon rock section multiple times, and now you are concerned about saving it? As I have already mentioned (several times), I have already merged this content with the hoax article, so this "factual information" is not being deleted from wikipedia. Also, could you give us an idea of what you mean by Independent "observations, artifacts, testamonies", that would NOT be in the new article? I don't really understand what "factual information" would be deleted. Lunokhod 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the stuff that you put in that was not evidence, but opinion. I am interested in keeping sourced evidence on the Moon rocks, just not the opinion piece you keep inserting. Gravitor 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that evidence is a neutral word - check out [22] each definition is around proof or similar. If the event happened, which we accept as (so I am repeatedly told) this is nothing to do with the hoax, then it's not evidence as we are not advocating or proving anything. It just is, therefore it is a collection of observations, not a collection of evidence. In short - the inference from "evidence" is that there is some doubt. "Some doubt" references the hoax allegations, (that is the only context in which you would doubt the landings) and we are back where we started. I believe strongly the word "evidence" should not appear in the new article. LeeG 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you could get over your hoax hangups, it's not just observations. There are rocks, testamonies, and obersvations, and maybe other things. The proposed new page is a piece of the independent analysis of the program. Gravitor 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to go with whatever Gravitor/Carfiend say, as they are the final owners of these pages. Wahkeenah 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain unmoved - "tracking" has nothing to do with rocks or other artefacts, so those fall away (see above for how the factual content is preserved). One tracks by observing, so it's observations. LeeG 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well quite, and that's what I am concerned about - the current page is broader than this, so it's going to result in deletion of valuable material. Gravitor 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
WHAT MATERIAL WOULD BE DELETED? Sorry to yell, but you have evaded this question. Lunokhod 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Independent evidence of analysis of the moon rocks. Gravitor 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
IT WILL NOT BE DELETED. IT IS ALREADY AT THE HOAX PAGE. IT IS ALREADY AT Moon rocks. IT IS ALREADY AT Moon. Could you please read the latter two pages? Lunokhod 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is still the issue of how to define independance and where the definition comes from to consider, but I've pretty much given up discussing that argument as it doesn't register with the gate-keeper. But it is a real issue. Numskll 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I tried to articulate above, and why I'd shy away from the word "independent". I can't see any other suitable frame, however. LeeG 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


An article on the ground tracking and sighting of satellites and spaceships might be an interesting project. It doesn't have to be optical tracking exclusively. You could discuss the telemetric methods by which it was demonstrated Sputnik was orbiting the earth, thus touching off the space race. A section on optical tracking could encompass observations of Apollo spacecraft travelling to and returning from the moon, and you could include images of earth orbitting craft such as from this page from the FAS. [23]. You could also discuss amateur radio projects to detect the shuttle. An amateur astronomer forcus might be appropriate for this article, but reliable and credible sources such as NASA shouldn't be excluded. Liberal Classic 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea LC - anything that provides independent evidence would be a great addition to this page! Gravitor 04:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I can agree with Liberal Classic on that, despite the edit conflict! <G>
Comment -- Lunokhod, lighten up for your own good, for Pete's sake. Your continual citing of 'guidelines' is "wiki-lawyering", more than a little childish, and totally unnecessary, not to mention impractical and just wearing on those who have to read your posts. Guidelines are not policy; take for example the simple fact that duplication of information in a digitally stored medium is highly conducive to contextual understanding, and deleterious to such comprehension if it's off somewhere else through a link. Such is not a experiential matter most of the young editors herein understand when voting on guidelines... So many such guidelines are skewed from real practical good practices and such--the youngsters simply have too much energy and time to follow such pages, and lacking experience, overstate things far too often--not to mention, show up to vote. Yet if one follows guidelines strictly, as you seem wont to do, you should move stuff into only one place--which helps keep it current, at the expense of the reader!

   The mature attitude is use common sense. Putting stuff in only one place, where you have to wade through other supporting verbiage is usually contraindicated in anything but academia, and (God forbid) Government documents. Reading the information right here and now is usually a good idea if 'on topic'. Off topic, it doesn't belong, which is much clearer. Easy choice.

   But most of all, stop being so damn confrontational. Nothing which happens on these pages is going to affect your life's work, income, job prospects, or retirement fund in any positive way no matter how hard any of us work at it; quite the contrary is far more likely, not to mention busted marriages or relationships with significant others. So go with the flow. Only someone with real issues of self-worth lets any of these discussions raise any emotions. This stuff is and should not be formative of your own self-image, at least not if you've left your teens behind. At most, get satisfaction from doing the best you can, and if someone disagrees, make one rebuttal, and if you don't carry the day, go on to something else. There are 1.6 million pages to improve and absolutely zero reason to stay with any one of them if you don't get along with others working the page. Best regards // FrankB 19:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I APOLOGIZE FOR YELLING Lunokhod 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fabartus! Gravitor 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some variations:

  1. Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties
  2. Apollo Missions Observed by Independent Parties
  3. Apollo Missions Tracked and Observed by Independent Parties
  4. Apollo Missions Tracked or Observed by Independent Parties

Branson03 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, but I'm still puzzled by what you are proposing to do with the evidence that are not observations or tracking? Thanks! Gravitor 04:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
At first my suggestion was this article (evidence) be moved to my suggested title. Lunokhod said I should create the article, then we would deal with this one. I haven't thought about what to do with the evidence yet, but I will think about it. Branson03 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor, could you let us know exactly what you mean by "the evidence that are not observations or tracking"; What material are you referring to? Your previous edits have shown that you do not want the Moon rock section in this article, and 95% of the rest of the article is about the tracking. The rest is mostly fluff. Lunokhod 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Lunokod - the stuff that you posted on this page was, indeed, copied from the hoax page. Unfortunately, it was just a commentary on the moon rocks, and was not independent examination of the moon rocks. I'm sorry you're having trouble making the distinction. Let me, perhaps, give an example: the piece you copied says "The Apollo Program collected a total of 382 kilograms of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions." to make it onto this page, we would be looking for some independent source that verifies the existence of 382 kilos of moon rocks. 'Independent evidence', if you will. Gravitor 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That sentence comes from Papike et al.; I didn't feel it was necessary to site because you can find the same number in other articles, though I will add a citation if you feel it is necessary. Papike is an independent scientist that has analyzed Moon rocks, and was part of an independent consortium that allocated the Moon rocks to scientists world wide. If he say there are 382 kg, there is no reason a priori to doubt this number. Your point, nevertheless is somewhat valid: Why should we believe this number from the indenpedent scientists? Well, in wikipedia, we can only report what has been said. If you know of a source that says "We believe NASA somehow obtained large amounts of Moon rocks, but 382 is way too much; it is probably only 10 kg" then we can cite this. If you read WP:V, and WP:NOR, these policies very clearly make the point that wikidedia is not about presenting the "truth", but is rather only a survey of the existing literature. Lunokhod 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Great - I think we should cite the paper where he said this, so that people can see what his methodology was for determining this figure - did he actually weigh it, or did he just read the memo? Gravitor 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Each sample has bee photographed and weighed, and independent scientists world wide are free to request any sample they want. As the scientists involved, and their work, is respectable, if you wanted to nitpick, you could probably say something like "Respectable independent scientists who have had extensive access to the Apollo samples never had any reason to doubt that NASA was lying about the mass of samples in their collection", or something to that matter. If you want to know more about this, and how the samples are allocated, you should check out this web site. Lunokhod 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I retain my reservations on "independent", but given that we all should move from entrenched positions a little to get anywhere, I favour option 1 above. Observations, to my mind, includes tracking. LeeG 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go with number one as well. We can always change the name later if we find something more appropriate. Lunokhod 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go with what LeeG said, I retain my reservations on "independent", but given that we all should move from entrenched positions a little to get anywhere, I favour option 1 above. Observations, to my mind, includes tracking. Numskll 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What about Independent study and observation of Apollo Missions? That way the moon rock section stays, along with the observations, and any other evidence that turns up, and those who are squeamish about any kind of scientific method being applied to NASA don't need to see the 'E' word? Gravitor 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "Independent study"? There are very few scientists who study the Moon that are employed by the US government (I'd less about 1%). The vast majority are professors who are employed by a university, but receive grants from the government to fund their research. Would their research papers be considered independent? I would also estimate that about 20% of lunar scientist are not americans, who do not receive any money from the US government. Are these "independent studies"? Lunokhod 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as the article states, 'independent' is a sliding scale, not a hard category. I think that we should just explain what, if any connection the person presenting study or evidence has to NASA or the USG, excluding those directly employed by them. Gravitor 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think merging to Moon rock in the section "Analysis of Moon Rocks" or "Study of Moon Rocks". Branson03 16:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, dismembering the evidence article, and trying to delete or hide the evidence in other places. I am completely opposed to this. What do you think about the suggestion to rename this page Independent Study and observation of Apollo Missions? Gravitor 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
How much evidence/study is being deleted? If it is enough, this article could stay, with the new article have the observations. The new article takes the info from a diffrent POV (evidence that the moon landings happend/people not associated with the mission the tracked or observed it). Branson03 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Woah! Wait a minute, this is not what I thought it was. I won't support removal of evidence from this page. Please remove my support from this suggestion. Carfiend 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I voted keep was I thought this stuff should stay. I'm working on thinking of what to do with the 3 sections that would be taking out. Remember Gravitor, this article could still be merged, which means it would be split up. Branson03 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is my suggestion for the rest of the article. We merge the rest with the hoax article. Here is the sections:
==Evidence Against Hoax==
===Definition of Evidence===
===Significance of Evidence===
===Evidence of Moon Rocks===
===Evidence of Moon Landings===
===Future plans that may generate evidence==
There are only two articles with the info from this article. I want to hear what everyone thinks. Branson03 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so I am clear - do you mean we have one article on observations (as currently being developed in Branson03's userspace, and then we add these headings (with text) into the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article? LeeG 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Branson03 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, I'm all for that. No information is lost, and it all sits in a sensible place. It also allows for later expansion into Liberal Classic's idea above on a more general tracking article. LeeG 17:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
We're back to the bizarre idea that the only reason for evidence is the hoax, which I thought we had got rid of when it became obvious that there is no justification for it. None of the evidence was collected in response to the hoax, none of the people presenting it are presenting it in the context of the hoax - one of the people who is collating is made a one-line throw away about the hoax, and yet you want the defining narrative for all of these people who collected evidence a decade before the hoax even emerged to be the hoax? I just don't understand why you keep pushing this weird idea that is not supported by any evidence. I am absolutely opposed to this, it's just the same old 'hide the evidence' dressed up differently. If you want to follow this logic, you should first merge Plate tectonics into Flat Earth. Gravitor 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea is dead. Gravitor does not approve. Wahkeenah 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

not that it matters, but the troll gravitor has been removing my dissenting comments from this talk page apparently in an effort to silence opposing opinions and because he is immune to wiki policiesNumskll 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It does matter. Deleting from one's own talk page is one thing. Deleting stuff from the project page is another - a policy violation. Gravitor is conducting an experiment to see how far he can take this without getting zapped. So far, he's Teflon. Wahkeenah 04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleting personal attacks from all pages is encouraged. Thanks! Gravitor 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
tell it to the judge. Till some masochistic admin wades through the talk pages AND compares them to what happens on the article, all of gravitor's greifing and trolling is tacitly approved. THe RFC gave him and carfiend te thumbs up AND by extension taught me what was acceptable here. Also, any editor who participates in the proscribed admin actions just gets slapped. So, in my opinion, if the policies don't apply to everyone they don't apply to anyone. That's what I'm going with. It sucks it makes wikipedia much less cool but at least I'm not a hypocrite and/or a liar. Numskll 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to replace it Numbskull, what I removed was some random piece of abuse that you posted when you were drunk, after you promised that you were leaving Wikipedia. I was doing you a favor, but please, be my guest an replace it. By the way, you might like to try to be civil, assume good faith, and not make personal attacks. Gravitor 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ooh look, a troll! Numskll 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks? Please try to elevate the debate above the level of personal abuse. Carfiend 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

non-hoax Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties article exists

A new article unrelated to hoax accusations exists: Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties. Please discuss this topic on its talk page.

Please continue to discuss the issue of "independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" here. Lunokhod 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once unprotected can we delete the duplicated sections from this article then, and progress towards Branson03's idea (and hopefully Liberal Classic's too)? LeeG 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not - this is a gross misrepresentation of the current consensus. It's a plan by a couple of fanatics to push their POV in ever more areas. Gravitor 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If this article stays, I would advocate trimming down the observation section to one or two paragraphs, and add a "main" link to the new page. I also think that we should revisit the merge proposals in about a week's time after tempers calms down on this page. Lunokhod 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So, Lunokhod, the new, trimmed down article would contain information about the moon rocks and the retroflectors but not the tracking stuff (are there sections I missed)? Thst cleans up the information for the moon landings vs information of the flights issue, but it leaves this article rather bare and given, in my view it makes the issues surrounding the terms "idependant" and "evidence" rather more problematic and does nothing to resolve the hoax vs definitely not about the hoax conflict. Im my opinion, it over all it seems positive as it cleans up some of the endemic muddiness around this topic. I'd like to see the speculative in-the-future stuff handled even if we can't get anyone to budge on the hoax/not hoax issue.Numskll 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a blatant attempt to make an end run around consensus editing. Gravitor 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
most of the active editors on this artilce don't see it that way and you mounted no argument against it beyond "because Gravitor says so" perhaps you'd like like to expamd on your objections . . . so long as you can keep a civil tongue in your head, a talent you've up to now shown zero talent for. Note, you pathological griefing troll, that I'm not soliciting further violations of WP:NPA, WP:OWN or WP:CIVIL though obviously given your past behavior I'm assuming your completely unaware of those policies. Oh yeah, you can pull spell check out of your . . well let's just say you should work with any typoes, per wikipedia policy, to the best of your abilities, however robust or limited they might be . . . Numskll 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dare I say it - it's all gone quiet ... are we in a position to move forward, and trim this thing down? How do we get it unprotected? LeeG 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to request it from an admin. Who knows what will happen then. Numskll 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The question is: What do with do with this mess? I am still for merging this topic with the hoax article. Almost all of the material is in the Independent tracking and hoax pages already, so this will be no burden in terms of length. Lunokhod 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We may need some sort of mediation to sort out:
    1. How to define 'independant'
    2. How to define 'evidence'
    3. What context to place the resulting list of factiods in

The lengthy discussions above have only caused heartburn and don't seem any closer to consensus(at least not the the formal sense) than when we started. Wiki policy on consensus has some advice on this very issue, but we've been cautioned against wikilawyering and I don't imagine given the discussion above that we'll get buy in from the disenter among us. Numskll 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But do you want this article? I'm guessing that Gravitor is going to take a vacation for awhile, so there is no reason to pander towards his definition of consensus (unless he comes back...). Lunokhod 16:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see it as deeply problematic given the strained definitions above and the fact that no one has come up with any non-hoax reference that resolves the problems or even relieves the strain. I'm not simply arguing trivial semantics, I wasted too much time looking for such a source, only to be attacked when I stated that I couldn't find one. As it is, without an attributable context that is not convoluted or dishonest by way of ommitting 'inconvenient' hoax references (peer the Keel source) it looks a lot like a random list compiled via original research to me. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I simple want to state clearly my view on the topic. Numskll 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Independent" would mean someone other than the US Government, in the case of Apollo; and someone other than the USSR/Russian Government, in the case of the Soviet/Russian flights. If speaking strictly of the Apollo lunar landings, obviously it means anyone other than the US Government. That would include Soviet observations, unless the hoaxsters want to argue that the US and the USSR colluded, which would be rather difficult to prove, not that proof enters into their logic in any case.

"Evidence" is a slippery term. Do you mean legal evidence, i.e. if Sibrel were ever to sue NASA, in which case he would be buried by the mountain of preponderence of evidence; or do you mean scientific evidence, i.e. observations? If the latter, which is safer since no one has actually taken NASA to court, then you should just say "observations" rather than "evidence".

As I've said before, this could be a link from both the hoax page (as part of the refutation of it) and the Apollo page (as part of corroboration of it). That's about the best we can do, since you get the royal runaround from you-know-who whenever you try to pin him down on that question (or any question, actually).

If the newer article already covers this info, then post this one for deletion. Wahkeenah 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Numskll 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's my impression that the AfD process is harder than a merge. It is also more unpredictable as it is not a "vote". Nevertheless, if we can argue that this article is totally redundant, and that the manner in which this info has been taken out of context as "evidence" is original research, then it should work. I'm not going to file this myself, since I have already done so and it failed. Given that we have searched for such references, and Gravitor has not supplied any, I think that we are justified in re-AfDing this. Lunokhod 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote a well know Jedi - from a certain point of view, isn't a merge and a delete the same thing in this case. we merge it, hive off the observations (done) and deal with the left over bits, and we are left with a "main" article, and the one Lunokhod set up. No information is lost, nobody loses. Job done! LeeG 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In short, if everything useful on this page exists on another page, then we can take this one off our watch list and then who cares anymore? Wahkeenah 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c James Papike, Grahm Ryder, and Charles Shearer (1998). "Lunar Samples". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 36: 5.1–5.234.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Tony Phillips. "The Great Moon Hoax: Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon". Science@NASA.
  3. ^ Randy Korotev (2005). "Lunar geochemistry as told by lunar meteorites". Chemie der Erde. 65: 297–346.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings/Archive_1&oldid=1034406511"