Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

This article is completely biased

This article has literally pages and pages of hoax debunking. None of this debunking stuff needs to be in the article, titled APOLLO MOOX HOAX ACCUSATIONS. It's annoying, difficult to read, and completely overshadows the mostly one-line hoax arguments (which is another problem). There's already Wiki pages for NASA fans, they're titled PROJECT APOLLO and MOON LANDING. Put one link at the bottom to Clavius and be done with it.

The stridency of the debunkers is overwhelming. As such, I'm tempted to strip every bit of italic text out of this article. And the hoax claims need to be lengthened with photo examples added. Broodlinger 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

None of those pages specifically address the alleged issues that the hoaxsters raise. And their simplistic questions require detailed answers. To leave out the debunking would render the page biased. And if you start a wholesale and unilateral delete campaign, you'll be starting another edit war. Wahkeenah 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest possibly having the page renamed to reflect the fact the page has both Accusations and Debunking Statements, rather then engaging in large scale edits and an edit-war? -th1rt3en 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea the "none" of the debunking stuff belongs in is ridiculous, however, the instincts are sound. This article should be severely edited. But just stating the claims as if they were iron clad "unsolved mysteries" is not legitimate. The issue is that previous hoax proponent editors would not accept any language that placed the claims in an appropriate context, i.e as as a set of conspiracy theories put forth by a limited number of individuals with questionable (at best) creditentials whose claims though ill-formed, widely dismissed, and generally ignorant of basic science are neverthless well entrenched in pop culture. I'd delight in working on a much shorter draft of this article that concentrates on the conspiracy theory and follows that tack. Was that what you had in mind? Numskll 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We've tried to edit this page to concentrate on the moon conspiracy theories as a social phenomenon and their historical context, but every time we try the 'true believers' here revert the changes. If you can do a better job, feel free to have a go. Mark Grant 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I'm not really happy about the current format is the "stars" arguement is listed under Kaysing (I think). Just about all of them make the same arguements about stars, flags, shadows, blast craters, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that user (or his anon IP address) made the threatened mass changes, and I changed them back. Hang onto your space helmets, folks, here we go again. I guess they (or he) are back from their Kool-Aid camp. Wahkeenah 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No actually I've made the article concise, legible, and readable. You people who put debunking arguments in an article titled "Moon Hoax Accusations" are the trolls. Broodlinger 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to unilaterally make massive changes without discussion, especially when they turn the article into a pro-hoax POV rant. Wahkeenah 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate, the article is titled "MOOX HOAX ACCUSATIONS." YOU have no right to litter the entire article with off-topic material. Broodlinger 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, y'all, I've used my allotment of 3 reverts for the day. Somebody else will have to take over and/or turn this guy in to one of the Admins for blockage. Wahkeenah 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like "Carfiend" has been reincarnated. Or maybe his evil twin. Wahkeenah 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been several POV pushers from the 24. subnet, but this latest guy is much worse. Wahkeenah 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

YOURE THE POV PUSHER WAKEENAH. You're filling a hoax article with debunking statements. 10-20 lines of debunk for every line of argument. Where on Wikipedia is the Moon Hoax theory adequately laid out? Anywhere? Or have you been diligently working to bury the subject? Broodlinger 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the questions without answers leaves the false impression that they have no explanation. The user can decide whether the explanations hold water or not. Omitting them makes the article inherently POV. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out which of the recent ranters you're a sockpuppet of. Wahkeenah 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because your debunking arguments are 10x longer than the article itself. You're SPAMMING. A person can't even read this article and get a decent idea of what the hoax theory is. And I'm sure that's your purpose, to keep this article as confusing as possible.

You don't get to do point-by-point rebuttals in an article, that's nonsense! "Challenges and Responses?" LOL!!! And if your debunking claims made any sense, were legible or understandable in even the most basic way, I'd have *deleted the claim itself* because it's been debunked and doesn't serve the hoax accusations. Example: Flag waving. Yes, they were twisting it with their hands. It stops moving after they leave it alone. Good job, got any others?

Maybe you should start an article called "Ridiculous moon hoax accusations" and focus on aliens and UFOs and things you can actually prove are false. Broodlinger 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously Classified Nasa Video of Apollo 11 astronauts faking voyage

Here is a video that shows the apollo 11 astronauts faking their voyage using trick photography. [Classified Nasa Video]

NASA finally released this into the public domain in 2002 after this was leaked by inside sources.

NASA spent millions on Movie Studio Set-ups --Arltomem 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh Oh!!!! I'm in the possession of classified materials!! They are going to come after me! Worse yet, Amazon is selling the classified material: here. It is on disk 1, the chapter "TV Transmission 10:32 GET" (GET = Ground Elapse Time, time since liftoff). And true to form, the website lies again and says that it is 190 hours into the mission, not 10 hours. Anything to make it hard to check the facts. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, It says 190:01:15 - 01:30 1969 GMT for the first video clip. This means that the first clip covers the missiion on 190th day of the 1969th year at Greenwich Mean Time. 1:15 - 1:30. Huh, odd, the first clip is about 15 minutes..... --Arltomem 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If this thing were for real, Dude, the media would be all over it. Wahkeenah 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Things from NASA are normally given in hours:minutes:seconds from liftoff - not that format. The 190th day of 1969 was July 9. Apollo 11 lifted off on July 16. And don't change other people's comments on the talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They are probably going to claim it was recorded on July 9th. However, you're onto something with the dating. Whoever faked that fake was probably ignorant of NASA's date-time format. Wahkeenah 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that the video says 1:15 GMT. The TV transmission was actually 0:04. Most hoax believers think that the astronauts were actually in low Earth orbit. In fact, the claim is that video shows them looking at Earth from low Earth orbit with the round porthole making the Earth look round. And the video clearly shows that they were weightless, for the whole length of the video. Bubba73 (talk), 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, I went to that page and it started messing with my hard drive; probably to install some unwanted cookie, or some adware or some such. I don't recommend going there. It's probably a trap for the gullible hoaxster fans (and a few of us dumb enough to go to it). Wahkeenah 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about faking the moon landing in the vide either, except the opening screen that someone added. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, youre one to talk about not changing other peoples posts... And i love how you keep making stuff up, yea, good job.... Even in low earth orbit, you appear weightless!!! whats your point? i dont see much point arguin with your obviously ignorant and emotional statements. do some research instead of making wild accusations with cinematic emphasis, seemingly couched in language desinged to hide the fact that you are making these wild accusations without the least bit of evidence to support it!!!

--Arltomem 08:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will admit... i was somewhat mistaken as i had mispoke. I unintentionally misrepresented this as still, currently classified. My mistake. I should elaborate; it was previously classified, and/or there was/is an active attempt to keep is out of the public view. I believe that until 2002, this was not part of the public domain... Until i see evidence otherwise, i will keep that view. As soon as you prove me wrong with real evidence i will gladly retract my mistakes. As the two of you have evidently demostrated, there is still an active attempt to prevent people from seeing this. If you are right, why do you have to lie to discredit me? Cant you let people view this and make their own decisions? Let the evidence speak for itself?

Making wild allegations that you cannot back up, and are just plain wrong, will cost you credibility. First you claim that it misrepresents hours. When i show you that it is days, you flip flop and say that it misrepresents days. If you cared to be observant and do some actual research instead of believing what you want to believe, you will see that it does not, in fact, say 190. When you found out your calculations were wrong, you didnt double check them??!@!!! Obviously, the video quality is not the best, however you can see that the numbers 0,3,6,8,9 all look alot alike. If 190 doesnt work, why not try 193?? Is that really so far beyond you? Most of the time, pro-apollo people claim to be real rocket scientists, then go on to demsonstrate complete ineptitude at even the most simple concepts involved. Maybe you actually do work for nasa, with your attention to fine detail, research skills, thoroughness.... NO WONDER NASA HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS!!!

I dont see why we cant have an honest, open debate. I am willing to admit my mistakes when i am wrong. I am willing to respect your beliefs and ask only in return that you also respect mine. If i am wrong, then show me my flaw in the foundation of my arguement using arguements that are based in a solid foundation, not wild speculation and INSINUATING allegations that i am intentionally being misleading, or outright lying and claiming the GOOGLE VIDEO downloads worms?!? i mean WT*?!?!

Then again, i guess that YOU WILL do anything to make it hard to check the facts. I am here to educate, not argue. I will gladly answer any questions that you have, and i am sure there are many.

I have my own question, "This video is obviously part of the Apollo 11 catalouge, why is it not on WIKIPEDIA - Apollo 11??" :::::::: Or, at the very least i have CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated that this video IS at the heart of the modern moon hoax allegations, so why is it not part of the content for the official WIKIPEDIA Apollo 11 Moon Hoax Allegations?! You wouldnt want it to look like somebody was hiding something, or making it hard to check the facts?!?!?!?! --Arltomem 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, if this video had any actual significance, the mainstream media would be all over it. The media love scandals. If there was anything to this moon hoax stuff, they would be covering it like a blanket. Wahkeenah 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you feel the need to lie and tell people not to watch it because GOOGLE's is supposedly going to give them a virus? What are you afraid of? Why does it look like you're trying to hide something? The best way to not look like you're hiding something is by being open and actually not hiding the facts! --Arltomem 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my experience, dude, and calling someone a liar could get you banned from wikipedia, so enjoy your fun while you can. Wahkeenah 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The video argues the Apollo moon hoax on these 3 premises:

1 - It shows the Apollo 11 astronauts in earth orbit when they should be on their way to the moon.

2 - It shows the Apollo 11 astronauts using trick photography to fake a distant image of the earth.

3 - The nose cone of the CSM which houses the circular hatch window, which should be pointed in the general direction of the moon, is pointed toward the earth.

If you wish to argue this, any response that does not deal directly with these 3 arguements shall be considered 'beyond the scope' of this arguement! --Arltomem 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All three of those assumptions or assertions are incorrect. There is no visual evidence whatsoever to support items 1 and 2, and item 3 suggests the hoaxsters weren't listening, as it was stated by the astronauts that they shot the earth through one side window while the sunlight was coming in (mostly blocked by their star chart) through the opposite side window (there were several little windows in the capsule), which also squares with the way the earth is illuminated in those shots, kind of a "waning gibbous" look as they got farther away from earth. I don't think there is any "circular hatch window" in the nose cone, but in any case, they weren't pointed on a straight line between earth and moon, they took an arc toward the moon, so the earth would easily be visible outside one of their windows. Wahkeenah 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Arlt, please read WP:CIVIL, and please also be aware that talk pages are for discussions of how to improve articles, not for general debate. JoshuaZ 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And I say again that if there were anything to this, the media would be interested. Wahkeenah 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, suggesting that Google Video has the capabilities to upload viruses to your computer is a vile and odious lie. If you have any evidence to backup your allegations, i would love to see it. I highly doubt wikipedia is going to ban me for exposing your deceit. --Arltomem 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on over. Are you anywhere near San Francisco? Wahkeenah 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a virus, i highly doubt you got it from google. Check out their FAQ's and general info, its quite clear what measures they take to prevent just the sort of thing that you're accusing me of. Although, i certainly dont know everything. Maybe the moon really is made of cheese! --Arltomem 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, Yes, you are absolutely correct. I am suggesting that the article would be improved by adding the video, and the fact that pro-hoaxers presurmise that it shows; Apollo 11 in low earth orbit when they were supposed to be in translunar orbit, Apollo 11 astronauts using trick photography, Nose cone pointed in wrong direction. I dont see any reason why this cant be discussed in a civil manner. I am perfectly willing to answer any questions that you may have. However, do you believe that others leveling inflamatory insinuations without any evidence is civil? --Arltomem 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is Carfiend now that we need him? Wahkeenah 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just downloaded a fresh file and scanned it with NOD32, Norton AV, and Spyware Doctor. I found no trace of a virus of spyware or anything. --Arltomem 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a chance. It again "messed with" my PC, probably setting up the flash player, and conked out Windows Explorer eventually, but I didn't have to reboot, so hopefully everything's peachy. I did get to watch it all the way through, and it's a fascinating video. It gives a realistic sense of what it was like to be in that little bitty capsule, tens of thousands of miles from the earth. This could easily go on the Apollo page itself. The hoax commentary should be good for a laugh, as it's a fairy tale. Also, Bubba73 please note, in looking closely at the timestamps, I observed that it's 198, not 190. It's a little fuzzy, but on the first card you can see the difference between the 8 and the 0 that's right next to it after the colon. It's a little more distinct on the other two cards. The three timestamps given are:

198:01:15 - 198:01:30
198:23:31 - 198:23:54
198:23:54 - 199:00:07

Day 198, leading up to midnight, would be July 17th, the second day of the mission, which they confirm at one point by zooming in on the mission clock, which is at 34 hours and 16 minutes at that point (about 5 minutes before the start of the third segment). Everything in this video squares with the conventional Apollo saga. Wahkeenah 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In short, the hoaxsters got everything wrong in their commentary, even the datestamp. Par for the course. Wahkeenah 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In looking at it a little more, the font used for those low-tech title cards has the middle stroke of any "bisected" character (such as E, F, 3, 5 and 8) slightly above halfway, which tends to fuzz it out for some characters; notice how the crosspieces of the E and the F are also nearly invisible. Another giveaway is the last segment, which runs 13 minutes, not eight days and 13 minutes.

Here's a photo [1] similar to (and a little clearer than) the shots in the video. Apparently their "circular hatch window" not only came equipped with an extra-worldly fisheye lens that could somehow capture half the earth from low earth orbit, it also came with a "variable terminator" feature. I want to thank whatever hoaxster led me to that site, as it's an excellent resource for Apollo mission photos. Like this video, it gives a realistic sense of what it was like to be there. Wahkeenah 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

About the only that thing i agree with are the timestamps. The rest of this is garbage. --Arltomem 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The "garbage" is both their title (which is part-misleading and part-unverifiable) and their commentary, which bears no relationship to what's going on in the video. I would go through a point-by-point of their little fantasy, but it's not worth my time and effort. Feel free to try to defend and elaborate on their specific points, if it's worth your time and effort. Wahkeenah 07:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You would go through point-by-point if you had any points. Evidently, you do not.--Arltomem 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I could do it if I thought there was the slightest possibility you would be interested in it. Wahkeenah 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Von Braun's true genius

Let me get this straight. Hoax proponents (at least a subset of these) claim that WvB's Antarctica expedition collected the 380 kgs of material that Apollo supposedly brought back from the moon. Lunar meteorites are identified by comparing them to these samples. A total of 30 kgs of lunar meteoritic material has so far been found (Lunar meteorites). Independent of whether the Apollo samples, and hence what is known as "lunar meteorites", are actually from the moon or not, this means that WvB collected samples of a very rare kind of mineral amounting to more than a dozen times the mass of what the entire geological community has achieved since. Right. Wow. TeraBlight 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And even more amazing is that he did it something like 14 years before anyone else knew that there were any lunar meteorites on the earth. And he did it in one trip, as opposed to a number of trips over the decades. This was discussed a little before, and is probably back in an archive of the tals. Not all of the 380 kikograms are rocks, though. Some of it is dust, soil, and core samples. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxsters don't let trivial matters like reality and details get in the way of their stories. Wahkeenah 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie Shows how Moon landing was faked.

The facts are: 2 years before the launch of the first mission to the moon, at a time when NASA was having difficulty and falling behind the Soviets, the head of rocketry goes to Antarctica. No one really knows why. Efforts on my part to find out have so far led to nothing. NASA's story is vague. The theory is that he knew that they were not going to be able to get to the moon, and so went looking for moon rocks there. It was known that lunar meteorites could be found there. He didn't need to collect 300 pounds, just a sample, the rest could be manufactured, after all, they are the reference for which 'real' moon rocks are judged. Carfiend 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, because in addition to being a rocket engineer par excellence, von Braun was an expert geologist. Anyone could get the Saturn development back on track, but he was the only person within NASA with the knowledge to retrieve the right rocks and the discretion to keep it quiet. Besides, the top man always goes on away missions, right? ChrisWinter 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to go look for rocks. Or do you???? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment was sarcastic; I see that didn't come across. No; you don't need to be a rocket scientist to go look for rocks. A geologist is what you need to be — and in fact von Braun wasn't. Not only did he have the wrong skills, but sending him instead of a trained geologist was wrong in the organizational sense — rather like sending Captain Kirk down to a planet to gather samples instead of sending a low-ranking crew member. ChrisWinter 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't believe this is why WvB went to Antarctica. I'm just arguing against CarFiend's POV. ChrisWinter 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, two years before the first mission to the moon, the US was way ahead of the USSR. See the Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR section in the article. Also, pay close attention to particular attention to the accomplishments that were needed to get to the moon (rendezvous, docking, etc) as opposed to stunts, like the first woman in space and the first two independent flights up at the same time. Even Kaysing says that these things the US was doing must be done (Kaysing 2002:37-40). 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A second-year Geology student could not be fooled with fake moon rocks. Anyone who thinks that a fully trained geologist with years of experience could be fooled is beyond ignorant. There is absolutely no method to reproduce the properties found in moon rocks in any "oven" here on earth. Unless you assume that even the geologists are in on the hoax. Shhewitt 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's common sense, and where the hoaxster cons are concerned, common sense doesn't figure into the equation. Wahkeenah 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy just keeps getting wider and wider (in order to conform to the conspiracy theory). Geologists around the world are in on it, as are the astronomers, the physicists, the encyclopedists, ... Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The writeup herein indicates that there was nothing "mysterious" about his trip, and the stuff about him gathering moon rocks and having them duplicated has no basis whatsoever. Wahkeenah 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for his visit? I agree that there is no more independent evidence for his gathering and duplicating rocks than there is for the idea that he sent people to the moon for them. Carfiend 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If he duplicated rocks, how do you explain the fact that the youngest of the Moon rocks is millions of years older than the oldest rocks from Earth, ad independently verified? The reason for the trip is stated that the closest thing to what a moon base would be like is the base at Antartica. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't know the precise reason he was there, that does not provide a basis for inventing a story about it. Wahkeenah 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a theory. You must admit, that is is interesting that he took time off from rocketry at such a crucial time? I'm intrigued that there is no explanation from NASA about why he was there. Carfiend 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No actually it's a Supposition, and I would argue that NASA had very good reasons for him to do exactly what you're saying he did, which have no bearing on this page, but I'd be happy to discuss sometime personally. my own explanations are not valid to wikipedia and I'll leave them at the door. i kan reed 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "theory", it's a flight of fantasy based on nothing except outsiders (like Kaysing) thinking that NASA should have done things the way he thought they should, which might say something about why they canned him, which is something else that needs to be investigated. Wahkeenah 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I, unlike you, advocate investigating everything. Again though, what was VB doing in Antarctica? It's the moon mission that looks like a flight of fantasy right now. Carfiend 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one that's worried about it, so you need to investigate it. Wahkeenah 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, fine. In all honesty though, one of the things that disturbs me most about the pro-NASA camp is how anti investigation they are. Your hostility to the idea that it is legitimate to ask what VB was doing there is telling. Carfiend 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not hostile toward it. It's just a typical hoaxster trick, to raise a question and then expect someone else to investigate it. Wahkeenah 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, if someone came up to you and asked if your mother was a whore, then expressed shock that you objected to them investigating the situation, would you feel as sanguine? There's a point where the investigation becomes ridiculous. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, investigating the sexual history of a private citizen is ridiculous. NASA has no reasonable expectation of privacy, indeed, we have an obligation to investigate the spending of taxpayer money. Carfiend 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To investigate it properly, you would have to spend more taxpayer money, like to have Congressional hearings or some such. Prior to that, the hoaxsters would need to make a compelling argument that the flights didn't happen. That argument has yet to emerge. Wahkeenah 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to research it, and hoping that others here are also interested in establishing the facts. It's disapointing that you seem to be more interested in the polemic than in establishing the facts. Carfiend 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To those of us who lived through that time, it seemed perfectly reasonable, and no evidence has emerged to undercut that situation. Wahkeenah 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You saw it on TV, so it must have been true! Ah those innocent times. Carfiend 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it must be true, I'm saying it had the ring of truth to it, and nothing I've seen since then has persuaded me otherwise. Wahkeenah 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I bow before your unstopable logic. Carfiend 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're seeing reason. >:) Wahkeenah 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, I accessed the article you requested in section 7 of this discussion page and summarized what it put forth about WvB's motivation for the Antarctica expedition. The story as given seems valid, reasonable and consistent (which doesn't mean that it has to be true, of course).

As to "manufacturing rock samples", I very much doubt that this is technologically possible. As far as I know, it IS possible to do this in the laboratory in minute quantities, but not on a scale anywhere near what would be required to produce half a ton in any reasonable amount of time. And even with today's equipment, the products are easily identifiable as artificial.

Manufacturing minerals is just about as hard as manufacturing gems. If we were able to manufacture gems of a quality to rival what is found in nature, it certainly would be done. TeraBlight 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your speculation on geology is fascinating... Carfiend 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More fascinating than Kaysing's speculations on rocket science, photography and behavior of objects in a vacuum, none of which he knew anything about. He knew how to sell books, though. Wahkeenah 00:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My speculations on geology are based on a lengthy discussion with my flatmate, who holds a masters degree in geology. His thesis involved lab work producing artificial minerals. His supervisor is in charge of MIT's share of the moon rocks (three samples, locked up in a safe in his office, supposedly). They're still just speculations, but now they have some context. TeraBlight 00:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted that your opinion was formed after discussing it with your flatmate. As usual, Landing Believer logic is too much for me. Carfiend 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, but he can't trump Kaysing's doctorate in obfuscation. >:) Wahkeenah 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, we should cite 'TereBlight's Flatmate' as a source! Carfiend 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your sarcasm. Hoax proponents claim that it is possible to manufacture rock samples. I thought it might interest the community to hear someone's view on the matter whose academic qualifications pretty much make him an expert on the matter. That's all. TeraBlight 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

Is this a conspiracy theory? One of the pro-hoax shows even says conspiracy theory in its title. Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this the infamous Fox special? If so, then I congratulate you on finding a reference, "hiding in plain sight" (or cite) that will effectively dash that one hoaxster's persistent insistence that hoaxsters "never" use the term "conspiracy theory" and that "no citation is needed" in support of that blanket assertion. Wahkeenah 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is, and it's even on the page. Duh! I have pointed that out in the article, and hopefully we've heard enough of this claim that "hoaxsters never use that term". As the saying goes, "always remember to never say always or never". Wahkeenah 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Fox is not a hox proponent - they did a neutral examination of the issue. Carfiend 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No wonder you think this article is NPOV. Mark Grant 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Believing that the mainstream media is in conspiracy against you is a sign of a conspiracy theorist Mark. I think you're the one who needs that label. Carfiend 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox itself might be neutral, but that show was totally from the pro-hoax slant, so it is not correct to say "never". I think the way that paragraph reads at this current microsecond is probably acceptable. Wahkeenah 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Fox nor the program makers are hoax advocates. The show presented both sides. You can't portray them as being hoax proponents, that's ridiculous. Having said that, the current version saying they 'often reject the term' works for me, since it does not imply that they use it of themselves. Carfiend 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall that it refuted the waving flag nonsense, or the "missing" stars. Maybe I'm wrong, it's been awhile. I just know I found the show very offensive, so I'm assuming they did not present the NASA side, or else belittled it. Wahkeenah 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They didn't make the argument - they invited hoax proponents and NASA reps to argue it out, and NASA didn't do very well. Carfiend 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to dig up my tape of that stupid show and watch it again and get irritated over it yet again. You can't say definitively that NASA came across poorly unless you saw the original unedited tapes, which none of us have. The slant of the show was pro-hoax, so they would have edited the NASA tapes in such a way as to make them hem-and-haw or whatever. Wahkeenah 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me, Occams Razor suggest that you don't need a conspiracy of the mainstream media - the idea that the truth is more powerful than a lie is enough. Carfiend 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If I ever hear anything from the pro-hoaxster camp that sounds truthful, I'll get back to you. Wahkeenah 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you assume that Fox's aim is to inform truthfully, then your application of Occam's Razor makes sense here. If you assume that Fox's aim is to boost their audience figures and often takes the more sensationalist point of view to this end, then all Occam's Razor tells you is that Fox executives believe that their viewers find the hoax version more entertaining. TeraBlight 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, it is kind of a stretch to imagine that Fox would put ratings ahead of other considerations. Wahkeenah 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It sure is, but I'm making a conscious effort to consider even such outlandish motivations as "being successful" and "making money". TeraBlight 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that's exactly what the hoax proponents believe to be NASA's reasons for lying to the world, isn't it. So I probably should retract that, unless I believe NASA to be more trustworthy than Fox. Hmmm. TeraBlight 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaysing, Sibel, et al, have certainly made plenty of money with their vaporous theories, so why shouldn't Fox? Speaking of Fox, I don't think there's anything to this hoax stuff. If there was, Bill O'Reilly would have been all over it. Wahkeenah 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend above: "Believing that the mainstream media is in conspiracy against you is a sign of a conspiracy theorist"

Kaysing in an interview: "Well, how did the media fall for [the hoax]?" - "Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government."

In that interview, he also claims that NASA routinely has the CIA assassinate people and that the US were themselves responsible for Pearl Harbour. Brrr. TeraBlight 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is now a significant segment of the public (far more significant than those who think Apollo was faked) that think the US was responsible for 9/11. The mystery about Kaysing is that if he was such a whistle-blower, why they took so many years to knock him off (or were you under the impression he died of natural causes, just because he was 82 years old?) Maybe they were too busy assassinating foreign leaders, and Kaysing was just way, way down on the priority list. They probably slipped a cyanide pill into his meds. Wahkeenah 11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. Almost makes one suspect that he's a government plant, on a mission to distract attention from a far greater conspiracy than the well-known ones. TeraBlight 14:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

they tried to silence him, a few of these details are at Bill Kaysing. Half way through a radio broadcast, they burned the transmitter with a helicopter. Later all of the proof of that disappeared. The hooker he interviewed changed her story, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't get any of that stuff on tape, I would guess. But it doesn't matter, we should just trust him, because he has a reputation for detailed knowledge of science and technology, and for trustworthiness and never making anything up or distorting the obvious. This all reminds me of the tales about Area 51, the top secret test site that everyone knows about. Maybe it's just a diversion from the real test site, just like maybe Kaysing was being paid by NASA to make the Moon landing hoax stories look so silly. Wahkeenah 11:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeees, this is beginning to make sense to me. Discredit any possible disclosures about a real conspiracy by having someone (Kaysing) present that very conspiracy in such an obnoxious and inane manner that hardly anyone will take anything along the same lines seriously ever again. Textbook reverse psychology, with a twist. Such ingenious misdirection would be just as impressive as a real moon landing! TeraBlight 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he only wanted the public to think he was canned from NASA. Maybe he was on NASA's payroll for life. Wahkeenah 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention Illuminatus! ? This is getting great. Actually, I'm mildly surprised (though I haven't read much of the archives) that this hasn't yet been tied in with the Illuminati, the Bildenburgers (sp?), the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, and all the other people who run the world. --Storkk 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend's POV edits

Carfiend, you have two choices. Eiher you help us make the page NPOV and then we can remove the tags, or you keep removing changes that are moving it towards NPOV and leave the tags on there. It's up to you, but you do not make changes pushing it even further away from NPOV and remove the tags at the same time. Mark Grant 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, we've been over this time and time again, a massive POV offensive by you doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. The way we will improve the article is by referenced facts, not abusive editorializing. Carfiend 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the way we will improve the article is by making it meet the NPOV policy. Which it doesn't even begin to do right now, but every time someone tries to improve it, you remove their changes. So long as you continue to do that, the NPOV-violation tag will stay on the page. Mark Grant 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. More abuse, with no concrete recommendations. No cookie for you! Carfiend 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

talk FAQ and archive

I am hereby proposing an archive to be done soon. Way too full here.

Straw Poll

Secondly, I'm suggesting a straw poll to determine if a talk page FAQ is appropriate for this page. My reaons for suggesting this are 3fold

to cut down on arguments that are about truth/falsehood(i.e. useless to helping the page develop)
to (maybe) keep new people from coming in with the same complaints over and over, or at least to give them a unified place to point to instead of "read the whole archive"
to outline certain common consensuses(only strong consensuses will work for a demi-stable FAQ page)

thanks for considering --i kan reed 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

I think it is OK to archive. You are right about new people coming in and bringing up the same old things. You are right about there is too much arguing about the subject that is not directly related to editing the article. I've complained about that before, but I've engaged in it some too. Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

This might have some merit, but I worry that it would just be a proxy for a lot of the debates that rage again and again. Common logical errors committed (like believing that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing) might be a good start. Carfiend 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In effect, it's a proposal for a forum. I don't know if that's in or out of wikipedia's scope or rules or whatever. However, it's probably a good time for another archive, as it's getting a bit lengthy. Wahkeenah 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing though, this talk page is being used to talk about a ton of things that don't really have to do with developing the article, but only demonstrating the editors' opinions on some specfic allegation.(presumably there are places on the web for this SOMEWHERE that may even merit a link from the article) The reason I'm suggesting an FAQ is so, if someone comes in asking why the page is set up way X, we can at least point them to a summary of the discussion and (valid) poitns made, instead of directing them to the heaping mess of an archive. i kan reed 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on how the page should be set up let alone why it is set up like it is, but I could see the usefullness of pointing out references to some of the most common arguments. Numskll

Inconsistencies section

I think each of the three paragraphs should be sourced and I added tags to that effect. As it stands it looks like original research as far as wiki is concerned, nutty as that sounds. Let's hug it out here. Numskll 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that it's original research, just simple logic based on cited claims by the Apollo-deniers. If Kaysing says one thing and Sibrel says another, do we really need to provide a cite to say that's inconsistent? And to be honest, I think the article has way too many citations, because it makes the whole thing really ugly. Mark Grant 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be sourced simply given the number of postive assertations and I don't think we're ready to argue aesthetics yet. Numskll 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it for the time being. If we fix up the theories and proponents section it should be obvious enough that they're incompatible. Mark Grant 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm not gonna edit war with you , but I think the section needs to be sourced. Numskll 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

and BTW, I think the if we fix A then B will be ok is a weak proposition on wiki unless you actually fix A. Though, of course, I'm completely illogical . . . hehehe. Numskll

In general, you need to have as many citations as possible in this article. The Apollo skeptics insist on citing everything, probably even that the sky is blue from the earth and black from outer space. Wahkeenah 06:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be annoying: There is no such thing as "the sky as seen from outer space".

"Sky: that part of the atmosphere or of outer space visible from the surface of the earth (or any other planet [...])" TeraBlight 06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. :) Wahkeenah 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big deal is - there is no claim that they are each the same theory, they are different theorists, propounding different versions of the same fundamental claim. It's not a big deal that different evolutionary scientists are not 100% in agreement on the details. Carfiend 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that there is evidence for evolution, and non for the hoax claims. Wahkeenah 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But what we are talking about is inconsistencies. Different evolutionary theories diverge in the details somewhat. It doesn't matter, because they share enough common ground to be treated as, if not entirely consistent, a common theory. Carfiend 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In contrast, the various incarnations of the hoax "theories" contradict each other (as well as many facts, but that's another story) whereas the standard Apollo saga is consistent and unshakeable. Wahkeenah 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 'standard' Apollo saga (an appropriate word) is conherent because it comes from only one source. Carfiend 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, but even if it were, how would that make the Apollo history false? Wahkeenah 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true, as you know. It doesn't make NASA false. Sorry that you can't follow along, but the issue here is that you are criticising the hoax proponents for not agreeing on all details, while you ignore the fact that NASA can't disagree with itself, because it has only one public story. You know perfectly well that there is no independent evidence of the human landing. NASA closely controls access to all original data. Because of that, it is impossible to know exactly what happened, but the errors in their account do prove that they are lying. Carfiend 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it was on both NBC and CBS at the time. We didn't get ABC at that time, so I don't know if ABC had anything about it. For some reason, CNN and Fox News didn't cover it. Mighty suspicious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that both Time and Newsweek probably had an article about it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxster cons' argument will continue to be that NASA is the only source, and NASA lied, which they know because NASA was the only source and because NASA lied. The mistake NASA made was they should have sent Walter Cronkite along for the ride, so he could have read the day's news and proved to the yet-unborn children of the 21st century that it was for real. Wahkeenah 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NASA is the only source, and NASA lied, which we know because of the errors in NASA's story. Carfiend 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name one. Wahkeenah 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They are named on the page. I know that you don't accept them. Carfiend 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name one. Wahkeenah 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Page name

The old one was imprecise and POV. The new one is a more accurate reflection of the article's countent. Numskll 02:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The title "Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories" is a little more neutral, but a little too broad. If this whole article is about the program being a hoax, the title should make reference to the hoax. (Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories) The current title could be about any conspiracy theory about Apollo, such as stories of the astronauts seeing UFOs. User:Lalala1087 10:01, 12 August 2006

I like that (Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories). Bubba73 (talk), 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs a longer name. >:) Wahkeenah 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are different versions of the theories which claim different things. The common thread seems to be the moon landing. I agree that to be completely and perhaps pedantically explicit perhaps the word "hoax" should be in there, but the current title meets my 'good enough' criteria, meaning it is accurate, more or less NPOV and people will know what it refers too. I don't know anything about the astronauts seeing UFOs other than having heard the reference, though I do think the qualifier 'moon landing' sort of narrows the scope sufficiently to rule out most of the other apollo related conspiracy theories. Who said the astronauts saw UFOs? This might clear up the 'too little fuel' thing for the hoax theorists. The alien saucer could have towed them the rest of the way to the moon.Numskll 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As Canfield has tried to point out frequently, the facts have pretty much forced the hoaxsters to concede that at least unmanned lunar landings were not only possible, but did occur. The sticking point, or their last bastion, seems to be that manned travel to the moon was not possible (in their ignorance-based opinion), and when confronted with anything that suggests otherwise, they fall back on either, "NASA was the only source", or "the signals could have been originated elsewhere". In short, the lunar vehicles did everything except land actual humans on the moon, and the apparent radio reception of voice transmissions from the Apollo craft were actually transmissions emanating from close to the earth, or (possibly) by piping them through the "unmanned" Apollo craft. The closer you get to the nuts-and-dolts of the alternate "theories", the sillier they look. Meanwhile, the Apollo saga remains 100 percent consistent within itself, which doesn't "prove" it happened, but it's the best model that fits the observable facts. Wahkeenah 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Their logical last bastion would have to be "everything occured as NASA claims, except for the fact that Armstrong et al were actually androids", wouldn't it? TeraBlight 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hush! Don't give them any new ideas! >:) Wahkeenah 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back to an NPOV title. Conspiracy theory, is, as you know, an insult. It would be like calling it 'Apollo criminal fraud'. Carfiend 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that you can't prove it's a fraud, but you can easily demonstrate that it's a conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say, go back to the beginning of the first archive, and we'll start again... Carfiend 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that the hoaxster cons don't like it being called a conspiracy theory, and there is no question that it fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, both this article and the conspiracy theory article make it clear that conspiracy theory proponents don't like the term and that is often used in an insulting way. It is equally clear that this article fits the strict definition. Wahkeenah 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

After having a look at the conspiracy theory article and related debates, I have to say that I'm beginning to lean towards keeping the term out of the title. The fact that it is frequently used in a pejorative manner implies that it would suggest a POV to some readers, which is to be avoided.
I gather that neither "Apollo" or "Moon landing" can be left out since there are too many other hoax theories out there to make it less specific.
I don't really like "hoax accusations", and I see that "hoax theories" is again problematic, so my personal favourite would be

"Apollo Moon landing hoax claims"

TeraBlight 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And I claim that most anything with the word "claim" in it carries an inherent opposite point-of-view. Example: NASA claims they safely landed men on the moon. Hoax proponents claim it was a hoax. Implication: They say it, but we "know" otherwise. However, in the interim, it would be nice if somebody could figure out how to at least have the article page and the talk page for it have the same title. Wahkeenah 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculations, Suspicions, Interpretations, Allegations? I like all of them better than "accusations", because the article focuses on alternative ideas and explanations and not on who is to blame, as that term suggests. TeraBlight 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Charges (synonymous to "accusations" but shorter).

Something using "doubts" or "notions"?

TeraBlight 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "questions"? Wahkeenah 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion

Honestly, I feel like the name is:

Too long. way too long.
Describes the wrong thing. If you look for the principle noun of the title it's "accusations". since we're describing this as a movement, accusations is just the wrong noun entirely. It should center around a movement name(even though there is no such unified name).
Presently redundant. Most people would understand "Moon landings" to refer to the apollo missions already, and some people doubt things such as the ESA probe too, so restricing it to Apollo is irrational.
even the "hoax" part may not be appropriate, the allegations aren't quite the same as those of a hoax, more of a conspiriacy.

Having considered all of these points for a while now, I reiterate my idea of Moon landing skepticism which I beleive addresses all of my above concerns without being POV. There are those who would disagree with the "skepticism" part on NPOV grounds, however, after considering alternatives, such as "disbeleif"(rejected because some people doubt, without disagreeing entirely with the possibility), it is my personal opinion that skepticism is the most forthright term. This may call for a straw poll, but I want to get comments first, then poll if many comments are in favor. i kan reed 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been several polls already, none of which expressed much desire to change the title. What's wrong with the factual, npov 'hoax accusations'? As you point out, there is no unified movement. There are various accusations. Carfiend 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that, whatever the new page name, it should be spelled correctly. Carfiend 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling aside, (being one of the good reasons to list an important change on the talk page), do you think my assertions about the current title are unfair or factually misrepresented? I honestly think that the title should be as breif as possible while still accurately describing it's topic, except in such cases where something has an official name. The reason I beleive this is that it helps the reader grasp the notion faster and easier, which is an important mission to an encyclopedia. Additionally, NPOV wasn't listed as my concerns for the old title, and I was hoping for discussion about such things for my suggested title. I know sometimes a short answer will do in these situations, but I beleive all of the above concerns are fairly valid, and, even if no change is made, I think they should be addressed. Hope I'm not being too annoying, i kan reed 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I share your view that it should be as long as needed to be npov, true, and capture the content of the page, no longer, but no shorter either. Carfiend 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I might misunderstand, but it seems like you dissapprove of this proposed change. If that is the case, what would you suggest is a POV issue with it? I was pretty satisfied that "skepticism" would neither diminish the perpetuators, nor give them undue credence, as well as illustrate the notion that it is a beleif(via the ism ending) rather than focus on the actual things said(per accusations). I was also, as I said above, wanting to remove the redundancy, and overrestrictiveness, of specifically calling it "Apollo", and bring the article to the wider notion that encompasses people who are skeptical of at least 1 moon landing's accuracy as recorded. As a more inclusive notion, I felt it was better because specifically against apollo is non-encyclopedic in nature.

Forgive me for being so stubborn, but I think I've cited specific enough problems with the current title, that a move is justified, and I'd like to know of specific or general problems with my new proposed title. Thanks, i kan reed 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not their prefered title. End of story. You're wasting pixels trying to discuss it with them. Numskll 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

translation: "People consistantly disagree with me on several points, they obviously won't agree with anyone ever". I beleive this specific issue can either be explained to me, or I can justify my posistion well enough that a consensus will develop one direction or the other. i kan reed 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Charges has a technical, legal meaning, which is misleading here. They may be filed if and when an investigation is launched, but have not been yet. Carfiend 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(indenting was sucky) Your tranlator's out of whack. try this one: This user has consistently demostrated an unwillingness to engage in any discussion or consensus building (and specifically in several discussions that have to do with the title) and has consistently sought ot derail the discussions through tangents, screwing with people's comments, changing headings, and, most often, complete misreadings of other's comments. Due to the consistancy and arc of these misreadings they can only be described as willfuly manipulative. Here is a recent, mild example that you may recognize: I share your view that it should be as long as needed to be npov, true, and capture the content of the page . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't what you said really. You were arguing, with thoughtful qualifiers, that the title be shortened and yet they responded, by giving undue weight to your thoughtful qualifiers, by saying you said the nearly opposite. But whatever. It's trivia. You've got your views. I understand.

with regard to your proposed title I think given that the focus is pretty much solely on NASA's lunar program and all significant flights in that program were Apollo flights, Apollo or Nasa should be in the title. I'd obviously prefer conspiracy theory as well because it is accurate and descriptive. It is unfortunate that it hurts the adherents feelings or seems to deflate their dearly held beliefs, but that point is discussed in the article and the term is widely applied to the topic (again discussed in article). Further, since we're still talking about titles the terms is 'accusation' is blatently POV (as has been discussed at length) because it carries with it the idea that those accusations have not been answered. Finaly your title and the current one are not in poular usage and thus decrease the chance that an interested reader will find this article. All of that said I prefer your suggested title to the current one. Numskll 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i kan reed states above that "[an article about hoax theories] specifically against apollo is non-encyclopedic in nature." I don't understand why this is so, could someone explain it to me? TeraBlight 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO "Moon landing skepticism" is too broad. Such a title could refer to a discussion of the pros and cons of future moon landings, it could refer to ideas that aliens have landed on the moon, etc. I do, on the other hand, agree that "skepticism" best captures the focus of the article. I'd be happy with

"Apollo project skepticism".

However, the conclusion of a previous debate seemed to be that many hoax opponents felt that the term was too dignified to be entirely NPOV. "Doubts" or "Suspicions" do not have such a context, but unfortunately neither of these is "ism-able". TeraBlight 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the point about dignifying, and state, as strongly as I can, that dignity to a beleif is not not not POV. Look at the scientology page. The religion is dealt with dignity, in spite of being, in my personal opinion, a loony cult. I know consensus is important here, but I really feel the strong need to convince people that this consensus is perhaps in error.
to Tera, the exact notions of theories are unverifiable. Particularly those that address day to day concerns. The movement is far less original research based than the things the movement declares. I think I went overboard saying "inherently unencyclopedic" but, to wikipedia, theories are only as important as those that present them(being numerous, well known, or experts). I feel as though that point may have gone through some invisible wikilawyering in my head, so I wish to post scriptum state that I don't think that's quite true.
to the "NASA must be in the title" point. If you look in the article, several of the points address the lack of third party investigation, the mention of third parties, or their absence, demonstrates at least partially, that the contention is above and beyond just NASA, but the scientific endevour of studying the moon.

There are probably some points I've failed to address(i'm trying to address them all as this is my idea, but i spent the last few hours composing music with my girlfriend, so you know). Please help, I really feel as though this is a weak point in the article.i kan reed 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I share i kan reed's view expressed in the first bullet point above. The question we should address is whether or not - and in which ways - the different title suggestions might influence readers on a conscious or subconscious level.

While capturing the nature of the hoax theories well, using the term "conspiracy theory" in the title might make some readers dismiss the claims made in the body text more easily - this is not a good thing, readers should come to their own conclusions based on "the merits of the case".

On the other hand, I can't imagine that the use of the term "skepticism" could make anyone think "hey, I consider myself to be a sceptic too, those hoax guys must be on to something". TeraBlight 07:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Stars seen in Apollo 16 photo!!!

That's right! See [2] or the site here (the "Identification of stars seen in the background " link). This is a special ultraviolet picture taken from the Moon on Apollo 16. And yes, the stars are identifiable, and in the right place as viewed from the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that cresent in the middle the earth? As predicted, you totally overexpose and blow out any detail on the earth before you can see any stars.

Ah hah! The first link on that page has the independent tracking evidence we have been looking for. Amateur astronomers all over the world were able to track the apollo craft on it's flight to the moon, and were even able to detect things like fuel dumps. And unlike unnamed people seeing coke bottles, these guys give their names. Algr 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It must be way back in the archives, but I mentioned that somewhere between A8 and A11, I met a guy in Jacksonville, FL who had been part of a group that tracked A8. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Of course the hoaxsters will say it's suspect because NASA is the source. Their perpetual circular reasoning: "NASA is lying, therefore NASA is lying." Wahkeenah 05:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But Nasa is NOT the source, all they did was give the coordinates to where the ship was, and anyone could see it. Algr 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nice. This is a man-operated camera imaging at a wavelength that is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere... need we say more? TeraBlight 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The hobbyists used visible light photography. Where does it say otherwise? The shot from the moon is UV, but my sunburn says that this is not absorbed either. Algr 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're talking about different things. The first link is to a photo taken of the Earth from the Moon in UV. The second link is the webpage which links to that photo, but it also has the observations of the spacecraft made by hobbyists. Bubba73 (talk), 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The page gives the name of the instrument used as "Carruthers UV Camera", and if you google that, you get some specific info about it - including that it operates at "far-UV" wavelengths. Near UV gives you sunburns, far UV is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, at least as long as there's some ozone layer left. TeraBlight 22:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, half the "experimental goals" listed on that page have to do with the fact that one can observe many things from space/the moon that one cannot from Earth, because the atmosphere is "in the way". TeraBlight 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the Earth in the middle. Besides being overexposed, it is a UV photo, so that may also affect it. Stars are probably relatively brighter in UV, but I'd have to check on that. I thought the link to the independent tracking stuff was already in there, or at least I mentioned it in the talk a long time ago. Bubba73 (talk), 06:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxster-cons' trump card is always that it came from NASA and therefore is not acceptable. Apparently someone from Fox should have been sent along on the trips, just to be sure science class dropouts wouldn't be questioning things 30-40 years later. Shazam! Wahkeenah 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Or they should have done what Kaysing suggested - make a fire big enough to be seen on Earth (Kaysing 2002:7). Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in lieu of that, scratch out a large carving in the soil, large enough to see from the earth, with the time-honored illustration and slogan, "Kilroy was here". Wahkeenah 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

that is close to another of his suggestions. Actully they weren't suggestions, they were "why didn't the astronauts ... ". Besides building a fire, he asks why they didn't "create a pattern with lightweight black dust" or "beam a laser to a mirror on earth". I'm not sure what good beaming a laser to a mirror on Earth would do, but perhaps he means some sort of detector. However, as we have already seen, if bouncing a lser off something they left there isn't enough, a laser coming from there to here wouldn't be either. Bubba73 (talk), 02:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaysing apparently came over from a parallel universe where there was an atmosphere on the moon. He strikes me as the kind of guy to whom one could ask the same question that Frasier Crane once asked Cliff Clavin, after one of the latter's more nonsensical rants: "What color is the sky in your world?" Wahkeenah 02:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that stars are indeed relatively brighter in UV. There doesn't seem to be significant reflection at far-UV wavelengths, so the Earth should be a UV source only in as far as this radiation is produced as a component of the atmosphere's generic emission spectrum. Stellar photospheres are much hotter. so they should have a much larger (relative) UV component. TeraBlight 06:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't se anything. Which speck is supposed to be Neal Armstrong? Numskll 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed the related link [3] which offers .ra of a recording made by independent observers using a dish to pick up radio signal from the Moon. Adhib 13:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is real, we should put it in 'attempts to view the landing site', or make an 'independent evidence for the landing' section. Carfiend 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There already is that shot of tha Apollo 15 landing site. I'm not in favor of a section for independent evidence because it would run into thousands of pages. Bubba73 (talk), 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would - so far we have a blurred photograph, and. Erm, a blurred photograph. Carfiend 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro, second paragraph

I've just noticed that that sentence ("In addition, ...") is both convoluted and (multiply) redundant - many of its parts are completely interchangeable. I haven't changed it yet, in case I'm missing some subtlety here, but doesn't the following contain everything?

In addition, these hoax theories imply, or openly state, that a conspiracy to support and advance the official account of the Apollo missions exists to this day.

TeraBlight 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. Carfiend 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Houston, our tapes have gone missing

Latest news: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/130806missing.htm] --Striver 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Until now, they have kept the story out of the press because, they say, they do not want to embarrass Nasa. They insist it is wrong to characterise the tapes as "missing". "They're not missing," Mr Lebar said, "we just haven't found them."" - Ha ha! Carfiend 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is news? Wahkeenah 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just funny to hear these people getting twisted up in how they kept information from the media 'to avoid embarrassing NASA', and how 'they're not missing, we just don't know where they are'! Carfiend 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So write your congressman and tell him you want your tax dollars spent looking for data from 40-50 years ago, for a long-completed government project; that it's a high priority, never mind the War on Terror or on keeping the shuttle going; it's important to fulfill, so the hoaxster cons can move on to their next set of red herrings. I'm sure you'll get a positive response. Wahkeenah 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not me - it's people within the space community who are looking for this. Carfiend 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So let them look. It's their budget. Wahkeenah 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you as totally unconcerned about where the tapes are as you make out? Carfiend 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because as I have said many times, their presence or absence proves nothing. Wahkeenah 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But on a human level, are you not in the least bit interested? Besides, their presence would be powerful evidence for the landing. Carfiend 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I might be interested in it as further interesting stuff about Apollo, but not for the purpose of "proving" the Apollo flights occurred, since it's perfectly clear that they did. Wahkeenah 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in the tapes being found. With those tapes, and the slow-scan TV with better contrast and details, we could make a better video of the Apollo 11 moonwalk. That's about it, though. Bubba73 (talk), 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There ya go. It could be a nice nostalgia trip. Not worth spending more tax dollars on, though. Wahkeenah 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that enough? You'd think it was some kind of commemorative stamp for the degree of disinterest you show. Carfiend 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You attach far more significance to it than is warranted. Wahkeenah 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, at the present people are looking for the missing slow-scan TV tapes of the Apollo 11 2.5 hour moonwalk. If they show up, will you admit you are wrong about there being a hoax and shut up? Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Drumroll... (see my talk page for a prediction on what he'll say) Wahkeenah 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - the original tapes with the slow-scan video and telemetry, subjected to independent analysis, would convince me. However, you should know that this page is not about my beliefs, it is about the views of the hoax proponents. Carfiend 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What have the hoaxsters in general had to say about it, if anything? Wahkeenah 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're so interested, do the research yourself. I'm fed up of NASA shills asking questions and expecting me to do the research. Carfiend 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. I am not the least bit interested in what they have to say, since it's based on nothing. Wahkeenah 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you haven't researched a single fact in this whole discussion ever. 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, your grasp on reality is very slim. Carfiend 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil, Carfiend. If you disagree with a statement, attack the inaccuracy, not the poster. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And, to you, a copy of the original video is not good enough, right? For instance, if you see a copy of the Zapruder film that doesn't prove that JFK was assissinated, but if you see the original, it does? Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the original, it's the original, with all the telemetry. That would be extremely difficult to fake. Not impossible, I grant you, but it would meet my personal standard, which is what you asked about. Carfiend 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the telemetry is on a separate tape? Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about over 700 tapes, so I suspect it is. I don't see that it makes a difference - there should be some kind of time signal on all the tapes. Perhaps it's taken them 50 years to make all 700 tapes! Carfiend 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have hit upon one of the core mistakes of the hoaxsters, and not for the first time: "suspect" and "should be". You might be right on this specific point, I don't know. But in general, the hoaxsters decide, in their personal opinion, how things "should have been" with Apollo, and when the facts don't square with that, they conclude that NASA is the one in the wrong. Wahkeenah 09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if NASA had an analog tape of telemetry and an analog tape of the video, it would not be feasible for them to play back both tapes at the same time and copy them onto a third 14-track analog tape, right? Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't imagine what would make you think that was what I was saying. Although, having three tapes at the same time without loosing one of them does seem like it would be taxing for them, now you come to mention it. Carfiend 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You said that it wouldn't be possible for them to get the video and telemetry onto one tape. Only the original tape could have that. Suppose I record something on TV with my VCR. Then I copy that tape to another tape using my two VCRs. Then I hand you one of the tapes. How can you tell which is the original and which is the copy? Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Carfiend 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You said that you would accept an independent verification of the original tape with the slow-scan TV and telemetry on it. If you will accept independent verification of that one item, why won't you accept the independent verification of the multitude of other items? Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I said seven hundred tapes. Of course, it is seven hundred boxes of tapes. The issue is that this is a huge amount of detail to fake, and I don't personally believe that it could be faked without introducing 'continuity errors'. Of course, it doesn't look like they have to fake it - saying it is lost seems just as good. The other items are pretty unconvincing. Some odd rocks, some photos, some blurry video. It's inconclusive. Carfiend 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are thousands of tapes that aren't missing. Only a small portion is missing, and unfortunately that includes the tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk recorded in Australia. The Apollo 11 moonwalk was only 2.5 hours long. And there are many copies of the moonwalk video made after the scan conversion. There are no continuity errors there. Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I was talking about the matched telemetry data of the astronaught health and mechanical readouts. Masses of data that would be very difficult to fake. And actually, there don't appear to be any original tapes available. Sure - there are some grainy dvds without the telemetry, but that's not the same thing. Carfiend 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. Keep in mind that these guys can't even tell if a flag is waving. You could present them with old videotapes of Gomer Pyle, USMC, and they wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other. Wahkeenah 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes - when defeated by the facts, resort to abuse! Bravo! Carfiend 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Where Kaysing is concerned, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Wahkeenah 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange that you never seem to hit any! I think you're shooting blanks! Carfiend 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've got any evidence contradicting the accepted history of Apollo, bring it on. Wahkeenah 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is on the page - I know that you don't accept it. Carfiend 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name one thing. Wahkeenah 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Casing

There are several different casings in the page title/intro paragraph now. "Apollo Moon landing" seems the correct one, no? TeraBlight 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaysings? Wahkeenah 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so. I think "Moon" should be capitalized when it is referring to the big one that orbits the Earth. (I think Earth should be caps when it refers to our planet.) "Moon" should not be caps when it refers to a generic satellite of a planet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I changed all occurances of "moon" to "Moon", except for "moonwalk" (composite and no capital seems to be the preferred spelling) and a single occurance of "moon" in a more general sense than "the Moon". If anyone can be bothered to fix the title as well... probably premature, as it's bound to be changed a few more times anyway. TeraBlight 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it already "Moon" in the title? Or am I looking at the wrong one? We seem to have 3 or 4 of them running around now. In fact, maybe all the titles could be posted as redirects to a single article called "Apollo - did they or didn't they?" Wahkeenah 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "moon" for the article but "Moon" for this talk page, strangely enough. I like your proposal, though... or how about "Apollo - to moon or not to moon?" TeraBlight 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. All this renaming and redirecting has messed it up. Hopefully someone will fix it. Anyway, that's pretty close to the title of one of the hoax books. The article thus could be called "Did NASA moon America?" although the hoaxsters might then think that we're making light of the subject. Wahkeenah 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we please have a lunar/lunacy wordplay in the title? Please? TeraBlight 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to be messing with it again. Carfiend 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY is "Landing" capitalized now? TeraBlight 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be - it's some numskull vandalizing it by moving it to mis-spelled versions. Carfiend 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the edit history indicates that you were the last one to change the title before it was locked, doesn't it? TeraBlight 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I was moving it back to it's proper title - not the mis-spelled one. Unfortunately, I can't change it back, since the proper title needs to be deleted, so I had to add the extra cap. Carfiend 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a host of errors that Carfiend's 30-some edits/reverts/POV-pushings introduced yesterday. When I originally moved the title it was spelled correctly, but Carfeind wants you to belive that he was correcting spelling. See the burden of proof section for instance. It doesn't even make senses and certianly contians pro conspiracy POV language. Numskll 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are errors, list them here . You're high on abuse, low on constructive suggestions. Carfiend 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're 30 some edits were blatent POV pushing as has been your practice all along. You've failed to engage repeatedly and habitually as you are now. What's changed? Numskll

Your abuse is not funny. If you have complaints, list them here. Carfiend 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not abuse just my perception. Numskll 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have complaints, list them here. Carfiend 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

been there with you and done that. repeatedly. you've no knack for it. Numskll 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you have no right to complain. Carfiend 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stars!

Stars! click here. Bubba73 (talk), 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Carfiend 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And if you examine it, it is an artist's conception, not a photograph. Could things like this have put in the mind of people that they should see stars on the moon? Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure this is the source of all the doubts! Carfiend 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And if you look closely, you can see a flag waving. Wahkeenah 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page to stop edit wars. Please discuss changes on this talk page and when you are ready please request unprotection. —Mets501 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - perhaps this will encourage users to discuss their issues on the talk page. Carfiend 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I hope so too. —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in the obviously involved discussion on this topic. I found the article to be pretty interesting, although a little long. I found this discussion when I went to make an edit and found it was protected. Not sure who, if anyone, does have access to editing, but I would like something added which shouldn't involve any new controversy... in the sectioon for Other Proponents of the hoax accusations, can Carl Everett be added? I added info on his views on his own page, along with citation. Thanks.. you may now continue your debate. Stoneice02 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting advice on science and history from baseball players now? Wahkeenah 04:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If not in that section, then it should at least be in the "Pop Culture" section Stoneice02 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, it could go there, for laughs. Carl Everett's opinion is every bit as informed as Homer Simpson's, I'm sure. Wahkeenah 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My reverts

I've been attempting to undo the damage done on this page today, by essentially one pro-hoax extremist who habitually and repeatedly attacked any user and any edit that does not conform to his narrow POV. In particular since tihs mornig this user has made literally doxens of edits that amount to blatent POV pushing. Others have identifed structural problems in this article which a number of editors have attempted to address over the past week. These edits have been systematicaly rolled back by essentialy one rabid pro-hoax editor who refuses to engage in any meaningful way on these talk pages and treats this article as his own possession and labels any editor who disagrees with him as a 'nasa shill' or 'POV jihadist' (at best this eidtor has frequently reverted to even more pointed personal attacks) How in the world are we supposed to reach consensus on anything with un-ethical extremists? Read the various sections on the NPOV tags. Read the various issues on the title of the article. I'm looking for sincere advice on how to move forward with this article when essentially one extremist will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo. Numskll 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As infurating as all this is, please watch WP:NPA(e.g. "unethical extremist") i kan reed 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. How else do you say it? Numskll 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest thing would be to, say... not call them unethical. Call those edits unethical all you want, you don't have enough context nor moral authority to decry the person as unethical. It's tempting to call people who cause trouble for you such things, but it still constitutes an attack on their character.

Right again. However, if someone argues in an unethical way and you observe that consistently unethical behavior for a long enough period of time, it becomes tempting to make the intuitively leap from their discourse style to their persona, but I do take your point. Numskll 20:39, 14 August 2006

(UTC)

and plus if that same editor has heaped all manner of insults on you from the beginning (and that has been recognized by several others) it becomes a bit easier to make the above described leap. Numskll 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that there's {{npa2}} for just these sorts of things. Personal attacks are grounds for banning. If you feel attacked or threatened by a wikipedia user, please report that to the administrator notice board. Personal attacks are not tolerated. i kan reed 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In theory, perhaps, personal attacks are not tolerated. In practice they are de rigor for this user, as I'm certain your aware.. Thank you for your attention though. I'd be more intersted in your thoughts about undoing the damage that has been done today once the proctection is lifted, other than the in the obvious manner. Numskll 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look. Your personal attacks are not appreciated. Your renaming of the article, against concensus, to mis-spelled names are not appreciated. Your continual reversion without discussion is not appreciated. If you have a complaint, make it here. Oh right. That's not as easy as just reverting, is it? Carfiend 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, once again I'd ask you review your history of personal attacks, personal bias, and questionable edits (both on the article and on this page). My engagment on these pages speak for themselves. You made nearly three dozen non-trivial edits today. Look at your treatment of those edits on this talk page. Oh, there isn't any. Per the status quo. Enough with your double standards. Numskll 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, and realize that you have to explain what it is you don't approve of, not just revert. Carfiend 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm calm. Review your own behavior. Not able? Didn't think so . . . Numskll 10:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to explain what it is you don't approve of. Carfiend 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've explained myself. You've demonstrated neither enagegment nor understanding of various discussions in the past. I don't have to tilt at windwills. You know your 30 some edits were POV pushing. Review your own behavior (that means self reflection). Numskll 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite specific examples. explain what makes them (so obviously) POV pushing. If it's bad as you say, we should all see and agree, but these back and forth arguments are useless to us other editors. Seriously useless. THANKS! —i kan reed 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, having engaged in a revert war, you're now unwilling to explain why. Typical. Carfiend 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm done with wind mills for now. Numskll 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Utterly unwilling to discuss issues on the talk page. Isn't there a word for that? Carfiend 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One word for that is "exasperation". I'm not there yet, though. 0:) Wahkeenah 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're an unlikely voice of reason, but do you have issues with the current version? Carfiend 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions on NPOV and the discussions on structural issues with the article itself, ALL of which you and I participated in and yet you still claim I've offered no reason why I think the article is lacking. I've discussed why I think the article has problems, time and time again. Time and time again you rejected everything I've said and called me a "POV Jihadist", "Illogical" and several varities of "trollishness" or "troll" as well as a host of other things. I accept that you find my arguments completely unconvincing and I don't see much point in continueing to debate with you. Further you actions in doing massive POV edits and casually violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and [[WP:OWN}} continue unabated. Numskll 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Love the personal attacks - no concrete ideas on what you don't like about the article though.... As usual. Please try to be constructive. How about starting with: "One paragraph I don't like is... I don't like it because... I think xxx would be better.". Carfiend 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks in my last post. Please take your own counsel Numskll 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here to help separate signal from noise is a bit from my rationale for the reverts.

Others have identifed structural problems in this article which a number of editors have attempted to address over the past week. These edits have been systematicaly rolled back by essentialy one . . . editor who refuses to engage in any meaningful way on these talk pages Note, the user in question had made over 30 edits in a span 0f 8-10 hours with the results that I identify above. I realize these are not sentence level critiques, but they are valid concrete issues. I feel that addressing the structure of the content that we have now is a priority and I don't feel obligated do any more (or less) to justify my edits then any other user. I feel that I've met the standard. Numskll 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quack. Quack. Quack. Carfiend 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Your archetypal response. Numskll 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you have no right to complain. Carfiend 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. [WP:AGF] and [WP:CIVIL]Numskll 10:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quack. Quack. Quack. If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you have no right to complain. Carfiend 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

original Apollo footage missing.

How convenient. First, the data tapes missing..

NOW THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE!

I am proposing to add this to the hoax evidence section.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51404

This is already mentioned (intro to section 5.1) and an equivalent source linked to. TeraBlight 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is an outside reference that directly links this story to some hoax it should not be included -- see [[WP:NOR]. Failing that, it's more ridiculous idle speculation. There is entirely too much of the conspiracy theorist's chowder-headed chatter represented as rationally based critical discusion. Numskll 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's getting pathetic. Anon2 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is evidence of a hoax in any way. This has been discussed. Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original source: click. Bubba73 (talk), 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not proof - it's circumstantial evidence. It's the equivalent of being unable to produce an alabi. Carfiend 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was giving that as source for info about the missing tapes. You say that is circumstantial evidence. However, there is no evidence - circumstantial or otherwise - for a hoax. Speaking of the tapes, the Australians talk about how the pointed their radio telescope at the Moon and had to account for Doppler shift. That proves that the TV and telemetry they were receiving was coming from the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to stick to the point for a moment, the fact that the tapes are missing is suspicious to those who are not true believers. It would be like invading Iraq and finding that weapons of mass destruction were 'missing' - it's not proof of a conspiracy, but it sure smells like one. As for the australians, if you take their account at face value, it does indicate that the transmission of the video was odd, although I don't think it necessarily proves it was coming from the moon - there are other ways to introduce dopler shift into the transmission. Even if it were shown to come from the moon however, it would only show that a transmitter was on the moon - see the previous discussion about why the astros never mention current events. Carfiend 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have no context on which to judge it "suspicious". Have you researched what other stuff from government projects of that era is "missing" or misplaced or whatever? Of course not. As for the other, it's the same old hoaxster trick of imposing their personal opinion of how it "should have been done". Current events??? They were on the moon, reporting about that current event. Their mission was to explore the moon, not to read the news wire, and definitely not to kiss up to gen-X skeptics who might turn up decades later and had no clue about the day-to-day of the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the WMD comparison is a typical false comparison, as no one saw any, not a copy-of-a-copy of a photo or anything like that. And if they did exist, they were probably moved to Syria before the bombing started. Wahkeenah 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A few of the tapes are missing. And they have no bearing on whether or not we went to the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"A few"? 700 boxes full, just from 11? That's a strange definition of 'a few'. I guess that explains why you think there is 'a lot' of evidence for the landing. Hint "A few" means a small number, and "a lot" means a big number! Carfiend 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Losing stuff is easy. Somebody probably threw them away. Nobody would ever put their hand up to that though. 1000 boxes is a pile, 10 wide, 10 high and 10 deep. It's not that impressively big, it fits in a small room. Somebody may have wanted the room and just ditched it. If management wanted to get rid of it, he could arrange for them to be 'moved' and just get the movers to relocate it to a dump somewhere or an incinerator. Nobody would ever work out what happened. Or maybe it's still kicking around somewhere, but as time goes on, the chances of stuff going 'missing' goes way up.WolfKeeper 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a brief read about this would let you know that there is a system for tracking this. Carfiend 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

These so-called "high quality" Apollo 11 moonwalk tapes that are missing are actually low quality. They simply would be somewhat higher quality than the recordings made at the time outside the Australia station. They are at 10 frames per second, instead of the (US) TV standard of 30. They are black and white, not color. Video of all of the later landings exists in 30 fps color - higher quality than the so-called "high quality" Apollo 11 moonwalk tapes that are missing. And that isn't mentioning the 16 mm film and the still photographs. Bubba73 (talk), 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sticking to the point, which is something I know you hate, the original tapes, with the telemetry, are missing. For all missions. For 11, they were never 'copied' before they went missing. It's the combination of the telemetry with the video that would be compelling. How convenient that no one can find it. Carfiend 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The original recordings of the Apollo 11 moonwalk in Houston and elsewhere are not missing. Those are not copies. As I'm sure you read in that paper (ha ha ha), copies of the tapes were made in Australia before the originals were sent to the US. Once they received the original tapes, they told Austraila that they no longer needed to keep the tapes. Video for the later landings is available in higher quality than the supposed "high quality" video from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Bubba73 (talk), 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this stuff being missing is at variance with other stuff from government projects of 40-50 years ago? Wahkeenah 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't. It is simply that the one piece of evidence that could have proved it, in my mind, is missing. Sorry, the 700 boxes of information, are all missing. That might well be typical. It doesn't help NASA that all the evidence for the mission is lost. That's all. Carfiend 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who in their right mind said that all of the evidence is lost? Those tapes are only a small portion of the evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All the original telemetry and video from the moon landings is missing. What we have is copies, without the telemetry data. Carfiend 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it hurt NASA. Their primary interest now is the shuttle. Apollo is ancient history. Wahkeenah 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a statute of limitations on criminal conspiracy, murder and fraud? They would like to forget about the whole thing, I'm sure. Carfiend 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've got evidence for any of that, bring it on. Wahkeenah 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On another level entirely, it makes them look like idiots when you have all these articles about how the original tapes are missing. Carfiend 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The press doesn't have any better sense of context about this than the hoaxster cons do. Wahkeenah 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that the press is part of the conspiracy against NASA... Carfiend 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Like they were in 1969. Wahkeenah 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All those old newsreels and papers are frauds - they just soaked them in tea to make them look old. Carfiend 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If they did find the video you would only claim that they'd taken it away to modify it to cover up all the mistakes you think they've found. Let's face it, there's nothing on Earth that would prove to you that the manned lunar landings ever occured.WolfKeeper 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that old chestnut! "It doesn't matter that we don't have any evidence! Even if we did, you wouldn't believe us". Great. Turn your weakness (no evidence) into an ad hominem attack (you wouldn't believe us!). Typical. Flawed. True believer logic. Carfiend 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to be defensive. There really is nothing that would persuade you though.WolfKeeper 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defensive, it's just depressing to watch you trot out the same tired ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the fact that there's no evidence. It's sad to see people in denial, I guess it's just a symptom of True Believer Syndrome. Carfiend 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, everyone, stop wasting your time arguing about this. Things are missing/lost. Some of us consider this suspicious, some of us don't. Discussion will not change that. But it doesn't matter, all we have to do is report just these facts in the article: "Things are missing. Hoax proponents claim this is suspicious because [...] NASA claims this is nothing to worry about because [...]" TeraBlight 06:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

find a hoax proponent source that says that and we're fine, otherwise [WP:NOR]Numskll 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is well sourced - read the article before commenting please. Carfiend 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the thread before commenting. I realize the tapes are missing and now NASA is trying to find them officially ( the effort up to now has apparently been carried out by 'ex-Nasa' employees who were interested in the higher quality video). Do any sources connect these particular missing tapes to the moon hoax? That is what is required, otherwise it is [WP:NOR]. Numskll 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1851022,00.html Clearly, this article connects this finding to the conspiracy theory. This is getting added in the main article.24.7.34.99 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RTFA yourself - it clearly links the missing tapes to the hoax. They're in Kaysings top ten FGS. Carfiend 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It says the news of the missing tapes might give fodder to hoax theorists. It does not say that the missing tapes are evidence for a hoax. That is the distinction I'm making. If you intend to use something as a source it merits careful reading. misleading summaries aren't very helpful. The bit that talks about the hoax is in the last paragraph. Please just say what you mean cryptic acronyms aren't helpful in most discussions. Numskll 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's all it says, it ain't much of a source and isn't worth putting in this article. Almost anything "might" give fodder to hoax theorists. Also, overnight, I finally figured out what RTFA probably stands for, based on other evidence: "Read The Freakin' Article". Or something like that. Wahkeenah 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just Read The Freakin' Article. It's a sarcastic editorial about NASA's presumed ineptitude. The last paragraph merely guesses that the numbers who believe in the hoax story might go up. My grandmother could have said that. It cites no actual hoaxster sources, comments, or what-have-you, thus it adds nothing to this article. Wahkeenah 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but its like I'm reading a different article altogether. Numskll 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RTF Wikipedia A. It has sources of hoax proponents claiming that the missing tapes are evidence of the hoax. Carfiend 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

right, but that's not the distinction being made. What's RTF Wikipedia A?

Based on other evidence, I would say it means "Read The Freakin' Wikipedia Article". Wahkeenah 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Let's at least settle on a name before making any name changes to the article. Yesterday it seemed to be changing "with the frequency of a cheap ham radio". Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a semi-strawpoll format. Every potential name is given a subheading for commenting on. I'll start with current name and my personal suggestion, and one other I've heard. i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

Oppose on grounds that it's too long and focuses on "accusations" which is not the true subject of the article. i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but not my favorite. Bubba73 (talk), 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I believe it is POV as it seems to ignore the larger context of the phenom and, as it addresses the topic, is overly narrow. Numskll 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, but oppose polls. Carfiend 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moon landing skepticism

Support This was my idea, and I like it because it's short and to the point, without being insulting to anyone. Addtionally, I support lowercasing "landing" i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - too vague. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify? your response is too, well, vague, to tell what you mean. i kan reed 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say what moon landings it is skeptical of. Does it include Surveyor? Luna? Future moon landings? "Apollo moon landing skepticism" would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would submit that some people ARE doubtful of these. Some think that it's a physical impossibility that anything could land on the moon, thus, apollo would be unnecessarily singled out where others have divergant beleifs. sincerely i kan reed 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people would call themselves skeptics without going so far as to acuse NASA of perpetrating a hoax. Carfiend 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When a group of thinkers get together, it's called a Think Tank. When a group of skeptics get together... Wahkeenah 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories

Support It is accurate and descriptive and places the topic in a larger context.Numskll 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose becuase of the connotations of "Conspiracy Theories", which are too negative to be NPOV. i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

- I assumed you were putting forth the alternate spelling or did you have something else in mind? Numskll 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Don't read so much into it, I was hoping someone would correct the spelling on the option I listed. This particular title has had numerous mentions, but I don't beleive it's a fair one. I have clarified my statement. i kan reed 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    - I see. Giving us the opportunity to brush up on our editing skills -- way to multi-task Numskll 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      - it was good old fashioned ignorance(which isn't in short supply here) i kan reed 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Numskll 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'd rather have "hoax" in there too. I know with that in there it is a long title that doesn't read well, though. If someone were searching for keywords, "hoax" or "fake" are ones they would more likely use. Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I do not think that "conspiracy theory" needs to be in the title if it is made clear in the first paragraph that these are conspiracy theories." Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about 'NASA is a bunch of thieving criminals'? Oh, POV, you say? Quite. Carfiend 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As compared to what, the Homeland Security Department? Wahkeenah 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. How about "They may be thieving criminals, but they're not the worst"? Carfiend 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is no one else feeling the creepiness here? They may be thieving criminals . . . you're talking about real people. Numskll 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You think thieving criminals are not real people? Take Enron, for instance. Carfiend 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I simply meant that in the light of no evidence that didn't anyone else think that calling the people behind the Apollo mission 'thieving criminals' with such vim was a little creepy? I'm sorry if you don't understand why I'd say that. It just seems rude and uncivil to me. 70.160.50.109 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Slander is a normal tool for the hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you have cases where they have been convicted of slander? No? Oh, more speculation? Carfiend 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used your favorite expression "ad hominem attacks" instead of "slander". Wahkeenah 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing Skepticism

support it is more precise and less POV than the current title. Numskll 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, not the best though. Bubba73 (talk), 22:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Like this. Or alternatively "Apollo Manned Moon Landing Skepticism" Axlalta 23:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This isn't about just skepticism, it's about a huge wopper of a lie. "Skepticism" implies some sort of middle ground, like NASA reconstructed a few photos after a real lunar landing and should get a slap on the wrist for doing so. My original search to find this page was "moon landing hoax conspiracy", and when within seconds I spotted the current title I knew it was the one. 59.112.36.176 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories

support it is more precise and less POV than the current title. Numskll 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

weak oppose on grounds of being about the thoughts themselves instead of the movement and the thoughts those in the movement possess both. Less cohesive. Consensus seems to be for including "apollo" so I won't argue against that anymore. i kan reed 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How about "speculations" or "conjectures" instead of "theory"? Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about "How NASA Mooned America"? Carfiend 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Or "Kaysing and Sibrel Mooned Generation X". Wahkeenah 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NASA is a bunch of thieving criminals

This was not my suggestion, but it made me laugh :) Well it is true, of course Axlalta 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As contrasted with other U.S. government agencies. Wahkeenah 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How NASA Mooned America

Duh oppose This kind of thing is not helping. I was trying to get people to point out particular flaws and benifits of describing things certain ways. This example here is a textbook case of WP:Point All it does is take away from acheiving a useful improvement to wikipedia. Honest to god, that's all I want out of this. I wanted to make a change because "accusations" and "theories" and all the rest focus on a different aspect of this topic than is Most encyclopedic. I'm not claiming these things don't deserve their own article, but what's most interesting, and most useful here, is information about the people, the channels of communication, and representation in other elements of culture. The complaints and theories and accusations and hearsay and quotes should be given fair space in the article, but the very semantics of the title give the article a totally incorrect bent for the primary article on the subject. Those of you trying to prove this point X and that point Y are really only hurting wikipedia. I've never been one for unilateral action, but everytime I try to discuss a change I consider meaningful here, someone slips in and tells me one of the following things I get told that some side(which is really quite imaginary from what I've seen) or another is going to do X, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to do. (and if you post a reply here blaming the other side for this, it's your fault). I want to help find a suitible title change that will reflect a few perceived shortcomings of the current one(such as the principle noun being the wrong type of thing). So thanks, but no thanks. i kan reed 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose polls

We've had lots of these, and they don't help. the name doesn't need changing, and, even if it did, polls are the wrong way to do it. Carfiend 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

that's fair, I'm not trying to get an election for name, I'm trying to see what people think. i kan reed 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So assuming some people thought the name was "bad" and some other people didn't, what we be a method for figuring out what the new name should be, since polls are 'the wrong way to do it'?Numskll 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reaching agreement through discussion. Or perhaps moving it repeatedly, why not even move it to badly spelled versions? Then sound irate when people get mad at you for it? I still don't understand why you dislike the current name. Frankly, I think that the content is more important, but you refuse to discuss that. Carfiend 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what you call it. You could call it 1-800-634-5789, and then every title that anyone likes could redirect to it. Wahkeenah 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Name, different attempt

Apologies to i kan reed, but I think it makes sense at this stage to approach this a little more systematically. The title consists of two or three parts, which can be discussed independently and to which people have entirely unrelated objections. The first part is a description of what the alleged hoax is about. It should be as short as possible while remaining sufficiently precise. Everyone please reply by choosing their favoured combination of the following terms, or add as appropriate:

no apologies, this should help address everything I've been worried about. It's a brilliant idea. I'd delete my equivelant section if it wasn't against policy to remove discussion from talk pages. i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. Another pointless poll. Well, at least it stops us from getting a more acurate, better sourced article. Good news for NASA... Carfiend 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1 - {Apollo, Project, Manned, Lunar, Moon, Landing}

"Apollo project". TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Moon landing it's unfair to ONLY describe the beleifs of those who just object to apollo, as I've said before. Whether the current resources we have discuss it or not, people like flat earthers beleive that all moon landings must be fake because, for example, you'd fall off the moon. Even VERY minority points of view should be considered for NPOV, even in how you title things. i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The second part describes the hoax itself, and is where the POV dispute arises from. I think the following captures most serious suggestions made so far ([...] indicates the first part per above). Everyone please list all combinations which they find acceptable, in hope of finding some common ground:

Oppose. Polls are pointless ways to disrupt attempts to improve the article. Carfiend 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2a - {Doubts, Questions, Alternative views} {about/concerning/regarding} [...]

e.g. "Doubts concerning the Moon landing"

General Oppose, awkward construction. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose for reasons I've argued many times recently, namely that it focuses on the ideas not the people, who are quite important to the encyclopedia entry. i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2b - [...] hoax {accusations, allegations, claims, speculations, suspicions, theories}

e.g. "Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations"

Oppose "accusations" and "theories", okay with rest. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose' on grounds as above i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2c - [...] skepticism

e.g. "Manned Moon landing skepticism"

Support. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Support on points of brevity and skepticism describes more than just what they say i kan reed 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, this and polls, skepticism is always good. It's not the same as accusations of fraud. Carfiend 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Moon landing would be less sexist. Carfiend 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

the arguing about manned or not section or apollo or nasa or any of the early qualifiers are meant to be discussed above, this time we're trying to have a point by point breakdown.
"skepticism" takes the focus off the individual complaints made, none of which are that astounding except for the fact that large numbers(sort of anyways) of people back the complaints. The claims aren't notable save for the fact that there is a culture behind them. but I understand if you disagree. i kan reed 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. I don't think you've said anything coherent. Ever. Carfiend 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2d - [...] conspiracy theories

e.g. "Lunar landing conspiracy theories"

Oppose. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:SNOW i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference 43

That's pretty bogus. 66.109.99.18 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And that, my friend, is the cream of the crop. Numskll 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a little obtuse... Carfiend 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

13,000 Apollo original tapes missing

According to Forbes the number of original Apollo tapes missing is 13,000. They haven't found at least one of them.--Tequendamia 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I keep saying, it's not just Apollo 11, it's all of them that are missing. The True Believers are in denial though. Carfiend 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for it, since the page won't open up for me. In any case, how Forbes would be in a position to know about old NASA stuff is anybody's guess. I'm also guessing that the recent attendant publicity will result in spending some more of your tax dollars looking for something that was probably junked, or written over, decades ago. Whatever. It's only money. Maybe Steve Forbes could spring for it? Wahkeenah 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. it's getting soooooooooo pathetic now. the news media is reporting only about the apollo 11 tape missing. But in reality all 6 original high res vids are missing. In addition, the only machine capable of viewing those tapes will be destroyed or retired in 2 months. how convenient. It's unbelievable how the landing believers can continually come up with creative excuses for all of these coincidences.Noodle boy 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How much non-Apollo stuff from that era is the government also missing? Wahkeenah 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the irony here is that while the TAPES are missing, none of the footage or data is lost - it is all available in other forms. No data is lost at all. Modern gear could rebuild the video at better quality, but everything the public actually SAW remains available. And if they find the tapes tomorrow, it won't convince anyone of anything, will it? This is about hating NASA, not proving anything. Algr 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

False. I have never seen a digitalized copy of the high quality original tapes. Nobody has!--tequendamia 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Algr is just wrong. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The "high quality" tape that is missing is simply a better copy of the same television of the Apollo 11 moonwalk that was shown around the world, and still exists. The quality is not "high" - it is 10 frames per second instead of 30 and it is black and white instead of color. Even the "high quality" tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk is lower quality than the video of the later flights. So was Apollo 11 fake and the rest real???? All of the television transmissions exist and are available. All of the 16 mm film exists. All of the still photography exists. The only pictures that are missing is the slow-scan TV (SSTV version of the Apollo 11 moonwalk (before the scan conversion to standard TV). You can't view SSTV on normal TVs, so the scan conversion was required to broadcast it to the world. As you can see from the articles, the difference in quality is not overwhelming. Bubba73 (talk), 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about your last statement? Considering that the conversion was done by displaying the SSTV on a screen with a sort of after-glow effect and then filming off that screen, if I understood that part correctly, I would assume that the difference in resolution and contrast would be quite considerable... TeraBlight 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Page 9 of this shows some comparisons. There is a distinct difference, but is it going to change anyone's mind? Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bubba is wrong. It's not just the video, it's also the telemetry. That's important because it would be so difficult to fake. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that I have a copy of the telemetry. Here is how it starts: 1001011101011010101101010001110101010101101010110. That would be pretty hard to fake, wouldn't it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Wait a minute! That's a fake! It would be hard to fake the hours and hours and hours of human and machine data that was supposed to be on the tapes, to be consistent with all of the little pieces of information that have been 'published' by NASA over the years. People would spot all kinds of errors in them if they were released. Carfiend 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What we got so far and everyone knows is a photcopy of the photocopy [4]. --tequendamia 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

With much missing from it. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things known to be lost or accidentally erased:

Most of the BBC's Doctor Who from the 1960s, and early 1970's. This series was more famous then "Star Trek" in England. Some tapes have been recovered or reconstructed, but many may be lost forever. Many other less famous series were also lost.
Most of Steve Allen's Tonight Show episodes.
Numerous (most) hollywood films from the silent era.Algr

Johnny Carson said that most of his shows were lost too. That is why on the anniversary shows, you kept seeing the same things. Many or most original copies of the US Declaration of Independence were lost. The original tapes of several of the early Beatle recordings are gone. There are copies, but does that mean that the originals never existed? An audio recording of the JFK assassination was lost. Bubba73 (talk), 08:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The original Super Bowl tape was wiped also. All we have is the film, which was probably faked in a studio. Wahkeenah 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is very little evidence left of the Norman Conquest of 1066. I've seen the Bayeux Tapestry up close. It looks fake. Wahkeenah 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The original raw footage of the Reagan assassination attempt was also nearly lost. It was found recently in some "old junk" that was about to be discarded by one of the networks. The hoaxster cons are in their element with this news story, as they have caught this red herring hook, line and sinker. Their ultimate orgasm would, of course, be for the mainstream media to demand that NASA "prove" that Apollo really happened. So far, the story is playing as simply bureaucratic fumbling, which is more to the point, although even that is out of context, since no one in the sensationalistic press has asked, "What else is missing?" Wahkeenah 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And if any of the missing stuff does turn up, it won't matter, because the hoaxster cons will just move on to the next false lead, which is their normal pattern. Wahkeenah 10:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The old - "I've got nothing but ad hominem attacks (IGNBAHA from now on, because I have to point it out so often) is tiresome, and makes you look foolish. Carfiend 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You have become famous for your double-standard on this "personal attacks" issue. I'll assume that cryptic abbreviation "IGNBAHA" has something to do with IGNorance. BA! HA! Wahkeenah 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC beats everyone else by losing a tape before it was ever shown:

Fawlty Towers - "The episode 'Basil the Rat' was also delayed, and was not screened until the end of a repeat showing six months later, due to the tape going missing." TeraBlight 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, some sit-coms and sci-fi shows are missing (an apt comparison!), the Reagan tapes are not missing. Some copies of the Declaration of Independence are not missing, despite it being much longer ago, the Bayeux Tapestry is a a lot older, and not lost. What's your point? At least some original Dr Who survived! They did better than NASA at special effects and tape preservation! Carfiend 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Reagan tape was almost lost, someone just happened to find it. The point being that stuff gets lost all the time if there is lack of proper stewardship, and to somehow tie it to your phony moon hoax claims is another red herring. Where were you in the early 1970s when someone could have brought this to their attention to be sure to save it? Oh, I forgot, you weren't around then. How convenient. Wahkeenah 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh - another "IGNBAHA" - the issue isn't the lack of NASA evidence, it's my age! Carfiend 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The lack of tapes is only an issue in the hoaxsters' mind. And my lack of knowing what the heck IGNBAHA stands for is admittedly something to do with my age. Tell me what it stands for, and I'll tell you where the missing tapes are. Wahkeenah 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. As you know, many people are annoyed, and a number of them are actually looking for the tapes. The lack of tapes is real, not a figment of anyones imagination. IGNBAHA stands for "I've Got Nothing But Ad Hominem Attacks", Number One in my typology of AstroNot logical fallacies. Commonly seen when AstroNots realize they have no evidence, then resort to 'But even if I did, you wouldn't believe it'. Carfiend 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No fair using an AKOTY (acronym known only to yourself). Wahkeenah 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the tapes are in Shangri-La. Wahkeenah 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If I call you a name that sounds like something else, is that an Add Homonym attack? Wahkeenah 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny - I like that one! To be fair though, I spelled it out above - you just didn't read it. Carfiend 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I missed that one. It's hard to keep track of it all. Meanwhile, if any evidence contrary to the standard Apollo story turns up, be sure and let us know about it. Wahkeenah 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look, in the footage of the landing, when they get the flag out, it's flapping in the breeze. Except there shouldn't be any breeze on the moon! Carfiend 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Once they get the flag positioned, and its inertia dissipates, it stops moving and remains motionless for the duration, exactly as you would expect it to behave in a vacuum. Now, if you can cite any evidence contrary to the standard Apollo story, bring it on. Wahkeenah 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say. However, when you look at the video, that simply doesn't ring true. It's flapping in the breeze. Carfiend 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What video, pray tell, did you see? The one I saw was in that Fox special. Wahkeenah 04:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-cise-ly. Plus, you can see the wires they're suspended by. Carfiend 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Now you're being satirical. Roger. Wahkeenah 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The wires you're referring to were really, really long bungee cords. That was Plan B in case the Lunar Module rockets failed. Wahkeenah 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Details in shadow

Just thought I'd link to this photo, taken on Gemini 4, June 3, 1965, more than four years before Apollo 11. Accorting to hoax proponents, the part of his suit and helment in shadow should be completely black, with no details visible. (No stars either.) Bubba73 (talk), 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you source that claim, or is it just random misinformation? Carfiend 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Fox special, for an astronaut back-lit by the sun, visible details on the dark side of the lander, and astronauts in the shadow of the lander. 59.112.36.176 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in reference to this specific photo, presumably, but to photos taken on the moon, right? It's another example of the hoax proponents' ignorance of lighting and photography and/or willfull deception on the subject. The moon is not an especially bright object in the sky (although it appears that way to us, because we are close to it), but for someone actually standing on it, there would be a fair amount of reflected, diffuse light from the surface of the moon to illuminate somewhat the shady side of an object backlit by the sun. In fact, if there wasn't, then it could arouse suspicion. I suspect I'm repeating myself (see below) but it's worth repeating. :) Wahkeenah 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Philip Plait Bad Astronomy, page 167-169. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have that book, but you're not sourcing a hoax proponent as saying it, your sourcing a detractor of the hoax proponents as saying that he thinks a hoax proponent said it. Carfiend 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this ring a bell: "you can see details in the shadow so there must have been two light sources." ? Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Kaysing "We Never Went to the Moon", 2002, page 23 & 25. 68.71.91.98 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - it shouldn't be like getting blood out of a stone to get you to source things. I don't think he was talking about that photo though, was he? Carfiend 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Look it up in the book. That's your bible, isn't it? Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually have not read it. I don't believe that he was talking about that photo though. Carfiend 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxster cons don't understand about subtleties such as light reflected from other sources such as the earth, which reflects light very well. Presumably, a photo with total darkness in the unlighted area would be a more likely sign of a single-point source of light, i.e. a fake. History has demonstrated that anything the hoaxsters get right about elementary photography is purely by accident. Wahkeenah 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The earth as a light source? That's ridiculous! You might as well claim that you can see by moonlight.TeraBlight 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

while you're trying to be ammusing in this statement, the earth has an albedo 10 times that of the moon on average, meaning it reflects 10x the ammount of diffuse light the moon does, and being diffuse, larger objects would emmit more. Not really trying to prove anything here, I just thought I'd share. i kan reed 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the point here is that the comment Bubba is talking about refers to a different photo, under different conditions. Number two in my Typology of AstroNot Fallacies is Hasty generalization. "This, completely unrelated photo, exhibits these properties, therefore the one that Kaysing is talking about should too". Carfiend 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't got time to read Kaysing, you're too busy defending him. Maybe, if you get around to it, you could check and see what specific photo or photos he was talking about. However, it's a safe bet that it's yet another instance of hoaxsters' personal and ignorance-based opinions on how they think things "ought to be". Wahkeenah 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we're back to Logical Error Number One again - ad hominem attacks when you're out of places to hide. Carfiend 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not defending him, because mine is not an ad homiem defence. Carfiend 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, you're a Brit. Did you know that there is no independent evidence that the British Empire ever existed? Wahkeenah 04:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the statements that you make is remotely true. There is plenty of evidence that the British Empire existed (and still does, in fact) all of it publicly available, and much of it from independent sources. Unlike your story, the British Empire happened on planet earth. Carfiend 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the British understood satire. Wahkeenah 04:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another logical error: You understand satire. The British understand satire. Therefore you are a Brit. You're too funny. Carfiend 04:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

May I quote you on that? Wahkeenah 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That you're funny? Of course. Carfiend 04:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Independent evidence of human landing redux

Bubba - you said "There already is that shot of tha Apollo 15 landing site. I'm not in favor of a section for independent evidence because it would run into thousands of pages. Bubba73 (talk), 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)" - I responded "I'm not sure it would - so far we have a blurred photograph, and. Erm, a blurred photograph. Carfiend 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)" - I presume from your lack of response that you agree? Let's start that section. Carfiend 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that we need that section. Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, presumably because it would be embarrasingly short. But do you have any other independent evidence? Carfiend 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on who you'd accept as independent, and what you'd accept as evidence. Things like long range photography are hard to come by because that stuff was almost exclusively available to governments at the time. Things like witness testimony is easier to get, but still difficult for time reasons(people died and moved, mention of who did what is lost over time, memories fade) but still fairly broadly available(but not rampantly published like some things are). things that are similar to what is used as evidence against NASA can be piled high. Example: "No one saw buzz alrdrin while he was in space" "the skeptics could have doctored photos too". Where should the line be drawn? i kan reed 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from a source that is not NASA. It's pretty clear. Carfiend 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you're accepting testimony, apparently, how about this one (emphasis mine): (in regards to the moon) "We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind."-George W. Bush(not a member of NASA)[5] Or is testimony the wrong kind of evidence? I did ask for a reason(and this was as specifically borderline case as i could think of in that he's not a member of NASA; he's above NASA, and he controls it. Additionally he personally is not a credible source outside being the president of the USA). thanks, i kan reed 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the 'wrong kind of evidence' in the sense that it's not a first hand account, if that's what you mean, unless you're going to suggest that GWB somehow spent time on the moon while he was dodging the draft. WTF - try to keep your posts remotely relevant please. Carfiend 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also. FFS, 'Peace and hope for all mankind'? WTF?! Carfiend 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"FFS"? Another cryptic reference. Anyway, the stuff left behind by the Apollo 11 crew included a plaque that said "We came in peace for all mankind", so I suppose that's what Bushie is referring to. I'm not sure who they expected would be reading it. Maybe Gidney and Cloyd. Wahkeenah 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FFS=For Fuck's Sake. I just find it ironic that GWB could even utter those words without lightning striking him. Carfiend 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Remind me not to ask about any more of your abbreviations. Wahkeenah 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A new article about the missing tapes is required

The Apollo program missing tapes is an article waiting to be initiated. I invite you all to contribute to it.--tequendamia 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First you can try putting it into context. How much other data is missing from totally unrelated projects from way back then? Of course, you won't pursue that angle, because it could undercut your story's thesis. Wahkeenah 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

These tapes went missing 33 years ago. If I am an engineer or a scientist looking after such important recorded documentation I wouldn't miss it for one second. I would be looking after it, I would educate the public about their contain constantly, making the public feel proud about that. If I was a public leader I would've created a separate TV channel devoted only to this feat and to the entire space race. Instead the whole thing has been kept away from the public, like if there was something the people shouldn't see. It has been treated as if it was a comedy video clip.--tequendamia 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Others are as bad. Another logical error. As if that makes it ok. Carfiend 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The typical hoaxster con approach of applying one's personal opinion to how things "should have been". A theme repeated over and over in their approach. What evidence do you all have as to when they were last seen? Wahkeenah 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Who doesn't want to see the originals? Who doesn't want to see the original evidence?--tequendamia 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxster cons certainly don't, since it would invalidate their entire premise. That's why they are so happy this material is missing. Wahkeenah 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem errors again! You're a slow learner. I, for one, would love to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, there is no proof. Concern is not the same as happiness. Carfiend 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaysing, Sibrel, et al wouldn't, though. Meanwhile, I would love to be proven wrong also. I keep waiting for something resembling evidence contradicting the Apollo saga. There ain't any. Wahkeenah 04:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the moon hoaxters are actually the ones driving the search. As they are not allowed to work for NASA then they have to use the news and the internet to raise awareness.--tequendamia 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Driving the search to prove themselves wrong? Yeh, sure they are. Wahkeenah 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - they are tireless crusaders for the truth - noble knights of virtue, striving to throw light onto the darkest schemes of evil scoundrels. The issue is - their quest for the truth has led them to conclusions that you cannot stomach - your beliefs are too rigid for their breathtaking deduction and proof. Quake and cower before them, poor, ignorant fool! Carfiend 04:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the original question... such an article could have merit, if you stay away from your personal opinion about how NASA "should have" managed the data, and if you cite statistics that indicate that there is anything unusual about material from decades-old completed government projects not being readily available. Wahkeenah 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it needs it's own article, but I would not oppose splitting it out as a sub-section, since the missing tapes is an issue in its own right, aside from the hoax issue. Of course, I agree that POV should be kept out, although I think that statistics about other govt projects, while helpful, would not be necessary. The first time on another celestial body should be treated a little differently. Carfiend 04:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the hoaxsters keep interjecting their personal opinion about how NASA "should have" handled the data. Wahkeenah 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, if you read the edit summary, it was the setup line for a joke. I was trying to play straight-guy to your smartass. Fat chance. Carfiend 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try not to take that vulgar comment as an "ad hominem attack". Wahkeenah 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

? First time on a celestial body? Never mind. Carfiend 04:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Guardian (part of a conspiracy against NASA, I'm sure), says "Up to 30% of Americans already believe the landing was faked in a desperate ploy to make good JFK's promise to get a man on the moon by the end of the decade and thus beat the Soviets. Thanks to Nasa's ineptitude, that number now looks sure to rise. Meanwhile, the advice offered to the searching scientists, who have asked the public for information on the missing tapes, is: look on eBay." The theory is so popular, I'm beginning to think it might not be true after all... Carfiend 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this 54-minute video new and in anyway related to recently missing tapes? --Oblivious 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The missing tapes are ones recorded of the Apollo 11 moonwalk that were recorded in Australia before the conversion from slow-scan TV to broadcast TV. (I think I've said this nearly 10 times.) This video is from a broadcast from inside Apollo 11 on the way to the moon, starting at 10 hours 32 minutes after liftoff, not 190 hours into the mission that the website deceptively claims. (See "classified ..." at the top.) Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before - there is much confusion about what is missing. All of the original tapes with the telemetry are missing, from all Apollo missions. All of the slow-scan tv of the moon from 11 is missing. Some low quality video from Apollo 11 is present, and the video from subsequent missions is available, but without accompanying telemtry. Do you agree Bubba, or do you have a different view of what is available? Carfiend 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

source connecting missing tapes to the moon hoax?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1851022,00.html

The 13,000 missing tapes should be added to the accusations section immediately.24.7.34.99 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be, except it's protected, and the person instigating the edit war refuses to explain why they did it. Carfiend 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

what a coincidence protecting the page after all of us skeptics are having a field day with the 13,000 reels of missing footage. This whole thing just reeks. I wonder why I'm still interested in improving this page. Anybody with half a brain knows its all fake.24.7.34.99 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NASA agents are desperately trying to block any new information. It is called Damage control (news).--tequendamia 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In your fantasies. The protection was instituted before that story broke. But it's typical of the hoaxster cons to twist the facts. Wahkeenah 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the most ardent pro-hoaxster on this page at present thanked that one user for blocking editing on the page. So enough already with the false accusations that NASA sympathizers have blocked the page. Unless Carfiend is a closet NASA sympathizer. Wahkeenah 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no cabal; wikipedia admins are chosen by consensus on generally democratic grounds, after large numbers of contributions; There can be no way for NASA to "infiltrate" the adminsitrators of wikipedia just in time to lock a page to prevent the spread of information already publicly available. That is all. i kan reed 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. It's mob rule. Not that I believe NASA is involved, that is. Carfiend 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A mob of 3 or 4 users? I am not sure about that.--tequendamia 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good system, I was just tryingto say it was a consistant system. "I'm a NASA engineer" wouldn't get someone past RfA, for which most users require 1000 edits at the minimum. If nasa had gotten that, don't you think some of the edits would already be on this article? You're allowed to beleive whatever you want, but blaming a lock on a NASA purchased admin does qualify as conspiracy theory bullocks. i kan reed 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not NASA, we're just "NASA shills", according to one user. But that's not an ad hominem attack, ja? Wahkeenah 13:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, but that's not an ad hominem fallacy. It's that other one I can't remember the name of where you dismiss the arguments of someone because they have personal motivation to make those arguments. I'll look it up in List of logical fallacies later(ain't wiki great?). Anyways, that's pretty off topic here. They have a sourced claim to put in the article, so if someone can just phrase it in a reasonable way, we'll get an admin to put it in. i kan reed 13:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was Appeal to motive.

Interesting. According to that one user, anytime I question the motives of Kaysing or other hoaxster cons, I am accused of leveling an "ad hominem attack". Wahkeenah 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow is this page funny! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who seriously thinks the moon landings were faked deserves a present.--MONGO 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a Moon Pie? Wahkeenah 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well aparently(at least) 3 wikipedia editors do. I beleive... that this has gotten off topic. Let's focus on the article, ok? i kan reed 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not till we get our just desserts. :b Wahkeenah 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Making these puns is a peice of cake. i kan reed 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting back from our green-cheesy humour, it seems like the recent stuff about the "missing" tapes should be fleshed out a bit, if indeed the moonbat sites are claiming it as "evidence". Hard to do when the page is protected. But I'm not so concerned about the missing tapes issue as they are. Maybe an admin could add that story. Wahkeenah 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could propose the wording of the paragraph about that info, and then someone with authority could post it in the page. Wahkeenah 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

how about this:

The recent Announcement by NASA that it is searching for 13,000 missing tapes^{[citation needed]} has led many skeptics to question whether they ever existed^{[citation needed]}

if someone filled in the appropriate citations, would that be ok? i kan reed 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The guardian article would work for the first but not the second citation. it doesn't say that. Numskll 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not too happy with the introduced weasel words. I'd rather have "Some skeptics, such as X question Y on the subject X is quoted as Z" but that'd too much to ask for isn't it? i kan reed 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A single citation might be enough if it's considered a "reliable" (pardon the expression) moon hoax source site. The "counterpoint", if any, would be something along the lines that NASA acknowledges that the whereabouts of the tapes is unknown. I would leave out anything about NASA denying or commenting on any connection to an alleged hoax, unless someone can find a citation showing that someone actually asked them such a question (unlikely), or that they voluntarily said anything about it (very unlikely). Wahkeenah 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just Read The Freakin' Article (to semi-quote that one user). It's only an editorial laughing at NASA for misplacing the tapes. It cites no actual hoaxster sources, comments, or what-have-you. It would add nothing to this article. Citing the mere fact of the 13,000 missing tapes (assuming that's factual - how do they know how many there are if they can't be found?) is worth mentioning, within the section on "missing" data, as it's a widely-covered news story. Wahkeenah 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you made the leap from discussion of an appropriate source to my advocating weasel words, but whatever. but that'd too much to ask for isn't it? given that what your saying originates as far as I know from this talk page than yes, that is too much to ask. See [WP:NOR]. How many is "many?" Is there a single source that says explicitly this is more evidence for the moon hoax. That is what is required. The source listed says news of the missing types might make the hoax more popular. That is a notable distinction. Numskll 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about you using weasel words. I was complaining about me doing so. There's no clear way to indicate that an elusive group of people who don't have any sort of journal or regularly published magaizine beleive anything in particular. I don't know i kan reed 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not cited as evidence by any source we know of. hearsay is no good for a wiki article. The fact that it could be used as evidence is not enough for inclusion. If we had an article on information lost by the united states government we could include it there(that would be the longest verifiable article EVER). i kan reed 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

However, in a semi-amusing coincidence, the expression "could be" is used freely by hoaxsters as an implied equivalent to certainty. Wahkeenah 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So be better than them on that point. We'll only include sourced information, and they can write books about whatever they feel like. It's the cost and responsibility of free speech. i kan reed 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There ya go. Wahkeenah 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's used to mean 'could be'. BTW, don't ask about any more of my abbreviations. Carfiend 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. FYI, I have determined that letting them churn in the Background Processor of my on-board computer overnight can yield the answer. Wahkeenah 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And not that we're picky about sources here, but the Guardian is a tabliod. Numskll 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article already has missing evidence as a claim by the hoax proponents, there's really no need to add much more. As an aside, the Guardian is one of the more respectable UK broadsheets. Carfiend 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The article already has missing evidence as a claim by the hoax proponents" confuses me. I don't know if you mean that this should be included on the grounds that we already have a section, or that it'd be redundant. Please clarify. I say it's not our job to attribute specific examples of missing evidence not claimed. That's false attribution and not encylopedic. i kan reed 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they have Page 3 Babes? Wahkeenah 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

please quote the text in the article that makes the point you suggest it makes. Numskll 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I reckon he means "Hoax proponents interpret this as support for the case that they never existed." Weasels, Inc. Wahkeenah 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even comfortable including this information yet. Someone has to make a claim to that regard or else it's useless. i kan reed 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They claim "missing data implies it never existed", i.e. that the flights didn't really happen. If nobody could find the plans for the Niña, the Pinta and Santa María, that probably would mean those ships never came to the New World, either. This 13,000 tapes stuff is just one more thing in the list of missing items. But I think that entire section is a prejudicial red herring, so I'm not going to argue strongly for expanding it. Wahkeenah 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The Wikipedia article includes, or should include, it might have been removed by someone, citings that hoax proponents link the missing tapes to the fake eg this one http://www.moonhoax.com/site/evidence.html. What more are you looking for? Carfiend 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a strong case for taking much of the detail out of this article, and just saying that they are missing, that hoax proponents say that it's evidence of a fake, and then link to an article that is about where they might be, and were last seen etc. Carfiend 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do the hoax sites say anything about these specific 13,000 tapes, or is it just a blanket, pre-emptive statement of theirs that any missing data implies it never existed? Wahkeenah 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous articles, and no one is entirely sure exactly what is missing even. They don't cite this article, but do cite that the original tapes are missing. It's unclear to me whether the 13,000 tapes are the same ones that are in the 700 boxes or not. To be honest, what belongs here is that some tapes are missing, and the hoax proponents say this is evidence of a hoax. I would take the question of which tapes, and where they might be to another article, since the scope is broader than just the hoax proponents. Many people are concerned at the loss, without believing in the hoax. Carfiend 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the safest or most flexible approach is to chop down the minutia of that section and simply report that various original data is missing, NASA acknowledges it, and it's a widely reported news story by now... along with the one relevant citation that hoaxsters take this to mean that it never existed, without which there is no point in even having it in the article, but I think there is such a citation there already, so no problem, right? Wahkeenah 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should just list what is missing (in broad terms), the fact that the hoax proponents think something is up, but NASA thinks it's normal. However, I do think an article on the issue of the missing documents, from the perspective of 'where are they' rather than 'this is fishy' would be good - what do you think? Carfiend 07:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

hardware in museums, old documentation

This relates a little to the old hardware that is in museums and documentation. I post it for interest only, I don't think it needs to be in the article. here Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very telling, I would say. "Smithsonian Institution and Space Center Houston, where exhibits manager Paul Spana said he has had about a dozen visits this year from young NASA engineers and contractors trying to figure out how their predecessors sent people to the moon." They can puzzle away, but it looks impossible... Carfiend 07:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that article seems to implicate the impossibility of going to the moon in 1969. And they are right. Also, after watching the apollo astronots faking footage video, it should be clear to everybody why the tapes were requested back from the national archives. Nasa says the archiving was a low priority, so why was it such a priority to go through all the effort to get it back from the national archives? Whole thing reeks of 31 day sashimi.Noodle boy 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical moon hoaxster misinterpretation. Since there is an apparent revival of interest in going back to the moon, it only makes sense to study the nuts and bolts of how it was done previously, for the sake of learning, to avoid having to totally "re-invent the wheel". If you are in the software development industry, for example, do you always write everything from scratch, or do you go back and see how someone else did a similar task, for your own knowledge and for better efficiency? Your characterization of "trying to figure out" as suggesting that they are skeptical or mystified, has no basis other than your own wishful thinking.Wahkeenah 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, you are not in the hoax inner circle, and have been set a task by a politician who is not also not in on the hoax, and you're trying to figure out something that looks impossible to you, scratching your head, going over old photos and mock-ups... 'No way this could work...' you think to yourself... Carfiend 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to find these misreadings of articles written at 6th grade reading level pretty funny. The article is all about how present day engineers are STILL studying Nasa's Apollo era tech in an effort to bootstrap their recently renewed efforts to go back to the moon. As an indicator of the difficulty and tenor of this article, it took me less than 2 minutes to read it, grok it and find that quote. It reads to me like a pro-NASA Human interest piece, the kind of thing some NASA marketer is getting kudos for having successfully pitched it to CBS. To wit: '"The mechanics of landing on the moon and getting off the moon to a large extent have been solved. That is the legacy that Apollo gave us," said Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation project for NASA."' Numskll 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it says that they have the documentation. It says they went to look at the real thing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It reports that they say they have the documentation, other reports say they threw it away. Either way, it is not verified. Carfiend 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which means exactly nothing and proves nothing -- just like the rest of the 'evidence' offered for a hoax. However, I note that this tacitly adds these 'young engineers' (who claim to have studied the records relating to the Apollo program) to the remarkably non-conspiratorial hoax participants -- assuming that they haven't been duped as well. It's a good thing that NASA only hires gullible and/or dishonest engineers these days. Luckily, we have a horde of forthright and honest, not to mention semi-literate, hoax proponents to lead us to the truth. Numskll 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice abuse, NumbSkull - the fact is there is no evidence for NASA's story except their word. Gravitor 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd cordially invite to read the text of the article that we're discussing. It does not refer to missing evidence as you evidentally believe. My comments actually referred to the difficulty readers in this section are having rendering an accurate summary of this 4-5 paragraph fluff piece. Not difficulty in judging the bias of the article mind you, simply difficulting understanding the content. A cynical person might believe that this difficulty is feigned . . . the question of evidence or lack thereof has been discussed at length elsewhere. Numskll 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another source connecting missing tapes to moon hoax

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1771119,0012.htm

"Holding on to historic footage is not rocket science — which may be exactly why Nasa officials were forced to say on Tuesday, “Houston, we have a problem”. The problem is that Nasa seems to have lost more than 13,000 original tapes recording the Apollo moon missions, including the historic 1969 Neil Armstrong-Buzz Aldrin first moonwalk. While Richard Nafzger, a senior Nasa engineer put in charge of the search-and-rescue operation, insists that the tapes are not lost (he simply “doesn’t know where they are”), there has been a sudden peak in activity among conspiracy theory circles, especially among those who maintain that the whole moon-landing business was a hoax.

A few years ago, matters got serious enough for Nasa to launch a point-by-point ‘explanation’ to refute claims that the moon missions were all conducted in a studio somewhere in the US." Noodle boy 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, like the guardian article it connects the popularity of the hoax to the NASA's announcement concerning these tapes; this, apparently, is dauntingly elusive distinction for some of us. I guess the last paragraph is a reference to the aborted hoax debunking book. I note that they don't mention that is was discontinued or why. Surprising in a source as reliable and well respected as the Hindustan Times. I think this topic (meaning the recent NASA announcement that they are seriously looking for the tapes and the above described reaction to that announcement) deserves an inclusion in the section that talks about the origin and history of the hoax in media. Numskll 11:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Page length

This talk page is getting very long - and much of it seems to be taken up with claims and counter claims not stating much new.

Given that the events happened nearly 40 years ago, and nobody from any of the various sides involved (NASA, Soviet Union etc) has claimed "yes there was a hoax" or even "yes, some of the details were cleaned up" - can we assume that those who won't be convinced will stay that way, and concentrate on actual happenings - eg the misplaced tapes?

Jackiespeel 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably time for an archive, if most everyone agrees. And it's worth pointing out that, while a lot of this page seems to be point/counterpoint about the Apollo program, it is that situation that feeds much of the edit warring here. Wahkeenah 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive away. Carfiend 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Carfiend

Stemming from edits on this article and behavior on this discussion page I've initiated a request for comment on the user Carfiend for what I perceive as obvious violations of the following wiki-policies:

Here is a link to the RFC page: [| RFC] Here is a link to the RFC on Carfiend: [| RFC - Carfiend]

To minimize disruption to this article I will not respond to any posts in this space. If you have questions or comments please see the appropriate discussion page. I urge any interested parties to participate. Numskll 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Diamonds Are Forever"

In the hoax section the "Diamonds Are Forever" story is mentioned twice! Needs to be edited. ;) --89.54.157.193 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When and if they unlock it, that is. Also, I just watched the movie to see what the fuss was about. Although the presence of the moon set does not seem to be specifically explained (other than the obvious plot device of giving James Bond a funny-looking vehicle for a chase scene), it is clear that Willard Whyte's interests (aside from sausage) include the aerospace industry, and that Whyte does contract work for the U.S. government. Hoaxsters, looking for any straw, might interpret this scene as suggesting a hoax. I would say they would be hard-pressed to find anyone in 1971 who would have put this particular spin on it. Listing it within this article smacks of "original research" or editorializing, unless someone can find a citation specifically mentioning that scene. Wahkeenah 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned only once. I agree that, if there are no other references, it should simply be mentioned that Moonhoax.com (I think) suggests it as an early reference. Could you live with that? Carfiend 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it once is tolerable, but it would still be interesting to know if anyone verifiably made that connection at the time, or whether it was somebody looking at the film 20-30 years later and saying, "Oh, wow, dude!" Wahkeenah 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The tracks are already there, before the rover is unpacked!?

What's going on in this picture? http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21370 . Thanks! Carfiend 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I see ONE track in the photo. You weren't aware of the Apollo Lunar Unicycle? Wahkeenah 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the forgot to put fresh dirt down after the rehersal? You agree that this is evidence of fakery? Carfiend 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It really looks as if the photo was taken at night.--tequendamia 03:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. That reminds me of the old joke about a group of astronauts planning to take a trip to the sun. One of them says it's really hot, and blindingly bright. Another says, "So, we'll go at night!" Wahkeenah 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this site is an excellent resource. If you look at the photo preceding it, you will see that the rover was already deployed. Wahkeenah 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing this site illustrates is an answer to the complaint about supposedly few photos being produced. There are many that are very similar, like they were just going click-click-click with the camera, and a number that are, frankly, not very good. They wanted to take enough so that hopefully they would get a few useful ones. They say that the photogs at National Geographic take thousands, knowing only a handful will be in the magazine. I can tell you from my limited experience that you can shoot many rolls and find maybe only a few frames that are really worth reprinting. Wahkeenah 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the complaint is that few photos were available before the mid-90s, coincidentally when photo manipulation became much easier. Carfiend 01:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And you can see, from the poor quality of many of these, why they (allegedly) weren't made available. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, the other track is out of frame in the foreground. It's visible in the preceding photo, which also shows the rover. Part of that "package", or insulation or whatever it is, is also visible in the preceding photo, although a little darker, due to the contrast. For the entire photo set, look here [6] Wahkeenah 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think that is not the rover? What is it then? The 'one track' thing is obviously not a problem, but this is clearly an out of sequence photo, with a continuity error! Carfiend 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not out of sequence, the photo before it is a pan to the left that shows the rover and both tracks and part of that protective packing or whatever it was that was hanging open. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This photo shows only one footprint. Did Aldrin have only one leg? Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At least, given that evidence, the hoaxsters can't claim he didn't have a leg to stand on. Wahkeenah 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It really looks like a step on a wet beach.--tequendamia 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That hoaxster red herring has been asked and answered. The nature of moon dust is such that the particles cling together when compressed, looking somewhat like wet sand and unlike dry sand. Dry sand particles are smooth and roll off each other, while moon dust particles are rough and jagged, because there is no erosive force (the ocean) to smooth them down as with sand. Thus, dry sand leaves a somewhat fuzzy outline of a footprint, whereas wet sand (with water as the binding agent) and moon dust (with the dust particles clinging to each other rather than rolling off each other) tend to look more distinct, and kind of similar. Wahkeenah 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but, of course, no body knows, since the best moon footage we have comes from a NASA studio. Carfiend 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence supporting that hypothesis. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is of course why we HAVE to include some accusation realted to it in this article.Numskll 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to you many times, but there is no evidence (other than their word) for the NASA story either. Gravitor 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And it's been pointed out to you many times that there IS independent evidence. Wahkeenah 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there's been a lot of talk, but no independent evidence of a human landing presented. If you have any, post it here. When you don't, let's move on and stop pretending there is evidence. Gravitor 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're sounding more and more like that other user, making the same statements, skirting the fact that there is no evidence contradicting the conventional history of the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 12:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you avoid the point, making accusations instead. There's been a lot of talk, but no independent evidence of a human landing presented. If you have any, post it here. When you don't, let's move on and stop pretending there is evidence. Gravitor 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly to me than an encyclopedia entry doubles as a debate forum. ~stalepie

hoax/response format

I found the * indentations a little difficult to read, because of the italics more than anything. There should be something to differentiate accusation from response of course. Can anyone suggest a better style?

By the way, I think this article is great, even if it's controversial and all. It's led me to make my own more informed conclusions. More importantly I believe that time will eventually prove or disprove the historical accuracy of the landings. After all, at the present there are either footprints on the moon or there aren't. (Or maybe there will always be conspiracy theories.)

A very minor point: For Number 12 below, isn't that what's in contention here? Seems odd to be listing it as supporting evidence, more like a cyclic argument.

Most of the 'firsts' above were done by the US within a year afterwards (sometimes within weeks). The US started to achieve many 'firsts' which were important in a mission to the Moon, such as:

...

12. First manned landing on the Moon (1969, Apollo 11).

Even more minor, the styling after "November 2002 Peter Jennings", toward the bottom of the article, seems to be out of whack. 59.112.36.176 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest an alternative punctuation approach. The article has tried to be fair-and-balanced, but it has not been easy. It has been a tug-of-edit-war from time to time, which is why it's currently locked. The hoax proponents would readily acknowledge that the official story is that NASA orbitted the moon in 1968 and landed men on the moon in 1969. Some (though not all) would take issue with one or both reported events. A small minority of the small minority who think NASA bent the truth, think we landed men but that something else was going on that they wanted to hide from us (like finding moon men, or a monolith, or a "Kilroy was here", or something). I don't know about the Jennings styling. It does read a little awkwardly. Presumably, the point was to cite the news report as a reference. Wahkeenah 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, you forgot the trademark symbol after 'fair and balanced' followed of course by a knowing snicker. Numskll 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly will probably be paying me a personal visit now. And not in a good way. Wahkeenah 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Redo

Looking over the achieves, it appears both sides of this article are acting unprofessional. Also, because it's constantly the same group of people arguing with each other, it's very difficult for people to settle in an agreement with eachother.

Thus, from the my viewpoint as an random wikipedia user, maybe the best thing to do at this point is to simple start from scratch. I don't mean throwing out all the information that has already been gathered, but I mean bringing in new people and settling each point one by one. Here are some of the ideas I mean:

1) New editors

The people who are for NASA's version of events should elect one or more representatives. These representatives should be new to this article in that they have not edited it or partcipated in the disputes in the talk page. The current users on this side should no longer directly edit the article nor talk page, but can ask their representative(s) to act for them.

The same thing should apply to the people against NASA's version of events.

The goal of this is to remove the current angst between editors so that edits can be more constructive and more objective.

2) No edits to the content/nature of the article without a consensus on both parties

Hopefully with cooler heads and saner edits, a consensus can be reached. I don't want it to the extreme where one stuck up person opposes and nothing ever happens to the article. However, some kind of acknowledgement or confirmation from both sides is very powerful in cooling the sides down.

I know both side are going to have to make some sacrifices here.

3) Rework the article

Make a TODO list of things in the article that are disputed and keep it on the top of the talk page. Fix them one by one. Once they have been fixed, state so in the TODO list. This is so that some progress will actually happen. The purpose to state that it has been settled in the TODO list is so that the issue will not be brought up over and over again. Just because you want to argue over a detail again does not mean you should.

Just some side notes, I'm not really a wiki writer so please pardon my poor formatting. I'm just a wiki user. Also, I've tried to be as neutral as possible and I hope I didn't offend anyone. I want to see disputes go away and a consensus come about.

[edit]Oh yes, and everyone please read Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot :P

So write a new article. Wahkeenah 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, it's my experiance that wikipedia's goal is not be a repository of all knowledge, but rather give a brief overview the get the reader started on the topic. Brief and consise. Unfortantely, this article reads much more like a argument from both sides with a lengthy list of citations, specific claims and counter arguments (everything is too verbose). Since it is not wikipedia's goal to prove a point, I suggest cutting out all the claims and counter claims and simply providing one or two links for each side of this debate. This is just a suggestion and I'm open to any thoughts or ideas on this.
- Easier said than done. How do you discuss the topic without discussing the alleged issues? Wahkeenah 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Nameless One: Wahkeenah, may be playing with you a bit. The very issue you identify has been the subject of debate here for the entire month or so I've been participating and is in fact the thing that draws me to this article. By way of comprimise I've advocated taking the approach outlined in WP:SS, i.e. describing the theories, their histories, propronents and key facets in summary and relegating much of the overbearing back and forth details to separate, but thematically and hypertextually[sic] connected pages. However, efforts in that direction have been completely shut down by a POV jihadist who has taken tacit (and not so tacit) ownership of this page. If you're interested, I'd be willing to work on just an effort as has been described above when (if, I suppose) the edit proctection has been lifted. Till then I'd suggest you read the last couple archives particularly the various abortive straw polls and discussions on NPOV. Numskll 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    - My main concern is to avoid writing a page that, to the casual user, makes it look like this moon hoax junk is for real. Wahkeenah 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  - My concern is to avoid writing a page that, to the casual reader, makes it look like there is any independent evidence for NASA's tattered fabric of lies. Gravitor 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    - - If you have any evidence that NASA lied about the Apollo program, show it to us. Wahkeenah 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      - My main concern is not leaving an article on wikipedia that make this great and noble effort to gather essentially the entire universe of knowledge in one place look like a haven whack-jobs. But i don't think our concerns are mutually exclusive. 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        Someone needs to propose (i.e. write) a new article and see if it gets approval. Easier said than done. Wahkeenah 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as one editor exercises ownership over this article there isn't much chance of or sense in that. Numskll 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. What I meant was that someone should write it here, on the talk page, and see if it flies. Maybe archiving the other clutter first would be good, though. Wahkeenah 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the dilemma: Sure, you can define what it is, and it will be a nice, short article. But the reader will think, there has to be some basis for it, right? Well, maybe you could list a link or two that present both arguments well. But if that's not enough, someone will want to list the arguments for the hoax in the article, to "clarify" matters, which will make the the page inherently biased, and then someone will have to list the counter-arguments, and there we'll be again. But give it a try here. What could it hurt? Wahkeenah 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you list the counter-arguments? All you have to do is write that the overwhelming majority of Americans and scientists do not believe in the theories. Then you would list what they believe. This is not a page for anybody to prove the moon landings are real. The moon landings are taken as gospel truth. This page is for documenting the social phenomena that is the moon hoax. This is not a page to enforce a certain POV. That's why we have the Apollo pages.24.7.34.99 02:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you list only the hoaxsters' claims, unchallenged, then you leave the casual reader with the false impression that there is no reasonable explanation for them, which is what the hoaxsters want in order to "recruit" more of the science-challenged citizenry into their little club. In short, you have a biased page, which runs counter to wikipedia policy. Wahkeenah 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that potentially many people will come to this article after hearing of hoax allegations, in order to see if there are responses to the charges and "evidence". Bubba73 (talk), 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Summaries of the types of "evidence" offered and typical responses to this "evidence" could shorten the article considerably and give fair treatment to the topic. We could then include a new page for the full-blown tit-for-tat laundry list. But again this is all 'pissing in the wind' unless we can somehow get the de facto 'owner' of this article to move off their POV jihad. That prospect does not seem hopeful. Numskll 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The user you are probably referring to has virtually disappeared from here, probably due to the warnings issued to him. But there are others ready to take up the disinformation flag. Wahkeenah 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm against not putting the responses in. If someone came to this page and just saw the accusations, they might think "But surely there are some responses to this?". Having the NASA crap alongside it demonstrates the lack of cred, and the lack of independent evidence. Also - there's no need to shorten the article. Just 'cos NASA has nothing to say doesn't mean there isn't an article to write. Gravitor 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The usual hoaxster claim, of lack of independent evidence, is false. Wahkeenah 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you're full of bluster, but, as usual, present no evidence. Because there is no independent evidence of a human landing. In fact, given how much they've 'lost', there's barely any evidence from NASA either. Gravitor 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would bother to read the talk page, you would see otherwise. And you would be well-advised to stay away from colloquial expressions that make you sound like that other user, lest you be accused of being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think you are one. It's just that the hoaxsters all sound alike, as if they were Bill Kaysing clones. Wahkeenah 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. As usual, you present no evidence. Because there is no independent evidence of a human landing. Anyone who argues with you is bound to end up sounding like anyone else who argues with you, since you never listen, and never move from your religious belief, even when you're obviously wrong. You can't even point to a specific place on the talk page where you think there is independent evidence cited. The fact is that there IS NONE. Gravitor 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything. You have to disprove the chronology, and you can't. Wahkeenah 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I love that you don't think that your (extraordinary) claims require any evidence, but people who are skeptical about your moon-nonsense must prove a negative! Gravitor 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A copy of a small part of the missing tapes was found

A copy of a small portion of the missing tapes was found. Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. Now, this DOES seem to be made-up. The lost tapes found as out takes to a long lost pink floyd video . . . who comes up with this stuff? . . . ex-stoner engineers? Numskll 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Attenborough quote

I'm probably missing something here, but how could the David Attenborough quote come from a BBC special celebrating 40 years since the landings, when that's in 2009? Billy H 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC's 40th, not Apollo's. The comment is a bit ambiguous. Wahkeenah 23:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense...what year would that be, though? The BBC was founded in 1922, so it can't be 1962 (they celebrated their 50th in 1972), although in 1986 they celebrated 50 years of the television service. Does that make it 1976? Billy H 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid you would ask that. The year of that special is not given, so presumably it's 1976 or so, but arguably it's an uncited reference that should be zapped... especially given the slightly peculiar stuff about a spare spacecraft, which was not true. I think that quote might have been posted by a hoaxster trying to prove something, and I think it has gotten watered down over time and editing. If someone could find a verifiable reference to it, it could be an interesting, if not necessarily useful, quotation. Wahkeenah 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you have no evidence that it is not true. The point of the quote is to show how prevalent it was in the public's mind that there NASA had other plans in case something went wrong. Gravitor 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one can seem to come up with a specific date and time of when (or if) he actually said it, it could well be a phony "quote". That's one problem with it. Another is the question of how a British actor would be in any technological position to know how NASA was conducting the Apollo mission. Wahkeenah 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is about common beliefs, not about NASA. It shows what the public thought. Gravitor 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a "common belief". Second, it is uncertain whether the quote is genuine or not. Wahkeenah 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Scientific method section

Let's delete it. I don't see what it adds. It smacks of original research in the wikipedia sense. However, If this is adopted from a hoax critic we should directly attribute it. Failing that, the stuff on mirrors should be moved. Numskll 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The mirror stuff is important because it shows how AstroNots abuse the scientific method to try to show evidence for the human landing that is not there. Gravitor 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though the section's philosophy is fundamentally sound, it sounds like editorializing. I think the point could be made (with attributions) in a single paragraph and included in the section listed the various contradictory hoax "theories". Wahkeenah 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is very important to the article. The hoax movement is primarily about people offering arguments that look scientific (to average people) and then crying conspiracy when their arguments are not taken seriously by mainstream science. You can't understand why scientists reject moon-hoax theories unless you understand how arguments in general are evaluated. Algr 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The tricky part is citing references that say that, in lieu of us saying it ourselves, even though it's is plain as the nose on our face. Wahkeenah 17:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Very much WP:OR unless it gets sourced. JoshuaZ 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- We've discussed this before. The scientific method is a universal principle. You don't need a source to state that a universal principal applies to a specific example. If you did, you wouldn't be able to state that Phil Platt is human, or even that WP:OR rules apply to this article, unless you found a source first. This is taking WP:OR to an illogical extreme. Algr
  - I certainly understand your point, Algr, and there is some langauge in WP:OR that allows for such cases of common knowledge, but to my mind content like the scientific method section only belongs in this article if it directly addresses the hoax theory or it a key feature in a sourcable discussion. There is a lot of other common sense type arguments that could be brought to bear, but in the interest of scope and focus I'd like to keep stuff like this to a mininum. Numskll 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    - It is sourced. It comes from Phil Platt's discussion on why it is pointless to debate moon hoaxers. Algr 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      - Instead of a lengthy discussion in the article, maybe the reference could be reduced to the link plus the statement "Phil Plait explains why it is pointless to debate moon hoaxers." Wahkeenah 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If an article describes something as being a "bird", it makes sense to describe it doing birdlike things, such as laying eggs and flying. This article describes the moon hoax as "pseudoscience" and a "conspiracy theory". Just leaving it there would be little more then name calling. That is why the article must describe the hoax movement doing pseudoscientific things, such as distorting how science works in order to achieve popularity. Algr 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- You just have to be careful how to word it, to avoid the appearance of editorializing. Wahkeenah 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is editorializing. It weakens the article by a) being a diatribe about how one should follow the scientific method, and then b) goes on to get tripped up by showing that, while hoax proponents do follow it, NASA does not. It's not suitable, since it doesn't get us anywhere. It could be shortened and put in the 'characteristics of the debate section' I suppose. Gravitor 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hoax proponents can't claim they follow the "scientific method", since they have demonstrated over and over again that they don't know how anything works. Wahkeenah 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll : Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR

Reading over this section I don't see how it applies (in the wiki sense) to the hoax as it is sourced and presented. I'm betting that some hoaxster source has similar language, i.e making the comparison. If that is the case let's attribute this argument to them and revise it to suit. If not, and its a topic raised on the talk page, let's delete it as more WP:OR Numskll 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone added most of the items in the first section, about USSR firsts, and the bit about how the USSR was ahead at one point. I added the response, about the US later having a lot of firsts in things that are important as far as going to the Moon. Later I added more "firsts" to both lists, and make wikilinks to the specific mission/rocket/spacecraft. According to Bill Kaysing, one of his arguements was that the US didn't have the technology to do it, and this may relate to that. But I haven't seen a pro-hoax reference for these lists of firsts being directly tied to the "hoax". Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually this does tie it in. Bubba73 (talk), 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yah. Thanks for that. I'll read the source more carefully and make a stab at editing it to reflect what is said. I'm combing through the claims and sources trying to get a handle on what's real and what not (as a first pass). There appears to have been some some broadly interpetive paraphrasing going on to suit the aims of whomever was was writing some of this stuff (Modelers up in arms about the missing LM documentation . . sheesh . . .) as well as some good old fashioned plagarism via lack of attribution. Thanks again for the source. Numskll 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an excellent summary. I'm fairly certain it was a hoaxster that started that section about the Soviets supposedly being so far ahead of the U.S. Perhaps the section could be trimmed a bit in the interest of brevity. It would be interesting to see what the hoaxsters think of trimming it... or maybe even deleting it. The hoaxsters bring up these false interpretations and then yelp about it when the facts go against them... like when a lawyer opens the door in direct examination, and then sits and steams when the opposing lawyer takes advantage of that open door in cross-examination (you can learn a lot by watching Law & Order). The bottom line on this topic is the hoaxsters' erroneous spin, based on old information, that the U.S. was desperate to catch the Russians. Based on more recent information, it is clear that it was the Russians who were the desperate ones... to try to stay ahead (or appear to stay ahead) of the aggressive yet measured, methodical development by the U.S., until reality caught up with the Russians and they threw in the towel. Wahkeenah 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the first list of USSR firsts were put in by a pro-hoax editor. The original list was either the same as the things listed at the Clavius site (above) or pretty close to it. I replied and expanded both lists. Claivius gives Siebel as the source. Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The section first appeared in an edit by Carfiend, July 21, 13:19 EDT, edit comment: "missing data". The next edit gives the original title of that section in the comment. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes it a candidate for the point-counterpoint list, which it's already in, of course, as it's hoaxster Sibel who makes this charge, either misreading or lying about the facts of the case, as support for his "theory" that the U.S. just couldn't have done it, because he doesn't see how they could have. It's one of the backbones (pardon the irony) of the hoaxsters' credo. They decide how things "should have been" (or not been), and any fact that disagrees with their thesis, in their mind reflects on the fact rather than on their thesis (that's a point I would like to see included in the article, but I'm not sure how to do so without it being editorializing). In any case, I expect the list could be made more succinct, but I'm not quite sure how yet. Meanwhile, the hoaxsters seem to have disappeared. Maybe they're at a Kool-Aid retreat. Wahkeenah 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of Soviet firsts could be cut down to the original ones by Siebel. I added a few. Also, the Siebel lists incorrectly claims that when the USSR had two spacecraft in orbit at the same time that they had a rendezvous. Actually they were in separate orbits which passed about 5 kilometers from each other. Neither did anything to rendezvous, although the USSR claim it was one at the time. When Gemini 6 actually did a rendezvous, when they got that distance from Gemini 7, the ground jokingly told them that they had rendezvoused. This can be heard on the Project Gemini DVD. It must have been a fairly big issue at the time because in the press conference afterward, Wally Schirra gives a definition of rendezvous. Bubba73 (talk), 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PS - in fairness, I listed about as many significant "firsts" for each country as I could think of. I added the dates. From the lists, it is pretty clear that the US started to pull ahead in 1965. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That justifies the detailed list, in the sense that it shows a clearer pattern. Kudos to the hoaxsters for opening yet another can of worms. I like the "rendezvous" joke. The guys had a sense of humor. It's kind of like if Raquel Welch drove past me in the left lane, I could say we were out driving together. :b Wahkeenah 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good! I had thought of a similar analogy - if I passed the President on the highway, does that mean that we've met? Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All things considered, I would rather rendezvous with Raquel than with George, even if it's only for fleeting seconds. Technically known as a "brush with greatness". :) Wahkeenah 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If people feel that this stuff shouldn't be in the article, perhapes it would be better to make a new article "Spaceflight firsts, 1957-1969" or something like that, and shorten the part of it in this article and refer to the other article as the main article about it. In fact, I may make that page anyway. Bubba73 (talk), 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. To really bring home the point, you could do a side-by-side of similar accomplishments (which is a much more tedious construct, I realize), which would show how the U.S. started from behind and then surpassed Russia in various ways, thus implicitly undercutting Sibel's ignorance-based theories without having to come right and say it and be accused of editorializing. It could be mentioned briefly in this article and then routed to the new article. However, this might also go back to the "content forking" issue that you've brought up before. Maybe for the point-by-point stuff, though, it makes some sense. With the photographs, for example: there could be a separate page that goes into great depth about the alleged photo issues, with again just a brief point-counterpoint here for those who don't want to wade through the minutia. I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be... but there could be separate articles. It's vaguely like articles about prolific songwriters, where there are spinoff articles about albums and then, for some songs, additional spinoff articles (unless that's something they shouldn't be doing - that's another story). Wahkeenah 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm going to make a new, short article listing the "firsts", completely independent of the "hoax" claims. Then most of the material in that section in this article can be taken out, with a reference to the new article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the new article, and linked to it from this article. I think that the list of USSR firsts should be reduced to the original ones cited by Siebel and that the list of USA firsts should be removed, and the text can state that starrting in 1965 the US achieved many firsts that are essential to a mission to the moon, and refer to the new article List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969. Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the list in chronological order, in tablular format, with the country of each item listed. A cursory examination shows that the US dominated from 1965 on. Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Seems to me that valuable list could be linked from Project Apollo also, or at least some page that focuses on the chronologies of the space programs. Wahkeenah 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it in three categories and I did link to it from two other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. What do you think about separating out some of the other minute details into other articles? Is there an article about how all the photographics were done in Apollo, for example? All the info in this article is a pretty good start on that one. The hoaxsters gripe that the point-counterpoint is redundant because Apollo is already well-covered. But I don't know that the specific areas of Apollo that the hoaxsters grouse about are necessarily well-covered. Wahkeenah 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of an article on how NASA faked the photos, and the most obvious errors in them. How about Evidence of fakery in Apollo photographs? Gravitor 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I support an article dedicated to analyzing the photos. Basically, it would be copying the text we already have, with some notes on what kind of photo manipulation was possible in the 1960s. Algr 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And in the 1990s, when most of the photos were faked. Gravitor 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. Wahkeenah 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More missing tapes and film

On the sixth Mercury flight, Aurora 7, a slow-scan TV (SSTV) was on board, similar to the one used on the Apollo 11 moonwalk, except with a lower scan rate. The TV broadcast was recorded on magnetic tape and 35-mm film. But now both recordings are missing. So it seems that Project Mercury was a fake too. Bubba73 (talk), 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps! Gravitor 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And since they keep postponing the next Shuttle launch, it's growing more and more likely that there never was a Shuttle in the first place. Wahkeenah 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They built a shuttle, but it never landed on the moon. Gravitor 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Prove they built a shuttle. Wahkeenah 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many, non-NASA sources. Photos, films etc of the shuttle. It would require almost everyone to be in conspiracy to deny they built the shuttle. The only people who saw the 'moon landing' were three NASA employees. That's the difference. Gravitor 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are like that. The further you get into them, the more people are required. For example, the Soviet government must have been in on the Apollo deal, otherwise they'd have spilled the beans about it. Oh, I forgot, it was that "secret" grain deal in the early 1970s, which, by the way, was well-covered in the news. But you weren't around then, so you wouldn't have remembered that. Wahkeenah 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you claim that the event happened on another world, and no one could ever verify it! Gravitor 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's try the scientific method - independent evidence for a human landing on the moon

There's been a lot of talk about how the claim that there is no independent evidence for a human moon landing is false, so let's see the evidence. The criteria are: a) It must be evidence that humans landed on the moon. b) It must come from someone other than NASA. Gravitor 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, let's see you present some evidence that contradicts the Apollo chronology. Wahkeenah 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wriggle and squirm! This section is about evidence for the landing! It's quite obvious that you havn't got any! Gravitor 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced yourself that there's no evidence for the landing, so the evidence isn't going to sway you. And, you wiggle and squirm yourself, since you can't disprove any of the Apollo chronology. Wahkeenah 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So help us all out - where is this evidence? Come on. Put it here. Links to any independent evidence of human landing. Gravitor 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Grand total? Zip!

Nada. No evidence presented. Surprise surprise. Gravitor 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is lot's of evidence. I don't need to present anything. The accusers need to present evidence that counters the chronology. They have not, and cannot. Wahkeenah 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He he! Squirm! Wriggle! You HAVE NO EVIDENCE. It's clear. You're busted. If you had it, you'd show it. Gravitor 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly satisfied with the evidence already in existence, and nothing your crowd (or are you just ONE GUY?) has presented has the ring of truth to it. Wahkeenah 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the history of the Apollo program. Then tell me where it's incorrect. While you're at it, instead of just parroting the "NASA is the only source" line, prove NASA is the only source. Wahkeenah 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more. NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED. Admit there is none - you're just embarassing yourself by keeping on avoiding the question. Gravitor 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would bother to read the various posts, which I have no intention of restating, you would see otherwise. It is you that keeps dodging the question, which is that there is no evidence contradicting the Apollo story. There are "questions", all of which have been explained reasonably. Wahkeenah 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So your claim is that neither story has any independent evidence for it? Feeble. If you have proof, offer it. If not, you're just wasting everyone's time. Gravitor 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pathological skepticism again

Gravitor, the reason you can't see any evidence is that you don't understand what evidence is. You clearly have an emotional interest in believing that the landing never happened, [7] but no justice system on earth ever required anyone to prove a case to the opposing party! Like this discussion, such a trial would never end. In this case, the public is the judge.

You're side has had no difficulty stating it's case. You've had web sites, books, this article, and even a show on FOX. The size of the Apollo hoax in popular culture section makes it clear that the general public is well aware that some people doubt the moon landing. Polls show that the public has heard your arguments, and doesn't buy them. The only exception are a few fringe elements who have reasons to hate science, America, rational thought, or whatever. Pulling dishonest tactics like denying the existence of 'verbal assault' or insisting that 'wired' is not a source will only dig you deeper into the hole you have dug for yourself, and make people less likely to listen to you about anything.

I've given the hoaxers plenty of fair chances to convince me of their case, and I have seen nothing but willful ignorance of science, rationalizations, and wild accusations from them, while NASA's version of events is a much better match with my personal experience of how the world works. That's why I believe. Why do your beliefs require grasping at straws about what a 'reference' is? Algr 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more, you dodge the question. "Is there any independent evidence of human landing by NASA?" Your weasley attempts to wriggle out of answering are a pretty sorry spectacle. Admit it, or provide evidence. Gravitor 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to restate what others have already said here. You just choose not to believe what they say. I can't help you with that. Wahkeenah 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are truly busted. Your "I have evidence, but it's above me to show it to you" is feeble. You have nothing, and you know it. You can continue your pathetic diatribe about how you don't need evidence to continue believing all you like - the truth is out. Gravitor 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that I have evidence of anything. I have read what both sides have had to say, and the hoaxsters have nothing. Wahkeenah 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you have no evidence for the landing? That's what I'm asking. Gravitor 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are going round in circles again. Read this: [8]

You're right, it's an endless loop. Wahkeenah 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no independent verification of the moon landing. That is a fact. Whether it was fake or not remains to be seen. NASA in 2009 will crash land into the moon. Apollo is similar to the Piltdown man in the sense that it does not follow any linear trajectory of technohistory.Noodle boy 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a fact, it is just one of the credos that the moon hoaxsters tell each other over and over again. And if you were to actually study the history of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo programs with an open mind, you would see that there is a "linear trajectory of technohistory". Wahkeenah 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - There is plenty of independent evidence: Amateur astronomers around the world could see the Apollo capsule in their telescopes and could NOT see it in earth orbit as the hoaxers claim it was. Moon rocks have been analyzed by thousands of people. They can reflect lasers from mirrors placed on the moon. Nasa has an untarnished reputation for honesty, even when the truth isn't kind, such as the challenger disaster. Compare this to hoaxers who routinely lie about basic science, like how photography or the Van Allen radiation belts work. Compare this to your own recent rant about how an unidentified box must be the rover, even though the rover tracks are visible, and the rover and box are visible together in the previous photo!

There is no evidence, independent or otherwise, of a hoax. You have shown us nothing but Rube Goldberg conspiracy theories for observations that would be inevitable for a real landing. There is not a single observation in the whole article that is not better explained by a real landing.Algr 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to "normal"

The hoaxsters have returned from their vacation at the Kool-Aid retreat, and are doing the usual, changing things without discussion, and then wondering why complaints are logged against them. Wahkeenah 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Complain away. If you're talking about the partisan attack on Carfiend (which seems to have succeeded in driving him/her off, let's see what neutral people had to say about that:

"I just read the talk page, and, to be honest, I think Carfiend has conducted themselves in a manner becoming a wikipeadian... Personally, I don't see anything which he has done which would warrant a rfc." --No Username 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"I appreciate Carfiend`s contribution on the page, think he is making it more NPOV. I think Carfiend is among those with an better behavior on this disputed talk page. It is human to "talk back" when faced with offense and lack of logic from people who disagree. If someone regularly on that talk page should get a rfc, Carfiend is certainly not on my "top 10 list"." Axlalta 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"This RfC has failed to establish meaningful unilateral wrongdoing by Carfiend." Addhoc 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"This RfC is nonsense. It seems to have been started in order to get rid of someone who has a dissenting opinion. The things mentioned above aren't really very big. It's everyday conversation."--Maxl 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That user was resorting to vulgarities and other insults. At least you haven't dropped to that level. Wahkeenah 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the community seems to disagree, and points the finger instead at others on this page. Gravitor 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Three users constitutes "the rest of the community". Well, I wasn't too keen on attacking Canfield, or on ganging up on anyone, although that user from earlier this spring, For Great Justice, had to go because he was becoming a holy terror. Canfield was not as bad, he was just the typical vandal who got tired of his game and moved on. Wahkeenah 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I count four, and they were the people who responded to the kangeroo court which was convened to try to drive off a voice of reason who disagreed with your POV. There was no-one who found any merit in the complaints made. Gravitor 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets take a closer look at those 'neutral people': No Username: [[9]] Axlalta: [[10]] Algr

No one found any merit in this rfc. It was open to everyone. Gravitor 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Four is a lot more than three, in the totality of the community. There were others who commented against Canfield. And don't be blaming me for him leaving. That was his own choice. He suspected he was going to be zapped, not for disagreeing, but for not discussing, so rather than being civil, he split. Either that, or he's still at the Kool-Aid camp. Wahkeenah 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably less than four in the real world. One of them has only ever commented on this page, so could be a sockpuppet. Another is a recently-created user who is in no position to be commenting on whether Canfield's approach is appropriate or not. The others' approach seems to be similar to Canfield's, so it stands to reason they would think his approach is fine. Wahkeenah 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well let's step into 'Wahkeenah World' for a moment, where everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. That still does not account for the fact that no one found any merit in this rfc. Oh, right, that's because everyone except you is a sockpuppet! Gravitor 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What, pray tell, are you looking at? On this page [11] I count at least 7 who supported the RFC. Wahkeenah 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are your sockpuppet-attackdogs, who are regular partisan contributors here, and have shown themselves to be committed to driving off anyone who does not agree with their POV. BTW, I use the term 'sockpuppet' in exactly the same sense that you do. Gravitor 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in a satirical way. Satire is protected by the First Amendment. But you initially said there was no one. Either you missed it the first time around, or there are two different pages on the subject, or some other wikipedia anomoly. I would really like to know the technical reason why you didn't see them. Wikipedia can be tough to navigate around sometimes. Wahkeenah 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)