Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Protest

I wish to protest gently about the discussion below above area being CLOSED...(please add my comments to the page below if warranted) there is no proof that any human artifacts on Moon imaged by LRO missions now in year 2011 are actually from NASA Manned Moon missions of 1969-72. Many secret Launches by the USAF and NASA have occurred since 1972. The structured objects on the Moon of Human Origin could have been sent there on soft-Lander probes (Like the Surveyor program) and only appear to be the first stage of the LEM craft. It is ridiculous for only one science agency--NASA-- to be certified as the "spokesman of History" for the entire Human Race about the issue of Moon Landings or were the actual claims of NASA faked ? It cannot be allowed that LRO imaged the truth. The Truth requires something a bit more than just images from a moon probe in orbit 42 years after the events. Thank You.-BlondeIgnoreBlondeignore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

• This is not a discussion forum about Moon landing conspiracy theories.
• This is not the place to construct or debate new conspiracy theories. If there are notable instances of the theory you are proposing then please provide cites to them.
• Your personal opinion of NASA's place in history is not significant.
• The criteria that Wikipedia works to is verifiability, not "The Truth".

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Your personal opinion of NASA's place in history is not significant." Most especially when it disagrees with the opinion of those controlling this article who do not want the official story questioned in a cohesive manner. Remember, what was promised from LRO beforehand (in some cases, by the very people controlling this page), and what LRO delivered were very different things. Apparently, some folks would like people to forget that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.32.29 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While admittedly in itself the images are not uncontestable proof of the Apollo landings, they certainly tend to support the "We actually were there" theory much more than the "There was another conspiracy to deposit artefacts decades after the event" thesis. -- Syzygy (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Syzygy-They are nowhere close to what was promised. Just like how the astronauts were supposed to be able to jump over 10 feet in distance. Or that there weren't any solar flares during the mission. Or that they would have the most wonderful view of stars outside the Earth's atmosphere. Or that the moon rocks would be VERY different from Earth rocks. The funny thing is, most of the hoax evidence comes not from something pulled out of someone's rear, but from contradictions in NASA's own statements, press releases and papers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.28.35 (talk • contribs)

Again, WP:NOTFORUM. Please furnish sources, and make specific requests for changes to the article. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently the moon rocks composition did get that classification "VERY different from Earth rocks" after the impact of the LCROSS and examination of the ejecta. This in solid contrast with the samples previously collected that are similar to Earth rocks that suports the theory of the moon creation resulting from an impact with Earth of a Mars sized body. --79.168.11.181 (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Images controlled and distributed by NASA does not constitute proof of anything and it is laughable to claim that they do. 74.78.179.2 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You just wrote off 90% of the Moon Hoaxer's claims, which are based on 'images controlled and distributed by NASA'. Mark Grant (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark, Seeing as how 90% of the Moon Hoax claims are probably created by NASA themselves as red herrings, I don't see that as a bad thing. Though, I think using images to reveal tampering, is quite different from using images to prove conclusively that the events depicted did occur. Either way, it is silly to uphold images released by NASA as proof for something in favor of NASA. 74.78.179.2 (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To the hoax supporter, why don't you lobby the Russian Space Agency to launch their own Luna Orbiter (they've had that ability for nearly 50 years) with high resolution cameras to provide independent "verification"? Of course you wouldn't see their images as proof of anything either! BTW, is there any independent evidence that Yuri Gagarin ACTUALLY flew in space, much less was the first man to do so? I mean we all know that Khrushchev exaggerated the military capabilities of the USSR, and it's economic growth; that his grand designs for agriculture came to naught - surely proof he'd have "had to hoax the flight"! There isn't even the possibility of evidence like footprints in low earth orbit to provide "proof" of the Gagarin Flight, and he too, died in mysterious circumstances. A plane crash no one can explain even though he was one of the greatest pilots in the USSR! Why not conclude Vostok 1 was hoaxed? I should point out here I have no doubt the USSR was the a) the first in space, b) put the first man in space and c) see no reason to doubt that Yuri Gagarin was that man! I'm simply pointing out that many of the claims made to justify the hoax allegations could equally be applied to that other great feat of the sixties, Russia's conquest of space. Yet this hasn't happened for some reason. If Korolev had lived, and Moscow had had the money and resources available to Washington, a Russian may well have been the first man to land on the moon. The USSR abandoned its Luna programme and decided to concentrate on space station work in LEO - that's why they never landed. Why spend vast sums of money on a largely propagandistic pursuit when your rival has already beaten you to the post? The space station work was cheaper, and it led the USSR to advance the science of long duration manned spaceflight - something vital for long duration missions like a Mars landing! I should also point out that for all its achievements, the Russians have never launched robotic probes beyond Mars. There's been no Russian version of Pioneer, Voyager, or Galileo and Cassini. Does this mean all that data and photographs from those outer solar system missions are faked too? Doubt all you like, but you need to think clearly on what sort of evidence you should take as “proof” and what sort of things you’d also have to see as “hoaxes” by the standards you set for Project Apollo.

As noted above, this article is a discussion of the Hoax claims, and the various rebuttals. It is NOT a Luna Landing Hoax blog site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk • contribs)

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Conspiracy theorist link

There is no citation for this claim and numerous sources that state otherwise. Why is it included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.41.98 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective process for which hoax-claims to display?

I have seen much more compelling evidence, in abundance, that the Moon Landings were a hoax. Not that this statement carries any weight, but it does bring up a real issue, I believe. This is a complicated subject with many facets and many claims. What is the policy for selecting which hoax claims to portray? Is it only the most popular claims? If so, it seems like this article is more of a critique on conspiracy pop-culture than any kind of rational, scientific, cohesive demonstration of how the moon landings could not have been faked. The article even ends with a comment about retro-reflectors as evidence for a manned moon landing, when they could have been deposited by an unmanned probe or lander. So how is it evidence? The article seems like an overall shallow presentation of this debate. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have this "more compelling" evidence, why don't you insert it yourself, together with the links/evidence etc? The lasar reflectors are evidence that NASA at least put SOMETHING on the Moon in the locations of the landing sites. Yes, the USSR put French supplied ones on the Moon as part of their robotic programme, but this is hardly evidence of a hoax. Let's look at other things. Is there any evidence that Piccard and Walsh dived to the bottom of the sea? No one else has ever been to anything like that depth since then, and only one ROV has been down there in the 50 years since. Is there sufficient evidence that Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay reached the Summit of Mount Everest? Is there "proof" that Amundsen actually got to the South Pole? We're told he did, but have you ever been there to see the "evidence" yourself much less prove it isn't planted? Is there any independent evidence to show that Yuri Gagarin actually orbited the earth in 1961? Hoax theories tend to be based either upon the assumption that a manned Moon landing is impossible, or from trying to find "inconsistencies" in things like pictures, or other second hand evidence. Why is that alright, but pointing out "inconsistencies" or fallacies in the supposed "inconsistencies" (like no stars in the photographs) illegitimate? If you have better evidence for believing the landings were faked, then add it to the article, but be prepared for the fact that others may rebut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk • contribs)

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request in the Public Opinion section footnotes

Footnote #14 refers to http://kn.theiet.org/news/jul09/moon-landing-survey.cfm

which is 404.

What appears to be the correct link is found at:

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/12/fake-right.cfm

Loren Pechtel (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the update! Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Requesting that section referencing Bart Sibrel's encounter with Buzz Aldrin be updated to provide more accurate quote for Sibrel.

Current text: Sibrel confronted Aldrin with his theories[35] while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thief". Suggested text: Sibrel confronted Aldrin with his theories[35] while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thwff...{punch}" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.14.233.75 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this change is merited. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. But there is a certain satisfaction to be had in mentioning the punch more than once. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Labels

Another editor has removed two of the Categories (Conspiracy Theory & Pseudoscience) as being redundant. Rather than getting in an edit war, I was looking for some other perspectives on the matter. That being said,I am quite confident that the other editor's statement that these are redundant is objectively false.

"Moon landing conspiracy theories" is a subset of "conspiracy theory". It would be like arguing that we shouldn't include the category "Mammal" for the Dogs page because we already list "Canine". As for pseudoscience, there is no redundancy here. Not all conspiracy theories involve pseudoscience, and not all pseudoscience falls within a conspiracy theory. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're both half-right. Category:Pseudoscience doesn't belong here, since the conspiracy theories themselves are not a form of what has been considered pseudoscience. Category:Conspiracy theories, however, is perfect for this article -- this is an article about several related conspiracy theories, and the category is tailor-made for that. The category system is an important part of Wikipedia's navigation system, and articles in the right place is a part of that. It possibly would be redundant if the category system was merely a descriptive system (much like a well-chosen set of adjectives), but since the categories provide classification, this article belongs there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can buy that.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)