Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Moon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Radiation on the Moon[edit]

Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B. In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation. Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky. Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous — shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive. "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected." My comment- Of course it is unexpected, we've never been there. Source- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Another article- Astronauts in low Earth orbit receive protection from the Earth's magnetic field, which shields out some of the heavier subatomic particles that stream in from space. It's just as well. These cosmic rays are energetic and dangerous to life. Go beyond this region of space, and this natural protection disappears.

The Moon itself has essentially no magnetic field, and no atmosphere. There's little to stop the barrage of particles and rays that stream in from the Sun and beyond. Some of this material actually changes the lunar surface. It can cause erosion of some rocks, and alter their chemistry. Particles from the solar wind probably contribute to the thin layer of water on some lunar rocks, by stimulating chemical reactions. The Moon's deposits of Helium-3, which could be a future energy source, have been collected from eons of solar emissions. A short mission to the Moon will be survivable for astronauts, mainly because exposure times will be low. Astronauts staying for longer periods will need shielding, to guard against the long-term effects of exposure. The thin walls of spacecraft will not be enough. Bases on the Moon will probably need to be buried, or at least covered with a layer of soil. Studies of the levels of radiation around the Moon were performed by the Indian Chandrayaan-1 orbiter. A radiation monitoring instrument on board the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still active. This research is certainly useful, but it will not answer all our questions. Radiation sensors need to be placed on the surface, and at different regions, to assess the full nature of the Moon's radiation environment. The most critical challenge will come when astronauts face the fury of a large solar flare while on the Moon. Radiation levels can increase enormously, and fatal doses can be absorbed by unprotected astronauts within minutes. source- My comments- I'm glad this article addresses the fact the Van Allen Belts are of little consequence when talking about the radiation the astronauts would have received had they gone to the Moon. Once outside, that's outside the belts, the protection of the Earth's magnetic field is gone. This has been brought up before here, but you de-bunkers need to hold on to that Van Allen red herring. I also bolded the part about the solar flare as it has been documented that NOAA's website had, and may still have, documented solar flares during, that's during, alleged missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the August 1972 flare, that happened between 16 and 17. If not, do you have any of the dates for the flares you claim occurred during the missions? That would help us judge the validity of the claim--for example, was there an actual flare on the date in question? Was it pointed at earth? How big was the flare?Almostfm (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
IP, what specific improvements to the article are you proposing? Neither source you linked discusses any conspiracy theory. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mars landing and space travel hoax claims[edit]

There are 'sufficiently many' websites claiming that the Mars landings were hoaxes - or even that the entire space program is a hoax to justify mention on WP - and this page is probably too long to include reference to/discussion.

The case against the hoax:

  • 'It actually happened' is much simpler.
  • Too many people involved - somone will have an urgent need for money/decide to leak for the fun of it/decides to keep documents so if it all goes wrong 'muggins here' doesn't get the blame/the USSR/PRC/France/other countries would get much milage out of 'doing the Yankies down.'
  • If there were any doubts as to practicality there are much simpler ways of not pursuing the mission - eg 'technical problems not responding to verbal, percussive or feline maintenance' (and nobody else will have sufficient knowledge to gainsay it).
  • If it is revealed as a fake Washington and the area around the spaceport would be standing room only with people wanting their tax back.

Add other reasons to taste. (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. This article is about the Moon landings, so we have no need to respond to claims about Mars landings. Additionally, any statements will be based on reliable, third-party published sources, so it's not like we need to make our own rebuttals. Woodroar (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Search terms 'Mars landing hoax' and 'space travel hoax' brings up 'large numbers' of hits - most of them of the 'I say they can't do it' variety (and can someone analyse the sums on [1]?) - including the Flat Earther [2].

A statement to the effect that 'There are also people who think that the Mars Landings, and also the entire space programs are fake.' would cover most angles.

I know that feline maintenance is unlikely on spaceships (and they would spend their time yowling at 'things not visible to humans) :) (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Why are there so many repeated mentions of the Mythbusters TV programme in the text of this article? Why should this TV programme's debunking be given special prominence, in the article's text, over all of the other sources who have debunked lunar landing conspiracies? The phrase "This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing."" is repeated in the article again and again, and it also seems to me that this repetition is inelegant from a stylistic point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While not perfect, Mythbusters uses something much closer to true scientific method that most of the conspiracy theorists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced statement and POV spin[edit]

User VQuaker has continually reverted my removal of this unsourced statement "Bennett and Percy were also mistaken in their assertion that the landing was "broadcast on live television"; there was in fact no video broadcast during either the landing or takeoff." (He's also impugned my motives by calling it "disruptive editing" in violation of WP policy on benefit of the doubt and civility. Then wrote on my Talk page saying the same thing and about "blocking". He is arguably edit-warring TOO if that's the case, so I wrote on his talk page to the same effect.) The point is that there was no reference for that obvious POV spin. But then he put the ref Steven-Boniecki, Dwight (2010). Live TV From the Moon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books. ISBN 978-1-926592-16-9. which does NOT back up the statement. It's obvious that POV Apollo apologists want that there though it's out of place with no real source. Neither pro-conspiracy nor pro Apollo editors should be inserting things like, that is just SYNTHESIS, with no real reference for the statement.

The statement is not even accurate or logical, given that Bennet and Percy did NOT say that the thing would be “broadcast on live TV”, but that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast on live TV, due to fears of catastrophe and failure.

That source does not back up that last sentence, and the sentence doesn’t even get Percy/Bennet’s point. It’s just pro-Apollo apologist spin and POV. They KNEW it could never be “broadcast live”...either for real or as a hoax. But said that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast live or shown in general. (And in their view for the reason of too high a risk etc...) The distinction is important, and is sloppily overlooked (apparently by POV Apollo apologists)...the statement is sloppy, inaccurate, and unsourced. That webpage does not make the point made in the sentence. It’s just POV spin and synthesis. No warrant in that paragraph. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the reference, while there were people arguing for and against a live television feed during landing, it ultimately couldn't have been done due to technical issues with maintaining a stable connection. The article could be updated to reflect this. You are correct that the reference doesn't refer directly to Percy or Bennet. (Rather, I should say I couldn't find it in the transcript; I didn't watch the entire video.) That being said, it takes two to edit war, and it's best to follow BRD on controversial articles such as this one. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Woodroar: I fear my including the weblink that included a video has caused some confusion. The actual supporting reference is the book, [3]. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I wondered if that was the case. I looked on Google Books earlier but, sadly, it's not available online. I may buy a copy just out of interest, however. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gabby Merger: I impugned your behavior, not your motives. That said, your reference to "Apollo apologists" is somewhat concerning; please note that this is an article about a notable fringe theory. In compliance with that policy, it is going to have the POV of the accepted historical account of the moon landings and not attempt to give equal consideration to the notable (but in no way accepted by the mainstream) conspiracy theories. That said, if consensus is that the last sentence of the paragraph is unnecessary, then the first sentence (...crashing to their deaths on the Moon, broadcast on live television) should be rewritten to clarify that the takeoff and landings were not transmitted live. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gabby Merger: Ok, the attempt at a rewrite was reverted without discussion. I do not think that the version that was reverted to meets the requirements of WP:FRINGE, because it leaves the reader with the impression that the landings were televised. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Or that they even could have been televised. Woodroar (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nvidia lunar light field simulations[edit]

NVidia has used computer simulation to debunk some of the hoax claims about lighting. Eg why was Buzz easily visible when he was in the lander's shadow. Answer: the sun was reflected off Neil's bright white suit. Not sure if it should be in the article itself.  Stepho  talk  05:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be added to the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)