Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Archives

/Archive 1 | /Archive 2 | /Archive 3

Cannot move my discussions

This page is used for general discussion about the moon landings. If you want to move my discussions, then I will delete any discussion that does not pertain to main page. There is no justification for this type of censorship besides hiding honest discourse.Noodle boy 02:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have never taken any of your comments personally, despite any apparent evidence to the contrary. However, I'm still waiting for your expansion on the coincidence of the shuttle Challenger blowing up at 1:13 after launch. Wahkeenah 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(for more discussion on the Challenger coincidence, please see User talk:Noodle boy. This particular discussion has nothing to do with the article itself.--ScienceApologist 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, although we disagree I respect you for actually debating points and not resorting to censorship as ScienceApologist has done. I am not here to cause trouble but to have an honest intellectual debate about the validity of the moon landings. Also the reason why I don't edit the main page is because I know it is a hopeless endeavour, at least on the discussion page I thought I could express my views on this issue. Noodle boy 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Honest intellectual debate is not what the talkpages are for. Please take this to a debate site such as the Universe Today forum. --ScienceApologist 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talkpages are not "used for general discussion" ever. The points are rightly moved to your user talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They are for discussion of the subject included in the main page. Once we can come to a concensus about the allegations we can move the allegation to the main page. This is the point of the talk page. What you are doing is censorship, plain and simple. You deleted hoax allegation links before so your track record is not very good.Noodle boy 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, if you are interested in seeing prose included in the article, propose prose here on the talkpage and we'll all be glad to talk about if and whether we will include it. General discussion and debate is not the purpose of the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will revert it again until you delete everything on that page that does not relate to the main page. You cannot selectively delete my post under this rule. It has to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion.Noodle boy 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, Noodleboy. It's just saved in the archive above. --ScienceApologist 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Noodle boy has made some fine contribution in this discussion page. I see that they now are well hidden for the public. I consider this an injustice. Noodle Boy could of course refrase his contributions as suggested sections for the main article. Then ScienceApologist clearly would not have any formal reason to do censorship.

The main article as it is now has this function: People curious about the hoax accusations may look up the article, and within 30 seconds conclude that the hoax rumor is ridiculous. Just the first sentences, pictures with text, and perhaps read some of the long "rebuttals" which may seem resonable. The landing believers will want the page to stay that way. I do not think hoax proponents ever will se that this page presents the hoax claim in a fair way. I am surely not going to spend much energy on such a hopeless task. The topic is not really that important. But I will do some writing now and then, and support persons like Noodle boy. (Axlalta 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the support. Not only did they move all of my discussions to my user page, they blocked my IP so there is no way for me to edit on my main computer. The reason for this is beause supposedly I tried to avoid the 3-revert by using a "sockpuppet" which is ridiculous. I restarted my computer and edited it without signing in and next thing you know my IP is blocked. They claim that I tried to avoid the 3 revert rule but anybody who checks the history can see that when I was logged in as noodle boy I reverted the deleted discussions around 10 times. Anyways, no worries. I agree with you that the hoax allegation page will never be presented in a fair way. These people clearly have something to hide and moderators such as chairboy are blatantly Pro-Apollo so it's no surprise he blocked my IP. These actions actually make my convictions stronger that the whole thing was a fake. Clearly, as was already evident on the main page, they only include hoax allegations that are clearly easy to debunk. Also any hoax allegation links that make valid points will be deleted under the excuse that it is a "non-notable" link. Whatever that means I do not know, but it is censorship plain and simple. Glad you have enough good sense to at least question what is being told to you, unlike the sheeple that dominate this page.Noodle boy 15:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read this

Please read Help:Talk page to understand the purpose of the talkpage. It is not simply for engaging in endless debating and discussion. They are expressly for improving articles and proposing changes. Minimal amount of sidechatter is fine, but section-after-section is rightly redacted to the user talks. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

per suggestion, archived

Per suggestion, all the remaining talk has been archived. Talk pages are for discussing what to include in the article and related issues. Please see Help:Talk page for more. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding claims/rebuttals section

I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the best place for this kind of tit-for-tat argumentative style. Perhaps we should consider looking into merely reporting on the controversy rather than reporting on actual point-by-point issues in the controversy. Something along the lines of Creation-evolution controversy might be worth looking at as a guide. Thoughts of the editors? --ScienceApologist 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are suggesting taking away all the point-counterpoint stuff and just leave the various links. That might work. For about half a day. Wahkeenah 13:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a better model might be Kennedy assassination theories. For great justice. 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That could work, if you could isolate the various (and contradictory) moon conspiracist "theories". Admittedly, there are not as many as there have been for the JFK assassination. Wahkeenah 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why I like the format of the JFK - both have numerous theories that originate because small things are wrong with the government's story. The flaws are no enough to construct a full story without further investigation, but do prove that the govt version is not adequate. For great justice. 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete my posts...

delete all that don't talk about the main page. You cannot selectively delete my posts by saying they are discussion while simultaneously allowing other non-main page related discussions to remain. Please use some common sense. I know my position is threatening to your world view, but please be a man for once in your life.24.7.34.99 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your posts. Per the suggestions of yourself and another user, I merely archived all previous discussions so we could "start from scratch" as it were. --ScienceApologist 03:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. You moved all my discussions to my personal talk page.Noodle boy 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's where those discussions belong. If you are interested in talking about the article itself, please do so here. --ScienceApologist 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof addition

In my recent addition I point to something that could be taken as a weakness in the structure of this article as a whole. While lots of text is devoted to attacks and defense of the NASA version of events, the alternative theory is not examined on its own terms. I'd like to ask moon hoax proponents to assemble a complete narrative of what they believe happened so that the two versions of events can be placed on an equal standing for comparison. Algr 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on starting the next round of the Edit Jihad on this article. The conspiracists have been arguing that the article is "too pro-NASA", and now you're asking them to "put up or shut up". However, you're likely to trip their trigger with this one, because you have pointed out that there is no single theory of the moon hoax, only the premise that "NASA lied about it". Further, they argue that anything they consider "suspicious", ranging from the amateurish photo mockup in Shepard's 1975 book to the worth-a-look theories about the alleged dangers of the Van Allen belts, is "proof" that NASA lied; meanwhile, any holes shot in their own arguments don't invalidate their original, unshakeable (and unprovable) premise that "NASA lied about it". Good luck, you'll need it. Wahkeenah 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• While your commentary is compelling, they will probably rub it out on the grounds of editorializing or "original research". Wahkeenah 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not original. Phil Plat says the same thing on his radio show, and the recent PBS documentary "Evolution" describes the same tactic from Creationists. If we are talking about ideas, then the tactics of the idea's advocates are of central relevance. The most important question of all is why people choose to believe what they do, and why can two people look at the same data and reach such different conclusions. Details about cameras and shadows are background. Algr 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, just be prepared to cite it when the "cons" challenge it. Wahkeenah 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not a moan hoax believer, but I do not like the new section. It seems like argument rather than neutral presentation. It's not that I disagree with your conclusions. On the contrary, it seems a fairly insightful point. But it is nonetheless presented as an original argument.

I suggest you cite others making this argument and present it as a report of someone else's claims. You mention citations above. Give them explicitly in the article. Phiwum 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole claim and rebuttal section should be revamped. The hoax claims should be presented as they are. This is a documentation of what hoax advocates believe. It is not the place to refute their arguments. There should be a separate page for that. In the beginning of this article it is clearly stated that most scientists and general people believe the moon landings to be real. That is enough to let people know the mainstream take on this issue. This hoax allegation site should be just that. Hoax allegations. Then there could be a link to a hoax debunking page. This is the best and most neutral format.206.148.32.16 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why should hoax advocates present an alternative theory? They are just questioning the anomalies of the Apollo record through seemingly "impossible" photographs or analyzing the technical hurdles involved. If any of their claims are true, then it simply means that we are not being told the whole truth about the Apollo missions. There is no need for Hoax advocatees to come up with an alternative story because only Nasa knows the truth about this issue, whether we went up to the moon or we didn't.206.148.32.16 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new section. It provides a logical underpinning and correctly decribes the major difficulties with the moonbat theories for anyone of any intelligence and/or education. Splitting the article would constitute a content fork, which is against policy. There is every need for hoax advocates to come up with a cohesive and self-consistent alternative story; the fact they cannot is a clue as to why they are derided by most people who actually know anything about the subject. --Guinnog 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The hoax claims should be presented as they are. This is a documentation of what hoax advocates believe. It is not the place to refute their arguments.

No. If we do this, then the article becomes it's own subject. It ceases to be an article about the Moon hoax theory, and becomes the theory itself. It would be the same as looking up Alice in Wonderland and finding nothing but Louis Carroll's original text. That is not what an encyclopedia is. Algr 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why should hoax advocates present an alternative theory? They are just questioning the anomalies of the Apollo record through seemingly "impossible" photographs or analyzing the technical hurdles involved. If any of their claims are true, then it simply means that we are not being told the whole truth about the Apollo missions.

This is the most unbalanced approach possible. There are an infinite number of questions that one could ask about Apollo. It is the same logic as saying that if even one Hoax argument is false then the landings must be true. Balance doesn't mean making both sides of the argument look equally good, it means holding both sides to equal scrutiny. This is why you must present an alternative theory. If you don't, then you have no position and your "evidence", even unanswered, means nothing. Without a coherent alternative explanation, Nit-picking Apollo details proves nothing but that your understanding of them is incomplete.. Algr 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my sources: 1. Phil Plait: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html 2. Scientific method 3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

The last one isn't available on the web, so it is just a description of the program. I'm looking for something on the web that says the same thing. Here's another: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01278.htm Algr 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice, if you will, how the "cons" want you to present the challenges without the responses. That's because the responses undercut their position. They want to plant doubts in people's minds without presenting the explanations that might remove those doubts. Wahkeenah 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way, they want to "recruit" new members to their small club, and that's easier to do if they raise questions without the explanations. Then the article could become like a conspiracist infomercial. Wahkeenah 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! How are you doing? Just re-read the article, and, while I like some of the changes, I am a bit worried about the 'burden of proof' section, which seems like an unsourced pro-NASA polemic to me - can we get some of those opinions sourced? Thanks! For great justice. 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like the "Burden of Proof" section does nothing much except to bait the conspiracists and start a new round of edit wars after a week or so of relative peace and quite... which it has obviously succeeded in doing. Wahkeenah 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we remove it - if there is any real content, let's see if we can fit it elsewhere. For great justice. 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then remove it. Your re-posting of the assertion about NASA "claims" is inherently biased. They have never "claimed" anything. It is the conspiracists who make the claims. Wahkeenah 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll remove it. I'm surprised to hear that you do not think that NASA claims to have gone to the moon. I think they do. For great justice. 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done - I agree that it is POV bait! For great justice. 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the burden-of-proof section, and the slanted additions worded to inappropriately favor the conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! I'm glad you've discovered the talk page! What things do you think are POV, in particular? It's hard to tell from your comment whether you just don't like anything that disagrees with your point of view, or whether you have a legitimate complaint. For great justice. 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts seem to revolve around two points:

The use of the slur 'conspiracy theory', which is only ever used by landing believers.

Whether or not either theory is 'falsifiable'. Clearly both of them are, but only by experiments that have not been carried out. To try to claim high ground by making one sound more scientifically rigorous than the other is nonsense. For great justice. 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

let's all remind each other what this place is all about

taken from WP:NPOV "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." Since a cornerstone of an ongoing political/scientific debate rests on the truthfulness of evolution, is it not fair to take all sides equal until proven otherwise? the so called appollo missions were supposed to have been the basis for using "moon" rocks to determine the age of the universe? how convenient that ordinary people can't see this "moon" rocks to see for themselves in a peer reviewed environment if the universe really has been "evolving" for millions of years as most people who defend the appollo landing would swear by. This article seems to endorse one side over the other, totally against the spirit of NPOV--F.O.E. 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you just trolling or do you believe what you write? --Pjacobi 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple matter of fact: I am probably an ordinary person and I have seen moon rocks displayed in museums several times. The article is a model of how to deal with controversial issues at present. --Guinnog 14:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they were moonrocks?? did you get to carbon date them?? no of course not, that means only people with direct access can confirm or deny the so called age of the moon--F.O.E. 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best, User:F.O.E., if you worried only about the subjects you have actually researched. --ScienceApologist 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that carbon dating would have much use on moon rocks! Plenty of people have had direct access and have confirmed the age of the moon and the authenticity of the moon rocks, which is very interesting and takes scientific knowledge forward. What you believe is of course entirely up to you, but having read a lot on this issue, I choose to believe the thousands of reputable scientists (many from other countries, and many who it is very hard to see taking part in any NASA conspiracy) over a handful of (no offence) ill-informed conspiracy buffs. So do most people in general, and so do 100% of those who have actually taken the trouble to inform themselves of the issues here. --Guinnog 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that someone would think you could do carbon-14 dating from moon rocks is a good indication of why priceless artifacts are not made available to "ordinary people". Wahkeenah 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolution has barely been mentioned on this page, and certainly isn't a cornerstone of anything we are discussing here. An ordinary person doesn't go hunting for any stray mention of his chosen topic so that he can demand respect for an unrelated agenda.

is it not fair to take all sides equal until proven otherwise?

As I said above, WP:NPOV does not mean making every idea sound equally reasonable. It means holding each side up to equal scrutiny and standards of evidence. If you recognize that your position fares badly under this treatment, then perhaps you are close to recognizing something important. Algr 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So true. I wish that it were possible to subject NASA's preposterous claims to independent scientific scrutiny and for their 'evidence' to be verified independently. Alas this is not possible. We are left with the position (pretty much unique in the scientific world) of being asked to believe their claims based only on evidence that they produce, with no third party verification. When they are shown to be guilty of falsifying visual evidence, that troubles me. For great justice. 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Once they go back to the moon, which they will someday, they will find all the junk left by the Apollo missions, and that will settle it... except among the hard-core "cons", who will then claim that the new missions put the stuff there. Meanwhile, user F.O.E. (which I would assume stands for something religious) has been slapped on his talk page several times for pushing his Biblical literalist views on various other pages, so you have to take that into consideration. Wahkeenah 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - the way to settle this is to apply scientific method (repeatable, verifiable experiments like returning to look at the debris). Until NASA applies the scientific method to their claims, they are simply that - claims. For great justice. 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. NASA doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, the conspiracist, and you have not done so. Wahkeenah 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously NASA doesn't have to prove anything. I, also, went to the moon, but don't have to proove it to you. Sound a bit hollow? Of course someone claiming to have been to the moon has to proove it. For great justice. 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me the photos and I'll let you know. And there better not be any C's in the rocks. Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem! I can photoshop some if you like, just like NASA! The point is that we only have NASA's word for it. No scientific analysis of their claims. For great justice. 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

A bit off-topic for an article talk page, but this idea that NASA is the only source of evidence is strange. For instance, according to [1]:

"The Russians have made three unmanned missions to the moon in which they brought back samples. The two countries have shared samples for study."

Are the Russian unmanned missions suspect also? If not, wouldn't the Russians have noticed differences between their moon rocks and NASA's? And wouldn't this be mentioned? (Because these pages are for discussing article contents and not debate, I won't continue this conversation here.) Phiwum 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How are the Russian unmanned missions evidence for a us manned mission? For great justice. 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they demonstrate that man has the technology to soft-land an object on the moon, denial of which is a cornerstone of the conspiracist "theory". Wahkeenah 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense - the theory doubts human, not robot, landings. For great justice. 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Only ONE branch of the theory acknowledges the possibility of robot landings. If the Van Allen belts are all that dangerous, the robots wouldn't have got there either. Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which theorists deny robot landings? I guess the flat earthers might, but apart from them? For great justice. 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bringing up the former USSR of course adds another nail (or twenty) in the coffin of this idiotic conspiracy theory. As they were able to track, via radar, the entire mission, one thinks they'd've noticed, and commented upon, anything that was at variance with the Apollo missions landing on the moon. After all, this battle to land a man on the moon was a competition betwen the two countries, with national pride at stake. To think that they would just clam up if they knew (as they would have) that the mission was bogus is to show a complete misunderstanding of the dynamic between the two nations. (As would including them in an ever-widening conspiracy).

Expected rejoinder: "But that they tracked the spacecraft to the moon doesn't mean humans were on board, so there!". Alas, the Russians also tracked the conversations between mission control and the men on the moon, and could very easily determine whence the source of those radio signals (it's a simple matter of triangulation).

Finally, all of the other nonsensical "evidence", if it were true, would have been noticed and pounced upon by the Russians. Alas, that they did not is a pretty good indication that the "evidence" purporting to "prove" that man did not land on the moon, is bogus. Jim62sch 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course - you have evidence of the Soviet data? It's published somewhere? What's that you say? It's not? It's just wild speculation on your part? Oh, you Astronots - you crack me up! For great justice. 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Science appologist - I'm sorry that, like most NASA proponents, you prefer to communicate through reverting, with, if we are lucky, some barbed comment in the notes, I shall answer your question: It is only landing believers that use the term 'conspiracy theory'. No proponent of any theory ever describes it as a 'conspiracy theory'. It is a derogatory term used solely to disparage a theory that the writer wants to denegrate. Its usage is appropriate as a sourced comment, not under the guise of a neutral, 'factual' statement. For great justice. 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No proponent of any theory ever describes it as a 'conspiracy theory'. --> Do you have any cite for this audacious claim? --ScienceApologist 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How can there possibly be a citation for something that never happened? Please provide a citation that NASA never claimed the moon was made of cheese. Erm? For great justice. 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong described the surface as fine and powdery. That would pretty well exclude the green cheese factor. Wahkeenah 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prove that he never said it was cheese though. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a hoax proponent calling it a "conspiracy". [2] --ScienceApologist 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they describe the NASA conspiracy as a conspiracy, not their theory as a 'conspiracy theory'. You don't here the prosecutors describing their case of conspiracy by Enron as a 'conspiracy theory', do you? For great justice. 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By the definition of conspiracy theory this set of ideas qualifies. A sympathetic show about the ideas was called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" [3]. You're going to have to try harder to show your contention is correct. It's not just the critics who claim this is a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a Fox TV special, not a hoax proponent, so, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fox TV? Oh man, I'm laughing so hard my sides hurt. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The TV special advocated the hoax believers' points. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is another "hoax believer" who calls these ideas a "conspiracy theory": [4]. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the guy starts out "Well, maybe I'm not completely convinced that the moon landings were faked". So, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So any slight amount of skepticism amounts to exclusion? You are making up criteria now and have not offered any evidence to the contrary of hoax believers explicitly claiming that this is not a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of the distraction tactic. He is suddenly going on about being offended by "conspiracy theory" in order to change the subject from the Burden of Proof debate, and his inability to articulate his own position completely. Algr 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof piece is an embarrasment to everyone, but if you want to discuss it, we can. The term conspiracy theory is simply a term of abuse. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, refusal to discuss the point at hand, which is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is simply a slur. For great justice. 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure to discuss hoax accusations

This article is titled "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations". It's primary focus should therefore be a discussion of what hoax advocates claim actually happened, not endless nit-picking of photos, and demands for others to research NASA's version of events. There is no accusation unless you can articulate what NASA actually DID do. Without that, all the questions in the world mean nothing. Algr 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• What it should be, then, is a strict definition and nothing more. Because if you present only the side of the conspiracists, there is a built-in bias. Wahkeenah 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But the article DOESN'T describe the side of the conspiracists in any real detail. It goes in depth into NASA's version of events, but doesn't ask basic questions like "how big would a moon set have to be?" or "What, if anything, actually went to the moon?" Algr 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So what's stopping you from adding those kinds of details? Wahkeenah 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Because I'd have to make them all up, and they'd be silly and sarcastic if they didn't come from someone who believed in it. Algr 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • In that case, I wonder what's stopping the conspiracists from writing them up? I've got some silly and sarcastic answers to my own question, of course. >:) Wahkeenah 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all pretty bogus. The accusation is simply that NASA lied, a full description of how they did it is not necessary to prove a cover-up and prompt an investigation. For great justice. 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lie = Not True. Where is your truth? Everything you have proposed has been thoroughly discredited on these pages. You have ignored the blatant flaws such as Russia, 10,000 conspirators, and Watergate in what little we can see of your proposal. How can you expect an investigation if you can't even articulate what you think NASA did? Algr 20:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You exemplify the problem. It is not for you or I to discredit or decide. We are to write a neutral article. Your POV and mine has no place here. Besides the fact that you are plain wrong, the point is that the article needs to describe the controversy, not decide the outcome. For great justice. 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, couch time. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then DESCRIBE IT! The point of this section is that you refuse to do so! Algr 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you can possibly mean. There is a huge section of the article devoted to the claims. For great justice. 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't assert that someone is a liar unless you have evidence to support that assertion. Otherwise, it's libel and slander. Why hasn't NASA sued, you may ask? Because the conspiracists are not nearly as worrisome to NASA as the conspiracists like to fantasize that they are. If you threaten to use Congress to cut off their funding, then you'll get their attention. Wahkeenah 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Their funding has been cut off to all intents and purposes. It's nothing like it was when they were faking the moon landings. The article is full of evidence of NASA's duplicity. If you're a true believer, I guess you've just decided you're not going to see it. For great justice. 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a big fan of cause and effect, are you? Or of economics, politics, ever-changing requirements and visions, etc.

BTW, If you're a true believer in the consdpiracy theory, I guess you've just decided you're not going to see the facts, but will rather wallow in your own fantasy world. User:Jim62sch 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No cause is attributed. Whkeenah made a comment about NASA paying attention if their funding was cut, I pointed out that it had been. You produce no facts, just insults. For great justice. 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote?

" By getting scientists bogged down in technical details such as why stars aren't visible or how a retrorocket landing might work, they overwhelm the non-technically trained audience into doubts, while distracting from larger issues like how to get tens of thousands of educated people in countries that were (at times) near war with each other to all keep silent for 40 years. Why not hide Watergate or the failures in Vietnam in a similar manner? " Is this a quote? Or is it just editorialising? Who claims there are 10s of thousands of people involved? For great justice. 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 10s of thousands of people who were in the employ of the Apollo program. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not all of them needed to be in on the hoax. The designers of the landing module might have believed it went to the moon. Again - is this a quote? If so, where does it come from? For great justice. 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program. If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us. Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles. We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch. They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

With Cold War tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool the Soviets that we had technological superiority.

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Wow, the idiocy of that quote speaks for itself. I guess the tens of thousands of personal witnesses of various Saturn V launches doesn't count as evidence -- but I suppose the basic physics was never one of the moonbats strong suits. --ScienceApologist 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your lack of logical thought trips you up. How does a Saturn V launch prove human landing on the moon? It doesn't! "But I saw a rocket launch! They must have gone to the moon" erm? No. For great justice. 22:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you take your meds? •Jim62sch• 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual, AstroNots responding to logic with insults. I take it you are saying that seeing a Saturn V launch is proof of human landing on the moon? For great justice. 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Read further up the page. Besides, I was showing concern that your med levels might not be what they need to be. [[User:Jim62sch 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. More insults. No content. I'm seeing a pattern... For great justice. 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rampant POV

"The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers. As is the case with many conspiracy theories, evidence presented in opposition to hoax arguments is generally labeled as unconvincing propaganda made by the "establishment" to cover-up the alleged lie."

Where does this gem come from? Is is sourced? It looks completely untrue to me. The accusations are falsifiable. For great justice. 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the accusations are not falsifiable for the very reasons outlined. There are plenty of lunatics who claim that such fiends as Phil Plait are really NASA-shills covering-up for the lie. --ScienceApologist 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are falsifiable. Go there and look. If there is a lander etc, then the hoax theory is false. What's wrong with you that you have to constantly insist that, rather than a neutral treatment of the subject, this article must only contain your POV? For great justice. 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough because the claim can easily be made that there will be no evidence good enough for the hoax believer to prove there is a lander at the site. That's why it's called pathological skepticism. --ScienceApologist 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea? Is it sourced? No. It's just a personal insult you want to make in the article. For great justice. 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is sourced by the incredible iterative arguments that the hoax-believers went through when lunar-ranging experiments were mentioned on the internet to them. Before it was explicitly mentioned in "debates", the moonbats hadn't known about them. Suddenly, they were forced to scramble to come up with an alternative explanation. Their solution? Lunokhod. That's a perfect example of how they refuse to accept falsification. It's a feature of most conspiracy theories anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, don't be mean. You and I both know America landed a manned spacecraft on the moon. The challenge here is to apply Wikipedia's concept of "fairly describing the dispute" to the hoax accusations - not your own personal standards. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ed. Why don't you find a problem with the page and bring it up on talk for us to discuss? --ScienceApologist 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not how Wikipedia works. With the possible exception of intensely controversial pages, there is no need to discuss *all* edits prior to making them. Only "substantial changes". --Uncle Ed 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your personal attack was really unwarranted, wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What attack? It's not an attack to assert that all Wikipedians are bound to follow NPOV policy, rather than apply their personal standards. I apply this rule to myself, and no one's ever accused me of attacking myself!

Then you need to be careful in the use of your pronouns. --

Anyone whole believes Ed's story might want to see [Intelligent design], a very good (once upon a week ago) article that Ed hosed up. •Jim62sch• 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is SA, you revert anything that isn't your POV without discussion, and refuse to discuss it. It is very anti-social. For great justice. 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This was a good edit. More like this, please! --Uncle Ed 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! For great justice. 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Too funny. •Jim62sch• 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I removed " The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers."

Because it is simply an insult. It's not sourced, and makes the unjustified claim that, because someone thinks that hoax believers are 'pathological', the theory cannot be tested. That's just wrong. For great justice. 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While I don't quite like the wording, I still think it is important to mention the idea of a non-falsifiable theory, because that was what the section you pulled it from was talking about, and it is important to understanding the issue.--DCAnderson 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's calling the hoax proponents crazy. (Which I personally believe, but that's besides the point. ;-) The article can't say pro-hoax advocates are insane. But it *can* quote a verifiable source who makes that assertion. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it can, but to assert that the theory is not falsifiable is simply not true. To say someone thinks it is, and others disagree is one thing, to assert that this nonsense is true is another. For great justice. 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Describe then, how it is falsifiable. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to the moon, and find evidence of the lander. Or observe it with a sufficiently powerful telescope. For great justice. 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But if we go to the moon, they'll claim it's a hoax and if we show them images from a telescope they'll claim they were doctored. It's an obvious no-win situation. --ScienceApologist 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with discussing anything with the astronots is that once you prove them wrong, they just resort to stupid comments and juvenile sarcasm. I know, I'll put a paragraph about that in the article. Oh wait, that's an astronot tactic. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution is obvious. Take them to the moon and to the stuff from the Apollo flights. Then leave them there, and they can spend the rest of their days looking for the "exit door" to the filming location. Wahkeenah 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like that. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is obvious - apply the scientific method. Test the prediction that, if NASA went to the moon, the debris should be there as the photos describe. You're hoisted by your own petard, because, if you follow through on your science rhetoric, you'd have to do an experiment that would prove you wrong. NASA won't do it. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither I nor NASA have to prove anything. The historical record is what it is. You say the historical record is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that the historical record is incorrect. You have not done so. Wahkeenah 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure our friend has never heard the old debating axiom, "he who asserts, must prove." Of course, he'll twist it round to "NASA asserted first". User:Jim62sch 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! AstroNot logic at it's finest! "he who asserts, must prove", "erm, unless it's NASA that asserts it went to the moon, in which case they don't have to prove at all. Yes. That's better, the rule should be 'He who is NASA, doesn't need to prove'. Much easier to defend our point!". You evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable by restoring to abuse, again. For great justice. 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In effect, the historical record is the "proof" for the Apollo flights. They don't have to "re-prove" anything just to satisfy the complaints of a few conspiracists (none of whom are responsible for NASA funding allocations, right?). The ball is in the court of the conspiracists to prove that the historical record is false. Wahkeenah 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not proof, since the 'historical record', is just NASA photos, video and commentry. There is no independent record, since their claims have never been verified independently - a core part of the scientific method. Absolutely agree with you though that the hoax theorists don't control NASA funding, and, given that, why should NASA respond? Well, there's no political reason, the only reason they would respond is if they cared about the truth. Again, you evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable. For great justice. 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "proof", not proof. If it's true that NASA is the only source (which I question), then you still have to prove NASA lied. Their being the only source does not prove they lied. I have never gotten into the "falsifiability" mumbo jumbo, because it's as obvious as the nose on your face that the way to "prove" it to (almost) everyone's satisfaction is to go back to the moon and say, "See, there are the remnants of Apollo" or "Oops, there are no remnants of Apollo". If you really think your hard-earned tax dollars should go for a project like that, knock yourself out. Wahkeenah 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether falsifying it is a good use of tax dollars is separate from the issue of whether the theory is formally falsifiable. For great justice. 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Both are "falsifiable" or "verifiable" depending on which term you want to use. You go there and look, or you develop a telescope strong enough to confirm it. Barring those measures, it comes down to whether you buy into the historical record or the conspiracists' rejection of it. That whole issue is a "no-brainer", which is why I am not interested in editing that section. Wahkeenah 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are not interested, then don't comment on it, but this section of the discussion was about whether or not the claim that the hoax accusations are not falsifiable should go in. Clearly it should not, because the claims are falsifiable. For great justice. 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in it, just not interested enough to write about it, because it seems to have to do with whether either view is falsifiable based on current evidence as opposed to actually going there and answering the question definitively. Both sides have made up their minds about the current evidence, so it's unresolvable. Wahkeenah 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but unresolvable based on current evidence is not the same as 'unfalsifiable', which is a claim that formally cannot be falsified. For great justice. 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This gets back to the ambiguity of the original statement at the top of this section. I don't understand any of it. So I will likely have nothing more to say about it. Wahkeenah 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Public opinion

Cut from intro:

Public opinion polls have shown that a large majority accept the Apollo missions as fact, while a notable percentage have at least some doubts about them.

What polls? The link just goes to the generic article on Public opinion polls. Let's provide a source. The article only mentions ONE poll, and that by a pro-hoax source. That's not meaty enough for the intro. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ed, I'll admit that you're a tireless Bertrand de Born. •Jim62sch• 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are refering to this

[5] For great justice. 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added that line in the intro because I thought it was fair and balanced (like everything Fox does, obviously) and summarized the several (not just one) polls that are listed in some detail later. I think it's fair to include in the introduction, that of the lay public, a large percentage accept the history of the space program, while a notable percentage (as compared with those very few who believe the earth is flat, for example) have at least "some doubts". Wahkeenah 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with SA's edits

• Why did you remove this "Sibrel and others however, claim that, to the contrary, so-called 'debunkers' do not address the genuine problems, and fixate on aspects of the case against NASA that they feel they can answer, while ignoring others."

Because it's totally unsupported by any evidence that Bart Sibrel believes this. It is, however, something that you believe and have stated many times. Are you Bart Sibrel? --ScienceApologist

I'll find a source for it. Good to know that I can just remove anything I like that's not sourced though.... For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• And re-insert this nonsense? "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers."

For great justice. 21:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted above. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Noted above"? What? For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The universe created 30 minutes ago by a cynical god (see Omphalos (theology)) cannot be falsified, but that doesn't need much mentioning in Wikipedia articles, either. --Pjacobi 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that contribute nothing to the debate? For great justice. 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving sufficently dogmatic values of "falsifiable", nothing is technically falsifiable, is the morale of my remark. --Pjacobi 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, SA, please respond to your unexplaned reversions. For great justice. 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. By the way, FGJ, you are in violation of 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I am, it's because you will not discuss your reverts. It is very frustrating to be lectured by you about reverting, when you constantly do it and show no inclination to discuss it. I'm not the only one who has noticed it, and it is completely counterproductive. Please explain your reverting. Saying you did is not enough - you did not. Please point out exactly where. For great justice. 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the history of this page to see where I responded. --ScienceApologist 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for that invitation to trawl through masses of discussion, but I have followed it, and you have not. It should be easy for you to point to where you responded, except, wait! You didn't! I will remove it if you continue to refuse to explain your actions. For great justice. 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[6]. Please stop blustering. You're going to give yourself a nervous breakdown. --ScienceApologist 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blustering? You're too funny! OK, that wasn't so hard - you're starting to get the idea of collaborating, or, at least, explaining yourself. You say: "::::Actually, it is sourced by the incredible iterative arguments that the hoax-believers went through when lunar-ranging experiments were mentioned on the internet to them. Before it was explicitly mentioned in "debates", the moonbats hadn't known about them. Suddenly, they were forced to scramble to come up with an alternative explanation. Their solution? Lunokhod. That's a perfect example of how they refuse to accept falsification. It's a feature of most conspiracy theories anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"

Except that none of that is relevant to the issue of your re-inserting the nonsense about falsifiability. Your vague and random insults are not a credible source. You'll have to do better than calling people 'moonbats'. No one in their right mind would claim that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing. Furthermore, you do not provide any evidence that the behaviours you attribute are anything more than your fevered imagination. The fact that you want to believe that 'moonbats' 'scrambled' to find an explanation for mirrors is entirely fictional. For great justice. 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would claim that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing. --> and I'm the one who is making vague and random insults? --ScienceApologist 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't. Who does? Honestly, find me someone who makes the claim that mirrors on the moon, per se, are proof of human landing. Nice way to avoid the point, by the way. For great justice. 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Phil Plait for one. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you want to believe that 'moonbats' 'scrambled' to find an explanation for mirrors is entirely fictional. -- except that's exactly what occured. When this whole nonsense got a little bit of attention in the late 1990s, this was posted on a usenet message board frequented by a few of the more vocal moonbats. The characterization is exactly as I outlined it. You can read more about it at the clavius website. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Phil Plait does not claim that mirrors on the moon prove human landing. And 'usenet' is your source? Please. For great justice. 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it could easily be said that no one no how advocates that anything "proves" the moon landing. --> but this is more nonsense moonbattery. I find it very funny that most of the battiest loonballs in pseudoscience talk about "proof" as though science has some standard measure of such a thing. Obviously, they rely on their pathological skepticism to get by -- something that's allowed because there is no proof in science since everything is learned by induction. Evidence is only evidence when it supports their ideas, otherwise it cannot be true! --ScienceApologist 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Instead of answering the point (that Phil does not claim that the mirrors prove human landing) you respond with more insults. Just keep on taking the rope, SA. You've got enough to hang youself. For great justice. 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have answered the point. Plait goes into some detail about how the retroreflectors were placed on the moon by Apollo. That's evidence. Your inexact conflation of evidence with proof is the major issue here. A promotion of such ignorance seems to only be rewarded with response, however. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA claims they were placed there by Apollo, but the only evidence presented is that they are there. They could have been placed by a robot mission, just as other reflectors were. Reflects does not prove human landing is the obvious falacy that you seem blissfully unaware of. For great justice. 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. The fact is that you are wrong. Phil does not, as you claim, say that the mirrors prove the landing. Admit you are wrong and move on. For great justice. 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt at a dumb-win, but it's a ridiculous one. Any person can go back and read the context of your statement. That evidence != proof is a side-issue that is nicely illustrated by your tactics. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SA, you do realize that this is essentially the equivalent of talking to a dog, right? What you said reads to FGJ as "bark, ruff-ruff, bark, yelp visit to the vet bark, ruff-ruff, bark-bark". •Jim62sch• 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely should get that translator. --ScienceApologist 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong, but instead of admitting it, you simply pile on more insults. Nice. For great justice. 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point that you are missing is that the presence of the reflectors on the moon proves only that they were put there, not that they were put there during a human landing. I'm not conflating evidence and proof, you are conflating evidence of the existance of the reflectors with evidence of the Apollo landings. For great justice. 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got it! It was the apes around the monolith! •Jim62sch• 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. More stupidity from the AstroNots. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reflectors on the moon don't prove that man set foot on the moon... but they prove that man had the technology to safely send a rocket through the Van Allen belts and to soft-land on the moon, which rubs out a large percentage of the hoax accusers' premise. That's why there needs to be a distinction made that not all hoax believers are in lockstep. They have more than one theory to try to explain the observable facts. Not nearly as many theories as the JFK assassination, but more than one anyway. Wahkeenah 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It means they could have sent a robot through the Van Allen belts. The premise of the radiation problem is that it's too dangerous for people. Please make an effort to familiarise yourself with the basic facts before commenting. You just make yourself look stupid. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from my understanding, the primary "danger" from the Van Allen belts appears to be to machines and communications. Regardless, a cornerstone of the hoaxsters argument is that we did not have the technology to soft-land on the moon. Wahkeenah 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I've seen revolves around the people, Like this one "René offers data suggesting, among other things, that without an impractical shield about two meters thick, the spacemen "would have been cooked by radiation" during the journey." For great justice. 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If so, that's the reason they skirted the Van Allen belts rather than going straight through them. Wahkeenah 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So you say... But seriously, I havn't seen much about claims that no mechanical mission could have been sent. Anyway, I think your point is more that there is no single, cohesive, hoax theory which I agree with, and have tried to integrate in the (I think, fatally flawed) Burden of Proof section. Let me know what you think, For great justice. 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Part of neutral presentation is not giving undue weight to the views of a tiny minority. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I call bogus. "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." You don't have this on the page it should be on, the Apollo page, it's on a separate page devoted to these views. For great justice. 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is for instance covered in the Stormfront clause of WP:V, various precedents establishing the non-sympathetic-point-of-view nature of Wikipedia, the Aetherometry precedent, the Reddi2 ArbCom decision and more, if you really want me to dig it out.

And there is limit on absurdity, where you can quote snippets from policy until the server dies, but it makes no difference, as we are writing an encyclopedia and not fairy tales. Except for those fairy tales that are so funny, that they are kept anyway, like Space opera in Scientology doctrine.

Pjacobi 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your arogance towards other people's opinions, and disregard for policy that contradicts your POV is startling. For great justice. 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you "call Bogus" again, I'll call "incivility." Certainly this page is devoted to the hoax accusations. We should, and do, present them in detail. We should not present them as being equivalent to scientific fact. This is not a rational debate between two comparable parties of reasonable men. We give undue weight, and do our readers a disservice, if we present it otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about naming something what it is. The fact is that the page frequently comments that nearly all scientists reject it. It is not presented as equal to scientific fact. My problem is with those who want the article to come out and say 'this side is right', rather than 'the scientific establishment thinks A, and this group thinks B'. For great justice. 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One side is right. The Earth is not six thousand years old; Carrying a buckeye in your pocket won't relieve arthritis; The world is round; Elvis is dead. It's not neutrality to pretend otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Your idea of neutrality is 'our side is right'. That's what I feared. Please re-read wikipedia's neutrality policy. The fact that you believe you are right, and I beleive I am right, does not mean you get to write the article from your POV. For great justice. 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the scientific establishment. It's the vast majority of people. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pointed out that between 70 and 94% of people beleive NASA. The fact remains that the theory has credence with a small, but significant number of people. Probably about the same number in the US as believe in evolution without divine intervention. We should treat the issue with neutrality regardless of the numbers. For great justice. 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a bit off on your numbers, but hey, it's not like we're talking scientific matters here (or weird takes on them) so numbers don't matter. Anyway, others are trying to discuss it neutrally. •Jim62sch• 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, those are the numbers mentioned in the studies quoted in the article. I find it hard to believe that others are trying to discuss it neutrally when they insist on inserting their own POV as if it were established fact, and pass of crude insults as neutral commentry. For great justice. 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your analogy -- the numbers are significantly different. User:Jim62sch 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the number of people in the US that beleive in non-theistic evolution is not in the range of 6-30%? If you are, I think you are wrong.For great justice. 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is where the new notion of "Intelligent Design" comes in... an attempt by religionists to reconcile their faith with the observable facts of evolution. I think you would have a tough time finding very many scientists who believe in Biblical literalism where the age of the earth is concerned, for example. I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with Apollo, though. Wahkeenah 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about sub-groups. Jim was questioning my numbers for the percentage of people in the US who believe the various things. The point is that the number of people who believe in the moon hoax is certainly within 5-10% of the number who beleive in non-theistic evolution. For great justice. 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

more pov

Can you source this random insult? "Like many conspiracists, hoax believers work from limited knowledge; Their theories are conceived in reaction to newspaper and television accounts rather than from the scientific data." For great justice. 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that there are no moonbats with PhDs. ;) --ScienceApologist 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you source that, or is it original research? For great justice. 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can source it. All you need to do is look at all the linked moonbats on the page. None of them have PhDs! --ScienceApologist 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this random, unsourced insult. For great justice. 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, but it's from 'The Demon-Haunted World', by Carl Sagan. Should we include that as a reference? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to claim that Carl Sagan insulted the hoax proponents, that's fine, just don't present it as uncontested fact. For great justice. 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Carl Sagan is a good reference.--DCAnderson 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think referencing in general is good. A referenced insult is better than an unreferenced one. For great justice. 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not even an insult. "You're an idiot", is an insult. Sagan's point was a matter of fact. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an insult to take the whole group of hoax believers, and comment on their 'lack of knowledge'. It's not a statement of fact, any more than if he had said that 'Jews are stingy'. For great justice. 05:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of fact if my own experience holds true. Every believer in any hoax theory I've ever run across has been woefully ignorant of basic science (especially that science disputed by the conspiracy theorists), math, politics, economics, etc. Were they not, they'd not make such glaring mistakes in developing their "proofs" of a hoax. -- For example, one of the earliest boners in the Apollo hoax theory was, "there are no stars in the background!" Duh, it's daytime! (Besides, given even the modest special effects used on Star Trek, the assumption that NASA would have been too dumb to put stars in the picture, if they were supposed to be there argues against a hoax as one cannot say, "they were too dumb to do a simple thing" and "they were really smart and could pull the wool over everyone's eyes".) User:Jim62sch 09:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, your opinion is the not basis for the article. Please try to understand this. For great justice. 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

junk

• The proposed methodologies that the conspiracy theorists propose for doctoring the photos with "wrong" reticles are often contradictory and generally require absurd lengths to explain the "inconsistencies" when there are prosaic explanations. In particular, prints were often cropped and rotated which cause the illusion of reticles occuring off-center or "not straight".

This nonsense presents unsourced claims that are simply wrong. Please source this claim. For great justice. 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Egg on your face? --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no? Completely ignoring everything you're asked, and instead responding with insults? For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If "completely ignoring everything you're asked" includes responding to "Please source this claim." --ScienceApologist 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you responded, but not with a source, with more insults. For great justice. 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the source that is included on the page doesn't count then. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More junk

Do you think that adding this sort of random insult stengthens your case? " As most of the accusers lack education in basic science and make many of their claims based on popular misconceptions: a fact that has encouraged certain educators to feature debunking assignments as a way to encourage critical thinking regarding bad science.". It just makes you look like unreasonable POV pushers. I'm sure you're not, of course. For great justice. 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything included there is verifiable fact. --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not. Which is why you don't source it, I suppose. For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is one of the instructors who advocates what I stated, and we've already shown the lack of education on the part of most hoax believers. I'm pretty sure you're not exactly cum laude, Mr. justice, though that's beside the point. --ScienceApologist 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more insults, SA, please review WP's civility policy, and try to keep your mind on the point. Whoever the hell Tim Cole is, his scattergun insults "I'm reassured that the forces of ignorance can't totally suppress our basic need to explore and discover — even vicariously." add nothing to the debate. For great justice. 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Fgj is lecturing me on "civility". At least he's progressing. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Felonious's massive and undiscussed revert

Monk - how about discussing before you revert to a version from four days ago? I guess that's not common practice among the pro NASA crowd? You might also want to check out Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy - it still applies to articles you have an axe to grind about. For great justice. 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To be neutral, the Hoax and Truth explanations must be treated equally. You insist that the article scrutinize only NASA's version of events while barely even articulating the alternative that the article is named after. That approach is totally biased in favor of the hoax theory. One is innocent until proven guilty, so the Burden of Proof is central to the subject. Algr 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to apply equally intense scrutiny to arguments made by hoax supporters as to hoax opponents. --Uncle Ed 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracists won't allow it. They want their challenges posted alone, with no responses, thus giving the casual reader the false impression that there is no reasonable explanation for the alleged "anomolies", and thus allowing them to recruit new members into their little cult. Wahkeenah 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two things I object to: (1) Wikipedia:mass revert, which I hope does not get enshrined as policy; (2) One side insisting on their challenges to an idea alone, with no responses ...giving the reader the impression that their POV is the only reasonable one.

Wikipedia articles do not and cannot thrive on censorship. --Uncle Ed 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

These policies may disagree with you:

• WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience
• WP:NPOV#Undue weight
• WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity"--DCAnderson 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Except they don't. They say that one should not represent minority views as fact. They do not give carte blanche to throw out neutrality if you happen to have a different point of view. Read them - their quite clear on that point. For great justice. 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

While we've all been busy combatting FGJ's peculiar statements, has anyone noticed that the article need a significant copy edit for syntax, grammar and semantic accuracy? I'm going to start doing just that -- but I'll give everyone a day (see WP:BOLD) to discuss it. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• You almost had it right the first time, as it's durn near "bust" from this latest Edit Jihad. Anything you can do to improve the article syntactically would be good. Wahkeenah 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mass revert

In accordance with a proposed policy with is about to lose a vfd vote, SA and crew are continually reverting the moon hoax article to their preferred versions.

I reverted it back to Revision as of 23:36, 2 June 2006 (Reyk) in attempt to stop this war. This will be me only reversion of the weekend.

Think about what this means: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Uncle Ed 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Back on the lecture circuit, are you, Ed Poor? --ScienceApologist 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Have I picked up a stalker? If you would only address points instead of flouting wikipedia:avoid personal remarks this project would be better off. Give it a go, would you please? --Uncle Ed 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, Ed. --ScienceApologist 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if my revert of Ed's revert blanked the burden of proof section, I apologize -- it was not intentional. •Jim62sch• 09:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to your unexplained mass revert to a version from days ago. I am asking you as a reasonable person to respect my restoring it, since it flies in the face of wikipedia policy and practice. If you disagree, please discuss it here rather than edit warring. For great justice. 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This would probably go better if you would make a few incremental changes and then let them sit for a few days, rather than trying to immediately rewrite the article the way you think it should be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I really didn't. The changes I made the last few days has been largely removing unsourced POV editorialism. Anything sourced, I have left in. For great justice. 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about radio triangulation

I understand that radio in 1969 was omnidirectional, or near enough to those alive to listen; the Apollo spacecraft sent messages to the entire planet, not just America. I am also aware that with simple triangulation, one could pinpoint the source of the images and audio being broadcast with only three receiving stations placed suitably far enough apart. Russia had the technology and motives, of course. And scientists can prove to be a suspicious and jealous lot; even Americans or Europeans may have been motivated enough to check. Are there records of any triangulation being done at the time?--Ryan! 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Directional radio dishes were in use in 1969, but it wasn't always possible for the Apollo astronauts to use them - I recall reading about how they had to get out of the LEM, unfold the dish, and point it at earth before they could transmit video. I could be wrong, but I think that even the directional dishes on the moon would still cover the whole earth - a 10° signal spread concentrates far more power then 360°. I also recall something about spies in WWII having to be very careful about transmitting with radio for fear of being found by triangulation. Look it all up, I think you are on the right track. Algr 09:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - finally, bringing some science to bear on the question! Let's find some evidence that NASA's 'moon transmissions' came from the moon, not low earth orbit. With all those people watching, surely someone triangulated? For great justice. 16:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take much thought to suspect that the conspiracists notion of the moon broadcasts coming from orbitting satellites does not hold water. But I would like to see what an expert has to say about it. Wahkeenah 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You can show that they were not coming from LEO by useing a single tracker. Something in LEO would probably travel from horizen to horizen in about 45 min. This was not the case for the apollo signal.Geni 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. It seems like you would have to put up a satellite that would be positioned in such a way that it would appear the signal was coming from the moon. As I recall from high school physics, the only way to actually do that would be to have the satellite at the same distance from earth that the moon is, or from the Apollo flight path. Assuming it could be confirmed that the signals were definitely coming from the Apollo flight path, the cons' next ready-made answer would be that the Apollo vehicles were just unmanned satellites, beaming earth-based signals back to earth on their way to soft-landing laser-reflective mirrors to fool us earthlings further. It gets more and more preposterous. It's like the kinds of wild theories you have to come up with in order to postulate backwards time travel. Wahkeenah 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice speculation, but it depends entirely on what orbit the satelite was in. There appears to be no triangulation data available. What a surprise. For great justice. 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What orbit do you suppose the satellite would have to be in? Wahkeenah 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but there is some work somewhere about this - the satelite used is discussed by someone... I'll find it. For great justice. 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. [7]

Here's one. For great justice. 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What was its orbital period? How does he know it didn't crash? For that matter, how do I know he isn't making up the entire story? Wahkeenah 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Orbial period was ~92 minutes. The soviets would have noticed if it was still in orbit.Geni 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any edvidence for that piece of original research? For great justice. 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You want evidence proving the existence of the USSR? Or that there was a cold war? Algr 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I want evidence that the USSR tracked the apollo mission and it's communication - that claim was made a moment ago. How do you know? For great justice. 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The KIK system tracked every Earth-based launch from 1956 on. --ScienceApologist 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you keep saying. I presume you have evidence, or is it just more baseless fantasy? For great justice. 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel's comments on this are: Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Sibrel is just wrong about lunar tracking capabilities of the Soviets which were available well before 1972. [8] ScienceApologist 22:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny supposition about the Russians fearing to speak "the truth" about Apollo because we would go to war with them over it. Keep in mind this is a country that put missiles in Cuba and whose leader Kruschev told us "We will bury you." Wahkeenah 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the Soviets tracked Apollo? For great justice. 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Zond 5 mission orbited the moon before we did. And their unmanned landers Luna 16 and Luna 17 worked well. [9] How could they do this without tracking ability? Maybe they were all watching football that day and didn't notice the moon landing happening, but to succeed, any Nasa fakery plan would have had to have dealt with the fact that the USSR COULD intercept all transmissions.

BTW, FGJ, you are always asking for evidence and refrences, when was the last time you provided any? Algr 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice piece of speculation. Where is your evidence that the Soviets tracked Apollo? You. Don't. Have. Any. For great justice. 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Clinton's flippant comments are certainly strong evidence that Apollo was a humbug. As we all know, Clinton is an unimpeachable source. Wahkeenah 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny! For great justice. 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wired

"Another says that the entire cold war was fake, to justify massive spending on fake defense, as well as a fake moon landing.[10] Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit? An overview of the evidence is provided below."

OK, there is nothing in principle wrong with this, if it is sourced. An article in Wired though? It might be ok, if it actually said this, but it doesn't. The page referenced does not mention the cold war. Why not find a primary source for this, rather than a pop magazine? Plus, where are the rhetorical questions from? Are they part of the Wired quote, or your own research questions? For great justice. 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everything that occurred before my lifespan was a hoax. World War II? Never happened. D-Day was filmed on a (soggy) soundstage. Wahkeenah 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the subject. Don't answer the question. AstroNots, I don't know.... For great justice. 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I never flew to the moon, and neither did you (did you?) so that makes the both of us AstroNots. But I think I have a pretty good sense of what rings true and what doesn't. The explanations of how the Apollo missions were done made sense, and the various accusations since then (safely realized after the hoaxsters were sure we weren't going back) don't stand up to reason. Wahkeenah 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA the only source?

There are frequent comments by the hoaxsters that NASA is the only source of the information. There are at least two problems with this frequent assertion: (1) It is circular logic, in that it is using their assumption that NASA lied to prove that NASA lied; and (2) It is very likely not true, as other countries independently tracked the flights. Wahkeenah 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While there might 'very likely' be other independent tracking of the NASA data, it is typical AstroNot logic to use their assumption that there is to prove their point. It's circular logic. "Since NASA is right, someone else must have verified it, so NASA is right". Erm? No. Let's see this evidence, if it exists - third party replication and verification is the scientific method, after all. For great justice. 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I say "very likely" because I have seen references to it here and there, but I have not personally studied the question closely. Not that it matters. The conspiracists have already answered that by saying that such tracking "could have been" tricked by earth-orbiting satellite transmissions. In the hoaxsters world, "could have" equates to "definitely" when it comes to their position. Meanwhile, I keep waiting for the hoaxsters to come up with something that will make me question the Apollo program's sequence of events. I ain't seen it so far. Wahkeenah 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen it said that triangulation could be fooled, nor have I seen any triangulation data. I've never seen any third party verification, and would be interested to see any that you have. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about it beyond what I've already said. I'm waiting for an expert to post that kind of info. Wahkeenah 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting facet to conspiracy theories that I'm not sure has been fully explored. It could be called the Da Vinci Code syndrome. It has been applied to many different situations, from Biblical scholars trying to find hidden meanings in the scriptures based on lining the text up a certain way; to micro-inspection of the available JFK assassination video and photos to try to definitively prove (in vain, so far) that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza; to Area 51, the "top secret" government testing site that everyone knows about. With Apollo, they started with the premise that NASA lied. They couldn't find any direct evidence of this assertion, however; no one in a position to know has "confessed". So, instead, they put on their Sherlock Holmes caps and looked for "clues". When they found enough of them to satisfy themselves, they proclaimed they had found "evidence" that NASA lied... even though most of their so-called "clues" have been shown to be either ignorant or willful misinterpretations of what they were seeing (such as the "waving flag" nonsense). Maybe the "Apollo Code syndrome" would actually be the better term. Wahkeenah 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think even the CIA believes the 'one shooter' theory any more, but apart from re-stating your point of view, and indulging in some pseudo-psychology, what is the point of this diatribe? For great justice. 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That the Apollo hoax theory fits the pattern of other conspiracy theories, a term which you don't like, but it fits like a glove. And while it is possible that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, there is no definitive proof of it. One of the cornerstones of the JFK consipiracists was that Oswald was not a good enough marksman to have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds. First, he was a good marksman. And second, the six seconds start with the first shot, so technically he only had to fire two shots in six seconds. Etc. Etc. The JFK story is pretty much off the conspiracist radar anymore, because too much time has passed and nothing new has emerged, and JFK remains dead (although one theory postulated that he had survived and was in a vegetative state; once the autopsy photos were made public, it pretty well put that one to rest). However, the Apollo story remains alive. It will die (except in the minds of a handful of hard-core doubters) when and if we return to the moon, which will require funding, and also a practical reason to go... other than to "prove" that the Apollo program happened, which would be a collosal waste of our tax dollars. Wahkeenah 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue will, indeed be settled when science is applied to the problem - by observing it. As for JFK, you are in a very small minority of true believers if you believe the full govt account. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo question won't be settled to everyone's satisfaction, no matter what is done. And I do not necessarily believe the "full government account" of the JFK story. It is possible that Oswald acted alone, and it is also possible that he had co-conspirators and that, as with Tim McVeigh (as some have postulated), he kept silent and protected them. I am about 99% certain that Oswald was involved. I don't buy into the "vast government conspiracy" stuff that Oliver Stone came up with. There is no question that the government wanted to downplay any hint of conspiracy that might suggest the Soviets were behind it, as it would likely have triggered WWIII if it were true. But the conspiracists can't accept that one lone nut could do this to us, denying the fact that all it took was a rifle and the will to do it. As the years have gone by, we have seen that JFK had many enemies. The group with the greatest motivation, other than supporters of Fidel Castro, would seem to be the Mafia, as they felt betrayed by JFK. I have sometimes wondered if Oswald and some other independent assassin were coincidentally shooting him at the same time. Not likely, but possible. Unless any new evidence comes forward, I don't think we'll ever know the truth of the JFK situation for sure. That raises the question of the "falsifiability" of the many JFK assassination theories. That could require a book or two. Wahkeenah 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC there are still some govt archives that are sealed on the JFK issue, but I agree that, without new evidence, it's unlikely that there will be resolution. There is a difference between a case like the JFK assasination, where the evidence has been largely destroyed, and the Apollo landings, where, if they happened, the evidence should be in good condition, on the moon. We can't revisist the JFK moment, we can (if we want to) revisit the scene of the crime with Apollo. That's what makes the moon landing accusation falsifiable, and JFK not. For great justice. 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right, and that's why I have to hedge on the JFK thing. Maybe once all the participants are long dead (along with us) the full truth will come out. There were a number of folks who also thought the Lincoln conspiracy was an "inside job", but after 141 years I think the chances of determining that are fairly slim. However, as with JFK, I wouldn't say with absolute certainty that it's "not falsiable", just "probably not falsifiable, or verifiable". Obviously, the final answer to the Apollo question is to go there again and either find or not find the Apollo remnants. Back to JFK, don't forget that the Kennedys themselves bear a good share of the responsibility for all this, as they went to some lengths to keep "sensitive" info out of the public eye... such as JFK's extramarital situations... and their reticence helped to fuel the conspiracists' flames. Maybe we need to invent that time machine and go back and revisit any number of historical events and find out what really happened. If only we had the funding. Wahkeenah 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get working on the time machine! For great justice. 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you on that. Wahkeenah 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Moon base

Guinnog, I'm glad the spirit of collaboration is alive and well - perhaps you could explain why you immediately reverted my addition of the 'Nazi Moon base' link to the See also section. It seems to me that it is a theory about conspiracy related to moon landings. What's the problem? For great justice. 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever deleted this, maybe you should put it back. It provides a little perspective to the Apollo hoax story, as it is off the chart for silliness. One item I liked was that the Nazis supposedly met several alien races, and it was just begging for the postscript, "...and the Aryans were superior to every one of them." Wahkeenah 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's off the chart for silliness, but it is related, vaguely - perhaps, if you agree, you could put it back in, since I'm done with being seen as a revert-warrior... Thanks! For great justice. 16:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's more than vaguely related, as it contains a backreference to this page. I'll give it a few days, for the current tempest to subside (maybe). Wahkeenah 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry , FGJ, I just didn't think it fitted in. I don't feel that strongly about it though.

On a similar note to Wahkeenah's above, I'd like the revert war to be over as I'd like to copyedit the article. It's currently riddled with typos and small errors of style, but obviously there is no point until things have settled down. --Guinnog 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - what are the main issues with the current version though? I see a lot of reverting, but no discussion of why. For great justice. 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to be taken seriously, or just trolling?

"The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a collection of urban legends suggesting that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked by NASA." - I reverted this. Please don't do it again. For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits have skewed this page so far in the direction of credulous acceptence of the hoax claims that it's necessary to provide a balanced presentation. Are you seriously suggesting that the hoax claims are not urban legends? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They are not urban legends by any definition of the term. Please look it up - it does not mean what you think it means. For great justice. 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconceivable! Wahkeenah 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Never get involved in a land war in Asia! For great justice. 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great would dissagree.Geni 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He might have also been the originator of the phrase, "Live fast, die young (32) and leave a good looking corpus." Wahkeenah 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Biographies

I did some work on expanding the biographies section - please don't revert it without comment - I'd like to add brief one sentence bios of the main NASA proponents too. What do you think? For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend?

The moon hoax stories are not really urban legends. Urban legends are more like the stories about alligators in the sewers and tarantulas in the cactus plants. The moon hoax stories are conspiracy theories, i.e. the idea that there is a vast conspiracy (usually by the government) to hide the "real truth" about conventional history. Urban legends are usually about something innocuous, although they can cause harm, such as the claim that Procter & Gamble's moon-and-stars logo was a satanic symbol, which was very hard to shake, even when very conservative Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell went to bat for the company. Conspiracy theories are like a parallel universe to generally accepted history. They are often hard to totally disparage, but they are also fad-like, so they tend to stick around for awhile until the next one comes along, or until proven or disproven definitively. Another good example of a conspiracy theory is the notion held by some (mostly leftists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks. This is of particular interest because it's similar to the notion held by some (mostly rightists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack on 12/7/41. In both cases, the allegations were raised by people who objected to our having gone to war over it. It now occurs to me that this section really belongs on the conspiracy theory page. Whatever. :) Wahkeenah 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voice of sanity. ;) For great justice. 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

May I quote you on that? :) Wahkeenah 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While they are certainly conspiracy theories, there is some overlap: They're narratives with many elements of folklore; they're usually thought to be true by those who repeat them; The points about the malign intent of the supposed perpetrators are sensationalized, as is characteristic of urban legends. I think 'collection of urban legends' succinctly summarizes the nature of the hoax stories. I suppose reasonable men might disagree, but the phrase would have to be up long enough for someone to see it and disagree with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is overlap, but they are not the same thing. One characteristic of urban legends is that there is virtually no evidence. Has anyone ever actually seen an alligator in a sewer? No, but those who talk about it know someone who knows someone who has seen them. By contrast, conspiracy theorists take bits and pieces of actual evidence, like a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing, and construct their own "picture" from it. Also, conspiracy theories are usually connected with politics in some way or another. Liberals like to talk about how there is a vast right wing conspiracy, and conservatives talk about how there is a vast left wing conspiracy. It's not a coincidence that the conspiracy theories really heated up during the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Of course, that's my own conspiracy theory. :) Wahkeenah 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Maybe 'urban legend' is more confusing than informative. Ultimately, I think I wasted an afternoon on this; I don't think there were any substantive improvements after [11]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to know how much time I've wasted on this article. Maybe if the Chicago Cubs were playing better I could focus on them and leave this article be for awhile. Wahkeenah 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About "Nearly all"

I don't want to edit more again, but please tell me what evidence about "Nearly all" people believe this plan.

Maybe my English is poor, but I think you can know what I mean.--219.78.196.244 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the article itself about polls which answer this question. --ScienceApologist 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has inquired "Nearly all" the world people?--219.78.196.244 08:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No one answer my question, what polls? If the polls inquired "nearly all" US people,then the polls can behalf of all world people? "Nearly all" that word is exclude other suspicion authenticity of Apollo Moon Landing's people.--219.78.196.244 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Err..Can't tell actually what you are talking about. Sorry! michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the accusations as baseless.

I doubt that even a sizeable fraction of these have even bothered to mention the hoax accusations. Don't they mainly just ignore it, like most biologists ignore Creationists who criticize Evolution?

If there is a rejection of the accusations, however, we should say something like:

• Joe Blow, an astronomer at Universty A, says that he can see the Lunar Module at Mare Tranquilitatis through his telescope.

Or:

• A survey of space scientists and technicians conducted by Reuters (or Gallup or Roper or Pew?) indicated that X% agreed that the accusations were baseless.

Let's apply NPOV and WP:CITE here, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, again you didn't read the sentence you removed. "Nearly all interested..." is what it says. We support this statement later on in the article by quoting the interested scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts. --ScienceApologist 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nearly all" US's scientists, technicians believe? Or "Nearly all" all world scientists, technicians believe?--219.78.196.244 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example as to why this would make a difference? (i.e. is there a schism among U.S. and other scientists regarding this subject?)--DCAnderson 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there's no evidence presented about opinion outside the US - that's par for the course for the AstroNots though. Evidence isn't required for their claims. For great justice. 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to find some polls external to the U.S. - along was you also cite polls indicating what those respondents thing of the U.S. in general, as their responses could be based on anti-American attitudes. Wahkeenah 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we wanted to comment on opinion outside the US, we would. I'm not sure that polling has been done. Better to state the facts, that no polling data is known, and so opinion is not known. If data turns up later, we can add it. AstroNot speculation on world opinion isn't useful. For great justice. 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me an earlier incarnation of this page said that a Japanese poll indicated about half the people there had doubts about Apollo. Of course, it would not surprise me if half the Japanese people also think the U.S.A. started World War II. Wahkeenah 00:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, can we produce a source for the Japanese poll, or this another article of faith? For great justice. 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be buried somewhere in the countless reverts of the article and/or in the archived talk pages. Go ahead and look for it. Don't let me stop you. Wahkeenah 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found an anonymous posting from May 17th in the talk page (Archive 3) that reads "In Japan, it is estimated that the majority of people there believe the moon landings were faked. Hence probably why they want to send LUNAR-A up there." Spot-checking among the many changes made in the article that day, I don't know see a reference in the article itself, so I don't know what the anon's source is, if any. And at this point (see my most recent comments before this) I lack the interest to pursue this or any of the other point-counterpoint stuff further at this time. Wahkeenah 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The last few edits by User:For great justice.

Appear to be trolling. Especially considering this curious statement he made to User:Ed Poor [12]. I find it hard to take a user who makes bald accusations in such an arrogant manner seriously. It's hard for me to see this kind of behavior as anything but disruptive. --ScienceApologist 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attack. I guess when your intellectual arguments are exhausted, that's about all that's left. For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually wanted to discuss "intellectual arguments" you wouldn't resort to so many violations of Wikipedia policy. I think you are gaming the system. Any gesture towards good faith at this point would be appreciated. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Random insults are all very well, but I'm at a loss to know what you mean. For great justice. 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your continued aggressive behavior does not seem tempered with any desire to really dialogue about any of these subjects. Rather you have made the curious declaration that no one discusses anything with you. That doesn't feel like good faith to me. --ScienceApologist 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you certainly don't. It's a fact. Look at the history. When asked a question, you reply with insults and avoid answering. For great justice. 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making generalized statements like this? They are rather bizarre considering the lengths you bend over backwards to accomodate your own idealization of "balance". You feel that the ends-justifies-the-means or what? Are you honestly saying that I have avoided answering every single question you've ever made? --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have avoided answering most, for example, this kind of thing, which is pretty typical.

"Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For great justice. 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that I had no answer to this particular point (mostly because that was not prose I had a vested interest in)? Again, you're having a problem in assuming good faith. I changed the entire section, after all. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you have no object to my removing it? For great justice. 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you see this in the article? --ScienceApologist 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It was there about half an hour ago, it seems like events have overtaken the discussion. For great justice. 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof, again

I see that this section has been edited to remove anything except pro NASA editorialising. It is unsourced, POV rhetoric. Rather than simply remove it, I wonder whether anyone can justify keeping it in its current form? For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can suggest what about it is "pro NASA editorialising" rather than making blanket statements? --ScienceApologist 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard not to be blanket, since it's uniformly bad, but, let's take this bit. "Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there you go - a thoughtful response indeed. That puts all my fears to rest. For great justice. 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicability

Your addition to the sentence contextualizing the hypotheses was poor writing. Anyway, the sentence was not offering a way to determine whether any hypothesis was correct but rather was simply offering a way to distinguish the ideas. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

SA - you reverted this, saying the writing was poor, perhaps, rather than the reflex revert reaction, you could specify what is poor about it? Or is it that you fear the scientific method? For great justice. 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Application of the scientific method to this scenario would require that indepentently duplicable evidence for a claim of a moon landing be produced, allowing each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:" For great justice. 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What's poor about it is that application of the scientific method to the scenario established competing hypotheses, it doesn't "require" the criteria you inserted. This criteria might be something that hoax proponents yearn for, I don't know, but the sentence is establishing the two possible hypotheses, it's not trying to describe what amount and kind of evidence is required for a "claim of a moon landing [to] be produced". What's more that sentence doesn't even make any sense. A "claim of a moon landing" can be "produced" whenever and however one likes. It's really one of the poorer edits I've seen. --ScienceApologist 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Application of the scientific method would involve replicable experiments by third parties that provide proof of the NASA claim. This sort of experiment would allow each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:

This statement is terrible. Application of the scientific method does not require "replicable experiments" by "third parties". There is no such thing as "proof" in science and the "NASA claim" hasn't been described yet! So this is again another example of an extremely poor edit. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community." From the scientific method article. Of course. NASA's claims cannot stand up to that sort of scrutiny, so they will not subject themselves to the same standard as every other scientific claim. Cowards. For great justice. 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why should they? The Apollo flights are a matter of historical record, and the conspiracists have yet to produce anything to the contrary. Wahkeenah 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'historical record' is entirely NASA's. There is no independent verification. For why this is important, see below. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• What many pathological skeptics fails to realize is that the standard of evidence is provided by the scientific community that confirms the points, not the fringe maniacs who cry foul. What's more, the sentence in question is not describing any "experimental or theoretical results": it's describing the set-up of competing hypotheses: something which does not require "reproduction by others". Insisting otherwise is putting one's behind before one's face. --ScienceApologist 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Stem Cell Fraud Worries U.S. Scientists and Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_the_result

For the kind of thing that happens when the scientific method is ignored. These frauds were detected when attempts were made to replicate them. If there is no oversight, even scientists tend to perpetrate fraud. NASA has, uniquely, no effective oversight. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for your assertion that no one was "watching" NASA? Wahkeenah 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been produced that they were. I don't invent things for which there is no evidence, unlike the Astronots. For great justice. 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that no such evidence has been produced? Wahkeenah 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence for any. I do not 'know' that there is none, just as I do not 'know' that you don't have three arms. I assume there is none until I see evidence that there is some. When 30 years have passed without anyone publically producing any, that assumption is looking pretty reliable. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence the moon flights occurred, and none that they did not occur. Meanwhile, who told you about my three arms? Wahkeenah 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is plenty, why can't you produce ANY that doesn't come from NASA? For great justice. 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I have not studied the question of other nations' evidence in depth. Besides, you are presupposing that NASA lied, but you can't come up with any evidence of that assertion. Wahkeenah 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. No one has produced any. You would think that the Bad Astronomy site, with all the people scrambling to try to find explanations for the accusations, would be able to come up with something, but zip. Nada. There is no evidence except for NASA's own. That rigns big alarm bells for those committed to the scientific method. For great justice. 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the only evidence is NASA's, nor that they lied. And the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing all that loudly. The space program, of which the moonflights were a part of its evolution, has gone on its merry way. Wahkeenah 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect your deeply held beliefs about the existance of this evidence. But it's not science. Let's make sure we separate the two. For great justice. 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way to "prove" it is to go back to the moon. Send your contributions to NASA today and tell them to get on it right away. The future of science hangs in the balance. Wahkeenah 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't they just say NASA faked it again, this time with updated special effects? The only way to convince everyone would be for all of us to go to the moon together. Even then someone would deny that he was actually there, and challange anyone to prove that he wasn't just a brain in a vat. We went to the moon before, and some people say they don't believe it. If we go again, what difference will that make? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There we are, back on comfortable AstroNot ground - ad hominem attacks. Disguise your lack of independent evidence by claiming that your opponents are too pig headed to accept any. Nice. For great justice. 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, really. Why would it be any more convincing next time? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Apparently there is independent evidence. Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fgj: what constitutes "independent evidence"? Do the statements of scientists who don't have NASA grants count? Do the statements of Soviet scientists count? When they interview ex-Soviet generals and they comment about the Apollo-Soyuz detente work and they talk about the Apollo missions as though they actually happened, is that independent evidence? --ScienceApologist 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term 'pathological skepticism'

This pseudo-medical term has no accepted usage outside insulting people. It should go. For great justice. 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a well-used term in skeptical communities. --ScienceApologist 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a well used term of abuse on web forums devoted to disparaging critical thinkers. Can you demonstrate it's use in a respectable context? Actually, why don't you follow wikipedia policy, and source the claim? For great justice. 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no claim to make. The statement is neutral in terms of the description of the subject. --ScienceApologist 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal without explanation

SA - why did you remove this? "Bart Sibrel responds to this by pointing out a common tactic of NASA proponents, to take a claim that hoax proponents do not make (for example that there are tens of thousands of conspirators), and then 'debunk' it." For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel did not respond to this like that. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He did. For great justice. 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to you providing evidence of this cause-and-effect relationship with a direct quote. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are the two section of his FAQ that I was thinking of. It is, I suppose, subtly different in semantics - I presume you are ok with me adding it back in slightly re-worded, since it does clearly relate to the point made about the thousands of people? For great justice. 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination."

"Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?) A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. ..."

These are both quotes I've seen before, but they are not in response to the points the statement was addressing in the article. I don't see Bart addressing this idea as such at all. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mean they don't occur in the same interview transcript, then you're right. But of course it addresses the issue of the 10,s of thousands claim. For great justice. 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it only addresses the claim that 10s of thousands of NASA workers should verify Apollo. It doesn't address independent observers. --ScienceApologist 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory - trying again, in the hope of getting an explanation, rather than insults

No one could explain why the term conspiracy theory should be used, except in the context of reported insults by pro-NASA types - it is not a neutral term and has no objective meaning. For great justice. 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a conspiracy theory, in the objective sense of the term as used by journalists and academics. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no objective sense. It's an insult. What definition are you using? For great justice. 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See the references in conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for a hoax proponent that says calling the accusations a "conspiracy theory" is an insult? Or is it just your opinion that it's an insult? --ScienceApologist 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" works much the same way the word "cult" does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion. Historians do not use the word "conspiracy" to describe accurate historical reports. On the contrary, they use it to indicate a lack of veracity and objectivity.

“Reconstructing Reality: Conspiracy Theories About Jonestown” by Rebecca Moore http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Articles/conspiracy.htm For great justice. 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I don't buy this at all. E.g. the gunpowder plot is often called a conspiracy by historians without any derisive connotations. --ScienceApologist 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the Great Conspiracy, and the Catiline conspiracy, off the top of my head. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no question it's a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theorists don't like the term. Maybe something more politically correct, such as "Minority Report", would work better? Wahkeenah 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Apollo hoax proponents don't like the term "conspiracy theory"? ScienceApologist 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume none of them, because none of the ever use it about themselves. I can't produce evidence that they don't like the term "asshole", "fuckwit", or "bitch" either, I suppose you want to put those words in on the same logic? For great justice. 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike conspiracy theory, those are epithets; they have no non-pejorative use. We call the hoax narrative a conspriacy theory becuase that's what it is, and no alternate term accurately describes it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Except 'theory', 'accusations', 'claim' etc etc. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those are accurate descriptions of the phenomenon as a whole. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "all of them" don't like it, but I'm not sure; it's clear you don't like it, nor will I argue that it's necessarily a neutral term the way it's often used. Meanwhile, the middle of those three vulgarisms is a new one on me. Is that a Britishism? Wahkeenah 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite - and yes, I agree with you that it's not neutral. But Wikipedia should be. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory can be used a pejorative, as can Dutchman. Conspiracy theory has a perfectly well-defined meaning, and is in current use by academics and journalists. I've told you where to look for the definition, and pointed you to the references by Barkun, Fenster, Melley, and others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's somebody else who calls it a "conspiracy theory" and clearly supports the moonbats. --ScienceApologist 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The American Patriot Friends Network gives a sympathetic read to the moonbats and calls Ralph Rene's idea a "conspiracy theory". --ScienceApologist 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, AstroNot logic at it's finest. This is a comentator, not a proponent. For great justice. 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well these people certainly aren't "hoax sceptics" so trying to characterize the label as the unique purview of such people is not accurate. I guess we have a different definition of a hoax proponent. I would describe the owners of both of those websites I listed as being hoax proponents. What clued you in to them being a "comentator"?--ScienceApologist 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We went through want to call the activists who run websites like Bad Astronomy before, and you did not recommend a better name for them. Please tell me what we should call them. For great justice. 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point. The two citations provided are to sympathetic websites. --ScienceApologist 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SA's reverts

SA - you reverted this, saying the writing was poor, perhaps, rather than the reflex revert reaction, you could specify what is poor about it? Or is it that you fear the scientific method? For great justice. 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Application of the scientific method to this scenario would require that indepentently duplicable evidence for a claim of a moon landing be produced, allowing each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:"

Discussed above. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so anti science?

Every time I put in that science requires independent, replicable verification of data, it gets taken out. Why are you so anti-science? What are you afraid of? Why do you not think it strange that cold fusion was debunked by the failure to replicate it by independent researchers, but NASA should not be compelled to provide more than 'because we say so'? For great justice. 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussed above. By the way, "debunked by the failure to replicate" is not synonymous with "required to replicate". See is-ought problem. --ScienceApologist

Not, in fact, discussed above. You have no answer for why scientific method has not been applied to the Apollo claims. Is-ought similarly has no relevance here. For great justice. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to apply the scientific method? Either a man landed on the Moon or he didn't, you don't need to set up an experiment to prove it.--DCAnderson 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Stem Cell Fraud Worries U.S. Scientists and Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_the_result

For the kind of thing that happens when the scientific method is ignored. These frauds were detected when attempts were made to replicate them. If there is no oversight, even scientists tend to perpetrate fraud. NASA has, uniquely, no effective oversight. For great justice. 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And you'll notice those frauds were found quickly. Yet, after over 3 decades, there is no evidence that NASA misled the public. However, there is plenty of evidence that the hoax proponents are very willing to twist the facts to fit their hypothesis. Also, what is the basis of your assertion that no one was "watching" NASA? Wahkeenah 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that those frauds were found when independent researchers tried to verify the claims. No one has been able to try to verify the claims, and NASA is in no hurry to facilitate them. They know that their claim would not hold up to independent scrutiny, and they'd be just another case of scientific fraud. For great justice. 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA is in no hurry because there is no need to, and more to the point, there is no money for it. Write to your congressman and urge that we spend billions of our tax dollars to go back to the moon just to prove Apollo really happened. They should have a good laugh over that one. Here's the deal: The burden of proof is on the accusers. And there is no proof of anything other than that the missions occurred. What is the basis for your assertion that it would not stand up to independent scrutiny? Every question the hoaxsters has raised has proven to be based on either ignorance or willful misleading. Wahkeenah 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your claim that NASA is unique in the world in not being required to produce evidence is fascinating, but odd. If I claim to have produced cold fusion would accept it so credulously without any independent verification? Of course not! When a Korean lab claims to have cloned stem cells do you accept it with no verification? Of course not! When the US govt claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, do you accept their claims with no verification? Erm. Actually, forget that last one... For great justice. 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence from the moonflights, and none from those who claim otherwise. Notice, again, how quickly it became apparent that Iraq was only fooling itself about its alleged WMD's. The notion that the Apollo flights could have been so carefully guarded does not square with the reality that these kinds of things get exposed eventually. I keep waiting for someone to present some actual evidence that contradicts the historical record. There ain't any. Wahkeenah 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please. Show me ANY non-NASA evidence for the moonflights. There. Isn't. Any. For great justice. 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there isn't any, and neither do you. Wahkeenah 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. So your position is that you continue to believe in the possiblity of evidence for NASA's claims, even though you have not seen any? Classic AstroNot logic! For great justice. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There were independent trackings: [13] --ScienceApologist 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Finally you're starting to think critically about the information you've been spoonfed! For great justice. 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So wait, he just proved you wrong, but that is a victory for you? And then you basically insult him by acting like he hasn't been "critically thinking" up to this point? Right...--DCAnderson 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a victory for a better, more sourced and more neutral article, rather than the dumbed down POV-tirade that it was turning into. Unlike you, I am on the side of a neutral, verifiable article, not a one-sided rant. For great justice. 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

About "Nearly all" again

Please tell me,"Nearly all" behalf of which place's scientists and technicians,US? UN? Russia? China? If just behalf of US's scientists and technicians, then write "Nearly all interested US's scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless."

This is English Wikipedia, not the United States of America's Wikipedia. Must analysis clearly, our country's scientists and technicians maybe not believe this.--219.78.49.187 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to any notable non-U.S. scientists who disagree? Is there a reason we should think that this is just an opinion held in the U.S.?--DCAnderson 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AstoNot Logic here again. There is no evidence either way outside of the US. Better to say that, than to assume the rest of the world reflects US opinion. For great justice. 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the basis for your assertion that there was no independent verification, no tracking, etc.? Wahkeenah 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because none has been produced. Typical AstroNot logic. "I assume it's been independently verified until you prove it hasn't been..." Of course I can't prove that no one has verified the landing, but in the absence of any evidence, I'll say it hasn't been verified. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not assume it has been independently verified, because I don't know. How do you know? Who says none has been produced? And if that's true, then why do the hoaxsters bring up stuff about signals possibly being sent from earth orbit? Wahkeenah 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you have not seen any independent verification of the landings, and that doesn't bother you. The hoaxers speculate on signals from satellites because it is a plausible hypothesis for the signals recieved from the ground stations. With no evidence triangulating the signals, there is no way to distinguish between that and the landing truth theory. For great justice. 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not studied that aspect of it in any kind of depth. I have vague recollections from the time that many places around the world were tracking them. Wahkeenah 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok then. If you have vague recollections, then that settles the matter. If only we all used AstroNot logic... For great justice. 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Like NASA, I have other things to spend my time and money on besides trying to prove things that have already happened. Wahkeenah 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny! It needs no proof, because of your unshakable belief. Classic Atronot logic. I know AstroNots don't like to stick to the point, but this thread is about evidence of opinion in other countries. I take it we agree that we don't have any, and simply saying that is the most honest thing to do? For great justice. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of "proof", but the hoaxsters won't accept it because of their unproven presupposition that NASA made it up. Show me something that contradicts the historical record. Wahkeenah 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And I do not agree that we don't have any, because I don't know if we have any. I must yield to the experts on this, if they haven't already abandoned this page by now. Wahkeenah 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, until the 'experts' chime in, it's fair to say on the page that we don't know of any, since any claim to have any would have to be sourced? For great justice. 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no hoax proponents in the nations you list either. People comment only where issues present themselves. Fgj's claim would be similar to stating that because there aren't official statements from scientific organizations in China denigrating the Flat Earth Society that the only NPOV thing to do is exclude them in the scientific caveat. The scientific and technical community knows no national boundaries. --ScienceApologist 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't list any countries, but what about Philippe Lheureux, and his French language book? The fact is you have no evidence about belief outside the US either way (and we're talking about the general population here, not that there is any evidence about scientists either). Why can't you admit that and move on? For great justice. 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are French-language debunkers as well. I don't see your point. And actually, we were at one point talking about scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts here. So I'm pretty secure in calling this point finished. --ScienceApologist 04:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the French language debunkers? Are we to take them on faith too? For great justice. 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"point out", "claim", "note that"

These are all tendentious. "Say" is often a more neutral choice. More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with these? Why are they not synonyms for 'say'? For great justice. 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that its on that page, but I've never see an explanation. I'm happy with either, since I think they're synonyms, but I'm interested in why you think one carries more weight than the other. Whatever, I'm happy either way. For great justice. 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Claim", in particular, carries an automatic bias with it, as it is shorthand for saying, "This is what they say, but I don't agree with it." "Point out" and "note that" are less confrontational. "Say" is totally neutral. Wahkeenah 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why are you worried about places where hoax proponents 'claim' things? For great justice. 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No more worried than about where "NASA proponents claim" things. It's every bit as prejudicial as the term "conspiracy theory" is, if not more so. Wahkeenah 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Very fair. For great justice. 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Other words to avoid

"theory", "NASA proponent", "hoax theorist"

Theory has special connotations in science and since there are "scientific aspects" to this topic we should avoid this (except in the special case of "conspiracy theory" which can be linked to a separate term). For the same reason "hoax theorist" should be avoided in the article. "Hoax proponent" or "hoax believer" is appropriate.

"NASA proponent" is an example of an inappropriate generalization. There are NASA proponents that argue in front of Congress for more funding for NASA. They are not involved in this topic. To avoid equivocation refer directly to the opposition they have to hoax believer's claims.

--ScienceApologist 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Nice attempt at inserting your POV again! The hoax theory is a theory in the scientific sense. What, out of interest, are your preffered alternatives to hoax and NASA proponent? Why a double standard? Oh, wait.. For great justice. 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that these allegations amount to a scientific theory. If they did, you should be able to introduce in the first sentence as such in an NPOV fashion. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are a scientific theory. The theory is that there is a set of data (the NASA 'evidence') and two theories to account for it. One that NASA is telling the truth, the other that they are lying. An experiment can be designed to differentiate the theories (going to the moon) and the evidence of that experiment would tell you which is true. What's wrong with that? For great justice. 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory != conjecture. Learn some basic philosophy of science. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That experiment has already been conducted. The hoaxsters failed. Wahkeenah 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, aside from insults and childish comments, why is that theory not valid? For great justice. 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory because it doesn't have the features of a scientific theory. Go ahead and read the page on the subject. --ScienceApologist 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You havn't got anything apart from 'It just is', have you. I've read that page - it's a theory. It meets all the requirements. Show me any that it doesn't meet. For great justice. 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors

Let's get this one settled once and for all. Read the Lunar Ranging article. The Russian mission placed mirrors on the moon. They returned ranging data. A mechanical failure left them in a less than ideal position. This was a successful mission in that it proved that robot missions could place mirrors on the moon. Subequent failure of a motor is not the point. For great justice. 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The laser reflectors worked pretty well when the Americans put them there, since a manned mission allows for fine adjustments to things. Wahkeenah 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the robot mirrors worked fine, and are a good proof that robot missions can place mirrors acurately. The fact that, on that particular mission, the lander later malfunctioned is not relevant. You know that, so I don't know why you continue to press the point. Oh wait, yes I do. For great justice. 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And another point is that a soft-landing on the moon was well within the technological reach of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., despite the hoaxsters continued argument that we lacked the technology to get to the moon. Wahkeenah 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice change of subject. The russian mirror experiment proves that mirrors on the moon can be robot placed. Soft landing a robot without return capability is not the same problem as landing and returning humans. Capability to do one does not equal capability to do the other. For great justice. 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some (or many) hoaxsters have argued that a soft-landing on the moon was impossible. Clearly, they have not thought it through. Similarly, they argue that taking off from the moon was impossible. Well, they got it wrong once, so their odds of getting it wrong again are good. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, the hoax theories are not coherent, there are several different versions of them. That doesn't mean they are all untrue. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So what missions could the US have used to put the mirrors on the moon. what was the launch date?Geni 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't go bringing technicalities into it. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but since we only have NASA records of the missions, I would be surprised if they include them. That is the importance of verification. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First, you have not proven that the only records are from NASA. Second, there is a presupposition (without proof) that NASA staged the events. Wahkeenah 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonshots require considerable lifting power. Launching them is a major event. So what was the launch date of these robotic missions?Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Their best guess would probably be that the supposedly manned launches were actually these robotic launches. I suppose that when the astronauts appeared to be boarding the spacecraft, they were actually ducking down some secret escape hatch. Not that the conspiracists indulge in speculation or anything like that. Wahkeenah 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no records from anyone but NASA. You have not shown any. I have not seen anyone else produce any. If they exist - where are they? I'm not going to make assumptions without evidence, that's AstroNot logic again. The hypothesis that NASA faked the landings is based on supposed errors in NASA's account of the landings. There is no third party record available. For great justice. 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You've hit it on the head: "Supposed" errors. Everything the conspiracists come up with is easily shot down. They can't find anything or anyone to contradict the historical record. I keep waiting. I would love to have it exposed, if it's true. But there is no evidence of such. Wahkeenah 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the subject. There is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE for NASA's claims. I know you believe anyway, and that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs, but while I agree that the hoax claims are not proven, neither is NASA's case. For great justice. 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't know that. Meanwhile, show me something to undermine my "faith" as you erroneously call it. If that Fox special is the best they can come up with, then why should I give the hoaxsters any credence about any argument they make on anything? Wahkeenah 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And you're entitled to define "independant" in any way you see fit, likely in such a way as to it not being possible to verify; according to a peculiar personal standard. Not just anybody could walk around the Apollo program, for obvious security reasons, and not just anybody can be shoved into a capsule to "verify" they are actually going to the moon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you're stuck in a corner. When asked to produce evidence for your position, you say you don't know whether any exists, and ask for evidence that you're wrong. This is like much pseudo science. This conversation is fruitless, since you don't have any independent evidence. If anyone else does, maybe they can chime in. For great justice. 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence? Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes NASA-sponsorship non-independent verification? Why is it that just because someone is paid by NASA it is okay for the hoax-proponents to claim they aren't independent? Can you show any evidence that scientists and technicians are not independent when they are involved in NASA? The knife cuts both ways. You have to show that the evidence provided is "not independent" -- you can't just assume that it isn't. --ScienceApologist 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the constant circular reasoning of the hoaxsters. NASA lied, therefore NASA lied. I keep asking them for something to show that NASA lied. They've got nothing except their presuppository. Wahkeenah 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the NASA sponsored verification? Please, produce anything - I'm happy to look at it. Regardless of the hoax, let's see any independent evidence. For great justice. 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So if Bubba looked into his telescope during launch, saw the vehicles in orbit and leave orbit, that, instead of the evidence we do have in abundance would convince you? Oh wait, Bubba doesn't have image capture on his telescope, which are otherwise known as binoculars. My point is your definition of "independant" is likely laughable, and anything provided by say, other countries, could be dismissed as "unconvincing" or part of the conspiracy. Is there a compelling reason to find said evidence when you obviously have handily dismissed much of the evidence already presented in detail? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We have an actual user on here named Bubba73, an interested scientist who has argued against the hoaxsters many times, but I haven't seen his name recently, so I'm guessing he's had enough of it (which I am getting close to also). So, in your example, instead of "Bubba", I suggest you substitute "Gomer" or "Goober". :) Wahkeenah 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget that your bumpkin of an observer might have seen Coke bottles, too. Wahkeenah 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case the apollo craft were spotted. Just rather outside LEO.Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NASA sponsored verification? Wouldn't that be the entire Apollo program? They did it, they took pictures, they videotaped it.--DCAnderson 03:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They also provided telemetry data, communications, mission specifications, payload inventories, testimony of the astronauts, sample return, scientific data collection... --ScienceApologist 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would presume anything that was touched by US/Soviet? government hands doesn't qualify, as it can be created by said conspiracy. Certainly a tidy way to remove the vast majority of the evidence from rational consideration. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Revelation

According to this link [14], Mr. Justice has been pulling our lariat: He doesn't believe the hoaxsters either. He's just challenging this article's presentation. However, he has been justifiably smacked around by Admins (i.e. temporarily blocked) for straying from that mission significantly by "stirring the pot" or "baiting" us, which is against wiki rules. So, while his motives may be valid, his methods have been questionable. Well, I did my part by trying to neutralize the article a tad, a couple of weeks ago or so, and now that I know what Mr. Justice's true position is, I feel like I can back off from this constant point-counterpoint stuff. Wahkeenah 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Algr 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's why Mr. Justice has been temporarily blocked on one or more occasions recently. Wahkeenah 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you seem unable to comprehend is that my and your points of view are not relevant to the article. Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and take it to heart. I have never claimed belief, but do take seriously the encyclopedia project. For great justice. 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)