Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Linda Degh

Why are the comments of some random folklorist necessary within the scope of this article?87.162.78.7 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR section

Isn't it a bit strange that the dogs launched into space are listed by name here, however Uri Gagarin's name is omitted? (oh, and sorry about forgetting to put the other post at the bottom!) 87.162.78.7 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So fix it already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprecise claims without quoting or source

Affirmations like this one:

No one has proposed a complete narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated, but instead believers focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions.

on the article have no reaosn to be, quote nobody, and cite nop source. I believe they shopuld be removed, because there is no way to prove them in a "metodic" way. ¿Has anyone read all the books and can tell it? Is there a way to know if anyone has proposed a "complete hoax explanation" or not? iut going to reverse the article to the first version i see without afirmation like that or ones of the same type, obviously putted there by someone who irrationally believe the moon landings were real and want others to think the same by liying to them in discrete ways like that, without them to notice they are being taken by fools. --190.49.177.96 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't go reverting back to a year or two ago, just put a fact tag on it if you question it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I wpuld do it but the semi-protected page won't let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.177.96 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to get an account. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And a useless idea also, because edit to semiprotected pages are also forbidden for "new" accounts.--190.49.177.96 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New accounts only have to be "autoconfirmed", which means that they are at least 4 days old and have made 10 edits. Bubba73 (talk), 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To address the original issue: it's a pretty simple declaration to disprove. If there is a comprehensive hoax theory, provide a citation. Otherwise, the fact that none exists is pretty good proof that the statement is correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

that's really unscientific. That "nobody has proven it yet" doesn't mean that for omission it doesn't exist. On the same basis I could say "nobody has providen proof that it DOESN'T exist therefore we must assume it exist".

See? Both make no sense.

Besides, wikipedia policies clarely state that UNCORFIMED, UNQUOTED affirmation with no reliable source or no source at all, as well as "original research", MUST be unpresent from all articles and MUST be deleted if encountered. "there is no comnplete theory" as one of those arguments, as well as many in this unbalanced article that seems to be made and run by people that try to brainwash the reader with their POV and opinion. Clarely wikipedia has a NEUTRALITY policy, and no Point of View is whatsoever supported, except for the NEUTRAL point of view. And the NEUTRAL point of view states that the article shoudn't be on favor or against the theory, while on the present the version is obviusly AGAINST it, presenting ionstead of veryfiable facts, a lot of unsupported OPINIONS of the people that watch the article and CENSOR the other opinions and data that contradict theirs.

This is honestly possibly the wors wikipedia article EVER, and even thought there have been LOTS and MAJOR complains about it, the same people over and over again irrationally insist on keeping it exacltly like it is now, only because it supports what THEY think. Even they had it PROTECTED it so it would be hard to edit, and they (YOU) havent got vene the decency to put a simple "neutrality issues" or "point or view", or "unsupported statemets" tag at the beggining.

It is my personal opinion it should be ENTYRELY rewrote.

And how comes all the hoax evidences have opinion counterstatements, very often without reference, and I saw in the history there have been some responses to those "counterstatements", but all those editions are deleted, reversed and supressed with no arguments or comments whatsoever?

It is simply disgusting. --190.49.179.69 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is my personal opinion it should be ENTYRELY [sic] rewrote [sic]." And it sounds like you are completely qualified to do it. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say he's iminently qualifried. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are evidently stupid (no offense), instead of criticising me (or uncleverly mocking me) for my typing and spelling skills (what do I care? microsoft word can fix it, and I am not even from a englishspeaking country -my ip proves it-), why don't you answer my arguments or at leat DO SOMETHING to actually IMPROVE the article and stop making it say what YOU people think (or what you want others to think for that matter), and start making it what it REALLY SHOULD BE.

Wikipedia is a place for human knowdlege, not personal opinion. This article is a hell of a píece of personal opinion, and it current version is agains most wikipedia policyes, including POV, Neutrality, unverified claims, original research, citing references, etc, etc, etc.

The one that spells the best hasn't got for any reason to be the one that is right.

Fight with arguments (if you can) and not with senseless, meningless disqualyfications --190.49.179.69 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the most evenly balanced on this subject that I've ever seen. Perhaps you could take your own advice, and propose some specific improvements rather than making a blanket condemnation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You only says it's evenly balanced because you mostly wrote it and erased anything that anyone with a different opinion or poiin of view had wrotten. That it matchs your opinion has nothing toi do with balance. And I have proposed MANY specific improvements, like: add a neutrality and POV tag at the beggining, remove all unsupported claims without reference, and mainly STOP REVERTING ALL THE EDITS that don't come from "clavius.org" advocates or similar. What you think is not the only truth. From my experience, most moon hoaxist are mainly rational excepticists and NOT paranoid maniacs.--190.49.179.69 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't personally write very much of it, and I say it's evenhanded because it neither calls NASA liars nor the hoaxsters loonies, which most of the sites do - and it goes out of its way to present lots of questions that the hoaxsters raise. But labeling the article won't fix anything. So let's start somewhere. You've argued against the statement that there is no comprehensive theory. But there isn't one. None that any of the contributors to the article have found, anyway. Maybe you know of one? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that even though I think the hoaxsters are generally ignorant about the details of the 1960s man-in-space programs, we've taken great strides in the article to resist calling them ignoramuses, in addition to fighting efforts to twist the wording around one way or another. If you can find a more dispassionate article on the subject, let me know, since I'd like to read it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You do say it's evenhanded because it has rersponses to all of the "hoax claims" listed, even if those answers are riddiculus and unsupported, and some of them are planly idiotic as this one:

"8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

       * The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera."

Its stupid. Imagine that on the sabe basis (which means, no basis at all), I can state the following:

"* The "C"-shaped objects are most likely FOOTPRINTS FROM ALIEN LIFEFORMS! OMG!"

Well, there is the same factual accuracy on both statements. None of them provides any source and both are plausible explanations.

What I mean isn't that the theory from the aliens lifeforms is included (help me God that never happen), but that the unsuported thesis from the "printing imperfections" is removed at least until there is a reliable source saying it that can be posted into the article. And the same with all things like that. If not, why can't anyone make edits sayings things such as "NASA photoshopped the stars on the pictures", "The fact that all the four soviet rockets designed to go to the moon exploded further proves the extreme difficulty of the mission and the impossibily of doing it at the time" without their edits being reversed?

Besides, that I, or you, or anyone hasn't ever read a "total moon hoax explanation" doesn't mean one doesn't exist. If science worked like that, on the Extraterrestrial_life page it should say "it's ovius that alien lifeforms don´t exist because we never found definitive proof of one, therefore there aren't any.", which obviusly is not true and is a example of bad_logic. Unkonwn doen't mean unexistant. If there is no proof that a "complete" hoax theory DOESN'T exist, or the contary, we should't assume it exists or not. Not assuming anything we haven't previously proven is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Therefore the affirmation stating that there isn't any shpuld be removed until evidence if found to consolidate it or refute it.

And labeling the article SHOULD and MUST be done, until the issues on it are fixed. It gives a clear warning to the readers that the article doesn't fulfill all that wikipedia is supposed to be and represent, and encourages people to improve it so that it can be. That is the reasons labels were created, used and supported by wikipedia. If they were useless, they they woudn't have been implemented. Wikipedia directives are complete pragmatics.

In addition, if you think not calling hoax proponants ignorants is the greatest proof that the article is "evenly balanced", then an article that disproves, refutes and disqualifies sistematically every anti-moon-hoax claim (and I assure you it can be easily done) BUT never calls the landing believers "arrogant deuchebags", would be evenly balanced as well. Which if of course laughtable and riddiculous.--190.49.179.69 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse my personal comments with the article content. If I told you what I really think of them, you would get very angry. Maybe the article could read that so far no known comprehensive theory has been published? And if someone can contradict that, fine. There is no reason for a POV banner. That's been tried before, typically by the hoaxsters who hate the fact that there's a reasonable answer to everything they bring up. They want the claims left unchallenged, to give the false impression that there aren't reasonable answers, and to thus help this article spread their ignorant views to the gullible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll address just one item, to illustrate. You cite

The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera It is a verified fact that the "C" is not on the original film. The weasel-wording (i.e. "most likely") was probably put in there to appease POV pushers. Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that answer is uncited. However, to be equally fair, neither is the question. It's odd the IP address didn't ask for a citation about the question. Must have slipped his mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was in there at one time, at least. Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are in there again, and I'm sure at least one of them was in there earlier. Bubba73 (talk), 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are in Examination of Apollo moon photos, and have been there for a while. When that article was split out of this one, the references must have been inadvertently deleted here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

strings astronauts

in some videos on the "moon" you can see lights going ubove the astronauts heads, as if there was a string of some sort. in another video an astrounaut was able to sundenly (I am a bad speller and my microsoft word is not working) job up from an almost sitting postion, like he was pulled up. look it up, I can not find it but still, it is somewhere on youtube. can someone find that and add it to this article?