Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Back to the Moon in 2020

On January 14, 2004 in the NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., President George W. Bush announced the New Vision for Space Exploration Program.

"Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods."

Could this statement not support the hoax-theory? In the 1960s NASA was able to put a man on the Moon in less than a decade. In the 21^st century however it will take 16 years. Why such a long period to repeat an action of which NASA possess all the knowledge and expertise?

--Afopow (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Return to the moon" did you miss? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As always with evidence for the hoax, there is an answer to that point. I can think of two plausible reasons why they were able to do it so quickly last time: (a) they had unlimited money and (b) meeting the deadline was more important in relation to safety than would be permitted now. Man with two legs (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of those factors are important. Keep in mind that the last few Apollo missions were scrubbed because Congress stopped the funding. It's all about money and politics - and don't be surprised if Bush's schedule is not met, because people will say our money should be spent elsewhere - which was also being said in the 60s, but the Cold War mentality won out, until we achieved the goal, and then the enthusiasm for the program faded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that it took 12 years just to get the Shuttle going. The focus of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo series was narrow and specific. The Shuttle program was a lot more complex and broader in scope, as would be the Bush moon plan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that each Apollo mission built on the previous one, and became more complex. A good clue of early expectations would be the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. At that time, it was postulated that by 2001 we would have already been doing what Bush proposes doing now. Had the Apollo mission continued on, I'm sure we would have. Instead, Congress and the public decided there was no further need to go to the moon, and the Shuttle and other earth-orbit launches became the focus of NASA. Note also the continued evolution of non-human interplanetary explorations since then. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, it should be in the archives a few times. To put it in perspective, there was the Cold War and the Soviets were doing almost all of the "firsts" in space. We (the US) wanted something that was far enough off and difficult enough that we could probably do it first. And after Kennedy died there was even more emphasis on doing it before the end of the decade, as he had wanted. There was a crash program. They got all of the funding they needed. There was an unofficial motto: "waste anything except time." Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

re: timeframes

I've had similar discussions with several NASA folks, and the whole, "we can't do now, what we did then?" thing. Several items came up, not the least of which is: The safety considerations and requirements NOW, FAR exceed those that were imposed in the 60's. It is downright frightening how dangerous it was for those who lead the way into the unknown. In this day and age, we would never have allowed the early missions to have ever gotten off the ground, simply because it WAS so unsafe. Ched (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The youngsters who think it was a hoax have no idea what the climate of fear was in the 50s and 60s. We "had to" beat the Russians to the moon. There was no "what if" about it. And once we did it, interest (and funding) plummeted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say, that even though we can leave the text and facts with Wikipedia, the emotions, hopes, and fears that shaped the world as it is today are often lost on younger generations. Too bad we can't plug the hardships, trials, and nightmares from those days into a blog or iPod. Perhaps when this generation's children are grown, they'll think back to what we were trying to tell them while they were growing up. Somehow, Marvin the Martian seems to appeal to a wider range of youth, than the actual facts of the day. Maybe the Ron Howard, Tom Hanks film "Apollo 13" is as close as we'll ever be able to get to explaining what we were going through in those days ... guess there could be worse. (Had to add the Apollo 13 item to remain on topic ... LOL) Ched (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Every generation has its challenges. My parents lived through the Great Depression, which was WAY much worse than what's going on at present; and WWII, which was by no means a cinch in 1941. And I wouldn't wish the 1960s on anyone, either. And I cannot even fathom what it must have been like during the American Civil War. The number of men we lost in 10 years in Vietnam, we lost in 3 days at Gettysburg. For those who wonder what this nation went through on 11/22/63, I say think about what you felt on 9/11/01, and that's the closest I can come to it. Apollo 13 is a good comparison, as it illustrates what could and did go wrong, and how harrowing the whole thing was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When asked about "the right stuff", Chuck Yeager dismissed the idea, saying it was just "luck" that he survived all those harrowing test flights with the X-1 and so on. However, he also said that your odds of survival are optimized by knowing your machine. If you look a the various disasters and near-disasters in the space program, that has often been the difference. When the technology got away from people, that's when trouble arose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget one of the earlier Apollo flights, I think it was Apollo 10, in which they took the lunar module down to within 10 miles of the lunar surface, as per plan, but the thing started vibrating and scared the guys half to death. If they had crashed on the moon, that probably would have ended the Apollo program - just like Apollo 13 could have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read that if they had not gotten the Apollo 10 LM under control in a few more seconds it would have crashed on the Moon (and it wasn't even trying for a landing). Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I recall, they were uttering some rather "colorful metaphors" during that stretch. The fact they were being broadcast live was suddenly of very little concern when their lives were in danger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

sigh ... shame it was all a hoax eh? The 60's were all filmed on an MGM back lot. MLK, RFK, Vietnam, Kent State, ... the only part I never understood was how they got that damn Pacific Ocean into a wading pool for the capsule splash-down. hmmm .... maybe I should head over to DYK. ;) Ched (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If Cecil B. DeMille can part the Red Sea, NASA can fake the whole Pacific Ocean! ;) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cecil did it by matting film of trip tanks into footage of the Red Sea, which was obvious to anyone who knows how film effects are done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NASA never faked anything, hence the various and well-known disasters that occurred (as with the Soviet space program also). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of photographs

I've moved an edit by 200.69.59.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the talk page because it appears to be more like a discussion posting attempting to rebut a statement in the article.

The text in the article is as follows:

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds. (http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm)

• Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. Calculations are based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

200.69.59.241 added the following:

• • The gear was not simplified at all; they needed physical manipulation prior to each shot. And even though each astronaut did have it's own camera, they were not often used simultaneusly, as the shots can tell. Also, there are no pictures at all of several of the tasks they would have done on the moon, such as assembling the "Moon Rover". (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm).

--TS 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

• "We've been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" — Charlie Duke, in the documentary In the Shadow of the Moon.[106][107][108]

I think that putting in a quote like this is unhelpful.

The obvious answer is money. Like movie sequels; why are so many made? Money. Charlie Duke gives a very facile argument in light of human nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incorrupted (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be in there. It is a direct response by someone who went to the Moon. NASA didn't make money on it, it cost them money. Even the canceled Apollo 18-20 had been 90% paid for. Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay i will buy them trying to make cash on 1 or 2 sequels but not nine cause at that time no body cared if we were going to the moon it was boring. the quote dose give a oposing idea which is good for a diverse subject. 11 march 2009

I've removed the Quotes section. It's obviously just a petty insult at people who believe the landings were faked. Please see Wikipedia guidelines about editing articles. And in the future please use the sandbox before editing the real pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.102.90 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Bubba73 (talk), 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Predominant hoax claims" perhaps a redundant section?

A part from the subsection "suggested motives for a hoax", I found the rest of the text therein a bit redundant or better suited for other sections in the article:

Point number 3. about the alien/cover-up claim: does not seem to match well neither totally or partially with any of the three common hoax points following the article's very first paragraph. In think it could be moved into its own section bellow as an extra.

The other two points try to draw a line between the complete or partial hoax accusations. In my opinion both possibilities are already covered in the first paragraphs in the article as they indicate that hoax theories agree to some degree (thus including total and any kind of partial alternatives theories) with those three major common points.

Then total conspiracy, and the different partial hoax claims listed in point 1 and point 2. could be moved to "major proponents and proposals" section next to the corresponding conspirationist. What do you think? Discretoboy (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article inappropriately biased?

This article is supposedly about the various theories surrounding the Apollo moon landing hoaxes, yet the article seems to be focused entirely on "debunking" those theories, which is surely a separate subject, if not an entirely inappropriate task for an encyclopedia . A proper encyclopedia has no place "debunking" anything. Present the information in a neutral manner, let the reader decide what to make of it. Leave the mythbusting to the Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.155.93 (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This question is posted by the hoax believers periodically. Their idea of "neutral" is to state the so-called "theories" unchallenged, thus giving them false credence. The article as it stands now is neutral. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say this, 93 brings up a legitimate point. The article is written as a point by point rebuttal of Apollo hoax conspiracy theories and seems to go out of its way to debunk it. Here's just one example of many, we have a single sentence "Hoax proponents say that blueprints for the Apollo Lunar Module, rover, and associated equipment are missing" followed by an eleven sentence rebuttal. How is that neutral? If you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with original research in this article. The fact that the rebuttal of the conspiracy nuts is given more prominence than their ravings is not a problem, however. We cover scientific subjects by giving the mainstream science view much more prominence than the frothings of conspiracy theorists. --TS 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the rebuttal taking more sentences than the hoax claim is a problem either. It only takes one sentence to say "there no stars in the photos" or "the flag is waving" It simply takes more sentences to explain the facts, for instance why you can't see the LM from a telescope on Earth.. Like on an essay test, the answers are longer than the questions. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...this is a difficult one for me because I agree that they're nutcases (or just horribly naive). But when I read it, I get the impression that it purposely goes out of its way to debunk and therefore promote a particular point of view. The question of whether the debunking of conspiracy should be given more prominence than the conspiracy theory itself, I'm not sure about. It seems to me that to be neutral, both points of view should receive relatively equal coverage. I skimmed the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and I don't really see anything that helpful. Do we have any specific policy that would give us any guidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You've succinctly described your problem: your belief that "to be neutral, both points of view should receive relatively equal coverage." The policy to look at is WP:UNDUE (a section of WP:NPOV), and also see the WP:FRINGE guideline. --TS 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read those pages. What specific parts do you think answers this question? The closest I see is:

"In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant"

Bubba, I understand your point but the The Big Bang Theory is more complicated to explain than "God created the universe in 6 days" but when I go to our Creationism you don't seen the Big Bang Theory getting most of the coverage. In our Young_Earth_Creationism article, the section on scientific criticism is barely a page long in an 11 page article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit you cite is relevant, but also "Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" (WP:UNDUE). WP:FRINGE gives guidance on how to handle articles about fringe views so it spells it out a bit more as you've shown. --TS 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is an article on a fringe theory. I'm pretty sure that section applies to (for lack of a better term) 'regular' articles. IOW, that bit applies to the actual Apollo landing article, not the hoax article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's policy. It applies all over Wikipedia. The guideline you cite, indeed, say we can "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant." Giving equal prominence to a fringe view is not acceptable anywhere. --TS 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Giving equal prominence to a fringe view is not acceptable anywhere". Does any Wikipedia policy actually state this regarding an article on a fringe theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(reply to above) I wouldn't expect the Big Bang theory to be in an artice on Creationism. But there is probably an article on the formation of the Earth or the beginning of the Universe, and I expect the Big Bang to be a large portion of the beginning of the Universe article and Creationism have little or no coverage. Creationism is an article of faith (no pun intended) and has nothing to do with facts. In the hoax claims there are facts to examine. Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to it's proponents. See Creation_Science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've said many times in the past: This article is likely the most neutral and even-handed that you will likely find on the internet. It presents the questions, it presents reasonable answers, and it allows the reader to decide. It is more than generous to the fringe theorists, who generally don't know what they're talking about when it comes to this subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been raised here: [1] dougweller (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Following a lengthy but very helpful dicussion on NPOV Noticeboard, I withdraw my previous statements about NPOV in this thread. I was wrong. My mistake stemmed from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I thought that in articles on fringe topics, we had to fairly represent both sides of a debate as if they are on an equal footing. This is not correct. We're supposed to fairly represent all sides to an issue per reliable sources. It's the "per reliable sources" bit that I didn't get. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are any reliable sources that claim that the Apollo lunar landing was a hoax. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of reliable sources backing of that perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

There has been some heat on the subject of using YouTube as a source. Surely YouTube is a valid source where:

• it is simply hosting a raw clip with no scene changes
• where you can clearly see what is happening

and invalid where:

• the clip is edited and pushing some POV

In nearly all cases, it is clear whether the clip is or is not pushing a POV.

I would agree that video from the original source is better where available, but in some cases YouTube clips will be seen to be reliable enough to be better than nothing. Man with two legs (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with YouTube clips as sources;

• Clips often constitute copyright violations. Wikipedia doesn't link to these.
• The source of the clip needs to be verifiable and reliable. Anyone can put up anything on Youtube that may claim to be something it is not. And often when the source is verifiable and reliable, its presence on Youtube is a copyright violation.
• There is still an element of interpretation performed by the viewer. This may not apply to things said or written, but actions, even where you can clearly see what is happening, are often still viewed differently by different people.
• It is often difficult to determine what part of a video is being used to support a statement in the article, particularly when it is combined with a degree of interpretation.

These problems don't completely rule out using Youtube cites, but I'd say they make most cites undesirable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into copying clips from the DVDs and uploading them. The NASA material is in the public domain, so there are no copyright problems. Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick search in the Sources Noticeboard Archives and the only exception I found to not using YouTube as a source was [2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Atomic clock?

Does anyone know anything about this line in the article: "The NASA atomic clock referred to is not the same clock as that used during the Apollo missions". The reference doesn't say anything about the atomic clock. Also, I don't see how it answers the claim. Bubba73 (talk), 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it dose not help the argument in anyway and relly is a unimportaint fact but it is a fact so i say even though it dose not help it dose not hurt either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.221.210 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it hurts the article because it doesn't make any sense. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand the point it is making, and it isn't cited either. There's about a dozen things wrong with what Sibrel says; misinformation, exaggeration, hopeful speculation, glossing over of details to reach inadequately explained conclusion, and finally a illogical leap to a sweeping generalisation. But this statement makes nothing of any of it. Basically the whole issue about a NASA atomic clock is a total red-herring. What actual difference does the clock, or its workings, make to any of what is being alleged? It's just hand waving in order to make it seem more significant. Refuting it in this way is just following Sibrel's lead down a completely irrelevant dead-end. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to include all of Sibrel's claims, especially if they haven't been covered by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out then. For one thing, it is under "missing data". If he has it then it isn't missing. But primarily I don't see the point he is trying to make and searching for it on Google turned up more hits than I can examine to try to figure out what he means. The reply doesn't make sense either. Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed:

c) Bart Sibrel said "In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabeled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the Moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape 33 years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I. It contains an hour of rare, unedited, color television footage that is dated by NASA’s own atomic clock three days into the flight. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple takes of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery. Really! It means they did not walk on the Moon!"

• The NASA atomic clock referred to is not the same clock as that used during the Apollo missions.

Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Really want a GA review

It appears that this article was nominated by an editor who has not contributed at all to this article. Do the real contributors want to continue with this review process? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is OK with me if the GA process continues, but I don't have the time or energy to work on getting it to GA. Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me say bluntly that this article needs a ton of work. So if no one's willing to work on the article, then it should be withdrawn from GAN. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I work on the article, but I don't feel like working on it enough to get it to GA. Someone else might. I did work on one to get it to GA, and it is a lot of work. Bubba73 (talk), 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So do you want to withdraw now? If you're not going to work on it, and the nominator (who hasn't done anything to this article) will not? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the article, but I don't want to put in work just to get it to GA. I think the nominator (whoever that is) should be asked if he wants to withdraw it. If there is no response from him, then withdraw it unless someone speaks up here saying they want to try to get it to GA. Bubba73 (talk), 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be inadvisable to conduct a GA review or work on this article to GA at the present time not only because of the fact that it is a blatant quick fail for content dispute, it is also fully protected to prevent an edit war from continuing. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being protected. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even to the point that you are not allowed edit it at present (which the full protection has done)? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I have nothing to add for the time being, and spend time reverting. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also made a couple of contributions to this article. Although I don't have a lot of time at the moment, I would be happy to work on improving it if specific concerns are identifed ("needs a ton of work"?) - of course, that can only happen once it has been un-protected. Logicman1966 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nergaal has not responded on his talk page to my questions about this article. However, MBK004 is indeed right, this is a quick fail for edit warring. And I have just quick-failed it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring will probably never end for this article. It as been going on for as long as I've been involved with this article, which is probably about 3 years. POV-pushers keep coming. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is unlikely to reach GA standard. The main problem lie with the fact it is, by its very nature, a loose collection of fringe theories of questionable notability. Added to that, most are easily debunked that it is very difficult to present them honestly without reference to mainstream facts that disprove them. Equally, there are many editors wishing to have these facts removed in order not to weaken the conspiracy theory and give it undue validity. They are therefore always open to challenge, both in their validity for inclusion in the article, but also in the neutrality of their presentation. It's a very difficult line to walk that Wikipedia guideline only offers a few pointers on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes the subject notable is that it's been talked about a lot. A fringe theory being notable has no connection with its "truth value". And despite the debunking, the same questions keep coming up. And Bubba73 is right, the POV pushers never give up. So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo (cannot edit)

[snip] used on the be nearSaturn V rocket). [snip]

Somebody fix this typo please. I could not, because it was locked from editing. --Ernest lk lam (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd fix it myself, but I'm blocked as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is locked until next Monday, thanks to the vandals. Perhaps some friendly admin will see this item and fix it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be unlocked soon enough. I'd just wait until then. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm unclear on how it should actually read. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a space between "near" and "Saturn V". Right now, it reads "nearSaturn V". 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't improve the sentence any. "used on the be near"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It should read "(the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket)". More specifically, five F-1 engines were used on the first stage of the Saturn V. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And the first stage of the Saturn V is the S-IC, but I don't think it needs to be that specific in this article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, lose the "be near", which was inexplicably added in this edit: [3] Since that was nearly a month ago, a few more days won't matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 (talk), 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos & gamma correction

How to explain this http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:GPN-2000-001137_300px_gamma.png? It agitated me :) --AS ^sa 13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AS (talk • contribs)

I don't know. Do you know what the original NASA photo number is? It will be something like ASxx-xx-xxxx. Bubba73 (talk), 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From information in the page on Russian Wikipedia: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001137.jpg. The effect is visible in the photo downloaded from that URL. I presume the effect is an artefact of conversion to (lossy) JPEG. Man with two legs (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Notice that the border extends into the helment faceplate, which would seem to rule out a cut and paste. Bubba73 (talk), 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is NASA photo AS17-134-20384. Bubba73 (talk), 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It could also be an artifact from the film scanner. Stray light gets in and casts a slight shadow on the photo, but it is too dim to see and goes unnoticed. So this might not be on the original negative. But you might find the same shadow shape in other photos scanned at the same time on the same unit. Algr (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the photo scanned in high resolution. I don't see the artifacts, but the gamma correction may have produced that. The one with the artifact is also low resolution, about 300x300. Bubba73 (talk), 18:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameras

I hate to be using the talk page like this but one of my friends doesn't believe that we landed on the moon. His main point is "If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, how did the cameras get there?" I assume that it was a pod that landed near it, but and exact truth would be appreciated.Wise dude321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the user's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Animation of the two photos, showing that the flag is not waving."

Flag of course will not wave! There is no wind in moon.. How come you expect a waving flag?