Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

This article fails to address the key issue

Update : I added the point that currently the only direct source of evidence for the lunar landings comes from those with access to the moon, given that telescopes cannot resolve the lunar landing sites (a point which I hope is generally accepted) and was snipped out of hand, first for lack of sources, and then on a sophism. I'll leave the subject alone now since I've learned what I came here to learn about wikipedia. Richard 15:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically, one cannot say with any degree of certainty that man has ever stepped foot on the moon. One might as well say that it's is obvious that unicorns exist, because the government claims it so, and has presented unicorn ivory and a photograph of 4 soldiers removing it from a dead unicorn. IMO this article riddled with pejoratives and dripping with sarcasm, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Richard 16:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "....doesn't belong on Wikipedia" - I couldn't agree more. Cheers --PhilipO 17:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're wrong about the "degree of certainty". It has the same "degree of certainty" that we soft-landed a vehicle on Mars recently, which I'm guessing you do believe happened, because it happened in your lifetime. Every question the doubters have asked about the Apollo program has been answered and explained over and over again, and it's like trying to teach the Chinese alphabet to a tea leaf: It's beyond hopeless. FYI, unicorns probably did exist, just not in the form we think. However, your last comment, that the article does not belong in wikipedia, is A BIG TEN-FOUR!!! Wahkeenah 17:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Both the lunar landings in 69 and the recent mars missions have to be taken on faith by me. My argument holds for both. I'm more inclined to believe the mars missions occured for many reasons the greatest of which is that they're not manned. But if I bet my life on it, I'd still be betting my life on faith alone. Your point about all quiestions being answered is therefore simply untrue. Richard 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    • You and your fellow doubters keep (understandably) evading the issue: What specific question(s), not already explained, do you have about the Apollo missions? As regards "faith", how do you know that anything you did not personally witness or live through is true? I argue that any historical fact of that nature requires "faith" on your part. Wahkeenah 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes this seems to be the tone used in the article. It's certainly not NPOV. It's not fit for Wikipedia. You've hit the nail on the head. How DO we know what is true and what is not? I personally think it has to do with Repeatability, Empiricism, Rationalism and Skepticism. The lunar landings of 69 have to be taken on faith alone. I'm sorry but that's all there is to it. This article doesn't address this point. It is JUST a vitriolic diatribe. To insinuate that people who refuse to take a thing on faith are somehow mentally deficient is positively medieval. Richard 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, in that case no historic event can be proven, since none are repeatable - you are just being told that certain events took place and can accept it or not. That is a general problem with any thing in the past and doesn't apply in particular to the Apollo moon landings. Afterall, we could all be brains in vats and nothing might objectively exist. This is a rather pointless discussion so I won't be chiming in any further. Cheers --PhilipO 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Roger that. The event called World War II, for example, also has to be taken on "faith". You can no more "prove" that World War II occurred than you can "prove" that the Apollo missions occurred. The only proof we have of any historical, i.e. non-repeatable event, are documents, photos, objects and eyewitness accounts. The space program has plenty of those. The doubters have nothing, except ignorant misinterpretations and ego-driven fantasies. These are guys who watch the "Matrix" movies (or "Capricorn I") and think they're documentaries. Wahkeenah 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. Even though I've never jumped off a high building without a parachute, I'm not likely to do this because empiricism, rationality and repeatability indicate that this action would be unwise. Not all historical events are taken on faith alone, many can be verified by at least a few of the pillars of scientific method. Where I'm asked by strangers to believe anything on faith alone, I'll be skeptical. Richard 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, yeh? Fine. Let's say I refuse to accept on faith that World War II happened. How would you prove it to me? Wahkeenah 16:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I could use scientific methods common in Archaeology for instance. Richard 16:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Such as what? And how would I know you weren't faking the evidence to try to prove your point? As a parallel example, a Christian fundamentalist, a guy with a college degree, in fact, once told me in all apparent seriousness that dinosaur bones might have been put in the ground by Satan to deceive us into thinking that evolution was real. That is exactly the mentality that has been demonstrated by the Apollo accusers. Wahkeenah 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wahkeenah 100%. There is no REASON to believe that the moon landing is false. There is tons of evidence that it happened. If one wants to claim that this evidence is flawed, then one must give reasons why. If those reasons are invalid, then back to square one: prove that it is false. --Kmclaughlin 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph. There are lots of methods use in Archaeology, Radio carbon dating for example. None of which are useful if you can't actually stand on the planet you're investigating. Your first point is a non-sequitur : The aim isn't for me to proove anything to you. Empiricism is about carrying out your own investigation. And your last point seems more typical of people who accept the lunar landings on faith alone than of people who do not? Richard 16:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

People have used radio carbon dating to prove WWII happened? Joshuaschroeder 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to put this back in context. My argument is that there is no way that one can prove that man landed on the moon in 69. You cannot investigate directly, and you cannot even investigate remotely, therefore it has to be taken on faith. Someone then suggested that all historical events have to be taken on faith, but this is not true. Historical events on earth are regularly investigated using Archaeology, Forensics and other branches of modern science, because it IS possible to investigate directly historical events on the earth.

Richard 09:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Then there is no way anyone can "prove" to your satisfaction that any event off the earth has happened, such as the recent Mars landings which could just as easily have been video coming from the Mojave Desert. And your argument about scientific techniques for events on earth also requires "faith" that they are being used honestly and correctly and that they are demonstrably valid... which many creationist religionists (probably a lot more than the famous 6 percent) dispute vigorously and have tried to legislate against. I say again (and again and again) that the Apollo program was part of a still-ongoing evolution of space exploration; that there is plenty of evidence that it both could have happened and did happen; that there is no evidence that it didn't happen, i.e. that the accusers' challenges to the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny; and that the accusers began pushing this stuff after it was "safe", i.e. after we were no longer flying to the moon. Wahkeenah 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. And you still won't answer my question as to what specific questions, not already addressed, remain unanswered in your mind, because you can't.
The article fails to address the point that it is not currently possible to empiracally prove the lunar landings occured, and that therefore all discussion on the point is moot. Were we discussing This Article I wouldn't complain about tacit acceptance of the landings, but this article takes the position that the landings are unequivocable and this is empirically impossible to say. Therefore this article is not fit for wikipedia. The article should read something like : Some people believe that man has never landed on the moon, and while it is empirically impossible to make a judgement, the vast majority of people disagree with this position. The End. Richard 11:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think your logic is as flawed as the arguments used by the moonbats, but I can't argue with your concept of brevity. Why don't you go ahead and apply the Wikipedia "Be Bold" credo, and do exactly that. Start with a clean slate and see what happens. >:) Wahkeenah 11:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, you keep evading my questions: For one, can you prove we soft-landed an unmanned vehicle on Mars recently? Wahkeenah 11:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding it, it's just not what we're discussing. But the same applies to that misison, I cannot proove either way whether or not man has landed something on Mars. As I said before, for many reasons I find it more plausible.Richard 12:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a good one! :) I see you had to revert a second occurrence of that "waving flag" nonsense. That little episode is a microcosm of why trying to debate this issue is akin to spitting into the wind. No matter how many times you explain it, they ask the same questions again. By the way, Christian fundamentalists are also quick to point out that carbon-14 is unreliable because of its plus-or-minus uncertainty factor which becomes larger the farther back you go, and is thus also a tool of the anti-Christian secular-humanist conspiracists who assert that the earth is over 5,000 years old or whatever. And the user above has inadvertently raised a related issue. He doesn't have to prove anything to me, and the people who ran the Apollo program don't have to prove anything to him, either. It is the accusers who claim that this did not happen, so as with any court of law, the burden of proof is on them. It is they who must prove something contrary to accepted history, and they cannot, because they have no contrary evidence. But they do have their "faith" or "belief" that Apollo was a humbug, and that's all they need to keep harping on the same already-addressed issues, over and over again. Now, let me surprise you with something: I would be very willing to consider the possibility the moon landings were fake, if you had anything. I watched that show in 2001. The accusers have nothing! Wahkeenah 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Area 51 hold any importance with this issue?

I remember seeing some documentary talking about Area 51,stating that this is the area where the supposedely hoax landing was filmed.I'm not an American,and so I'm not aware at all about Area51,I know that even for an American it would be tough to get info on it,but the media there must have stories on it,I would appreciate it if someone would put some info on it here.I've seen many videos on the issue of hoax landing,and all of them are biased towards one side or another.Whenever I see one I'm totally convinced that one side is right.I think people should really make unbiased reports and documentaries.Just an intresting fact,just look at the image "As11-40-5886",Neil Amstrong is in a shadow region and yet you can clearly see him!!And to this even the explanation of various sources of lights is not valid.And also,somebody conveniently deleted some facts i wrote on the page.

How many times will we have to explain this? Perhaps we should create some sort of 'bot to do it. He is visible due to the ambient light from the Moon's surface. His white spacesuit reflected much of the light that fell on it from all directions. Look up the External links for all your answers. Cheers --PhilipO 18:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
PhilipO please dont get personal with this after all it really doesnt affect us whether its a hoax or not,However theres another flaw,As far as I know,metals are the best reflectors of light,Then why isnt the Lunar Lander reflecting light like Neil's spacesuit?Prateek01 14:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly how did I get personal? This issue has been explained countless times on the Internet - that is what I am saying - and that is not a personal attack. Insulting you (which I didn't) would be getting personal. Cheers --PhilipO 16:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Area 51" is a government testing ground somewhere in New Mexico, I think. It's top secret, and everyone knows about it, which shows how good the U.S. government is at keeping secrets. Wahkeenah 16:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the government denies the existence of Area 51. But knowing what the government is these days, that means it does exist. Davidizer13 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Area 51 is where the WMD's are. Wahkeenah 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably not; I think they went straight from Libya to Oak Ridge for demilitarization. :) Tom Harrison (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Gallup quote

"Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals, it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them"

Is this quote grammatically correct? Bubbachuck 03:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. For "about", read "approximately".


We saw a documentary on tv tonite, where all these people who knew about the conspiracy told their stories. Kissinger and all the other politicians and even Kubrick's widow spoke and admitted the hoax was true...They also admitted the elimination of Andy Rogers, Jim Grow, Vince Broom, Bob Stein and Vernon A. Walters. Stanley Kubrick spent the last times of his life at home until he died , terrified of being also eliminated.

The "documentary" mentioned above was actually a "mockumentary" deliberately made to mock this ludicrous conspiracy theory. See Dark Side of the Moon. Kamd 14:35 Oct 06, 2005 (UTC)

Broken link from subject page:

  • Clavius website established to debunk the hoax theories

The first time I heard this theory was in Burkina Faso around 1987 moon landing seemed so incredible to some people there than they believe it was faked. Never heard this anymore in France until around 1995 and the idea was reported by highly educated people it seems Internet played a major role...

Ericd 22:41 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

Obviously these people weren't highly educated in astronomy, photography, or engineering... --Brion 23:06 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

I didn't say they believe in it but there was like a doubt : "Do you think it's possible ?"

Of all the hoaxes - sorry, conspiracy theories, this probably the one that is the easiest prove false. All used argument by those supporting the theory can be - as Brion points out - countered by using well-known and simple facts of astronomy, physics and engineering. As with most other conspiracy theories, ignoring the counter-evidence, ignoring the huge heap of other evidence and the lack of a decent answer to "why?" should be enough for most people to refer this theory to where it belongs: the garbage heap. Jeronimo
There is a very compelling reason "why?" - it was politically very important to win the space race with the Russians, and the endeavor was risky, much safer to fake it. Not that that is evidence that they did, but there certainly was motive. 2toise 03:26, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In Capricorn One they planned to fake a landing on Mars not the Moon. Mintguy 01:17 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

The best link is

About the lack of flame: it would help if we could tell exactly what propulsed the module off the moon...

Done. --mav


Other fata types of radiation, however, are not stopped. In Russian experiments with monkeys, the monkeys all died within 8 hours of landing. The monkeys had been in capsules whose metal walls were eight times thicker than the walls of the lunar landing module.

This is going to require a damn good reference. The Apollo spacecraft were only in the belts for a couple hours and cosmic radiation isn't that big of a deal due to the short term nature of the trip. I recall that the astronauts got the equivalent of a couple chest X-rays of radiation for the whole trip. They were lucky that there weren't any solar storms -- those could have killed the astronauts (the LEM and spacesuits would not have prevented fatal doses of radiation). But that didn't happen. --mav
Look at the records. There were solar storms. Really intense ones. Miraculously they survived... and lived hale and hearty into their eighties and nineties. I guess a solar storm isn't so deadly after all! --Clutch

During the Apollo program, there were several near-misses between the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon and a deadly solar storm event. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked on the Moon only a few short weeks after a major solar proton flare would have bathed the astronauts in a 100 rem blast of radiation. Another major flare that occurred half way between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 moonwalks would have had a much more deadly outcome had it arrived while astronauts were outside their spacecraft playing golf. Within a few minutes, the astronauts would have been killed on the spot with an incredible 7000 rem blast of radiation.


Ralph Rene

I talked to Ralph Rene on the phone twice, he is a nice old man. Very bitter at NASA for destroying his career. Vera Cruz

Could you be more specific? I've never talked to Rene in person but has admitted that he is a retired carpenter self-taught in physics. Where is the career connection to NASA? Ian Lancaster
I've no doubt he is a nice person. So's Harrison Schmitt, by all reports. Doesn't make any difference to whether he's correct or not. Anyway, this is getting offtopic. -- Robert Merkel

I think the point comes down to, people have very good questions about how NASA went to the moon. There are a number of technical questions to which NASA refuses to provide an answer. This is why people think there is a conspiracy. I don't care whether we went to the moon, what I care about is our government and all it's beauraucratic buddies are clearly not leveling with the public. Vera Cruz

And what questions are those? What concerning the Apollo space program has NASA concealed from public scrutiny? Ian Lancaster

Removed a sentence about hoax debunkers getting irrational when defending a subject near and dear to their hearts. It was a cheap, POV, and irrelevant shot. -- 05:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moon hoax

Moon landing hoax


Unlike some other conspiracy theories, this theory is falsifiable. Observations can be made--for example, through powerful telescopes or via new moon landings--of the physical evidence....

Well, if I'm not already convinced previous landings are legit --I am -- why should I believe evidence from (alleged) new landings? --Calieber 13:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Maybe you could go there yourself... Kappa 23:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

China's got a rapidly growing space program. If they go to the moon and the reports of radiation, the photography, and so on match NASA's own from three and a bit decades ago, it'll either prove that NASA are correct, or insinuate that China are co-operating with the US in a "hoax" or for some reason attempting to copy the US's 1960s-70s "hoax" without fixing any of the "mistakes" listed here. I'll bet dollars to donus regarding which conclusions each side will draw. Sockatume 05:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


"In a recent twist, the son of Nikita Khrushchev (the Russian Premier at the time of Apollo) related meetings between his father and John F. Kennedy. JFK apparently offered the USSR a deal to agree to USSR/US missions to the moon. The Soviet leader said "No" initially, but then changed his mind some months later. Khrushchev's son said that, before his father had a chance to seal the deal, members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas. "

Interesting though this nugget of information is. I don't see that it is in anyway relevant to the hoax theory. Mintguy 16:01, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I may have got carried away - take it out if you like, it seemed to me that, though it did not relate to the hoax, it did muddy the waters of the moon landing conspiracy theory. :) As I say, I'm happy for you to take it out if you don't think it belongs here. 2toise 16:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hm.. it casts doubt on one conspiracy theory whilst raisng issues concerning another. Sounds very dodgy. Perhaps better in a page about conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's assasination Mintguy 23:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You might be right - do you want to have a crack at finding a better home, or just remove it? 2toise 04:46, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I have a more pressing question: is it true - not President John F. Kennedy's joint manned lunar landing proposal (I know all about that) but the assertion that Sergei Khrushchev has claimed "members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas" before his father had a chance to seal the deal? This is not what Sergei Khrushchev contends in his book, 'Nikita Khrushchev and the Making of a Superpower' (Penn State Press). Would someone be so kind as to provide me with links/references so I can further my understanding on this matter? Thank you very much. 22:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Sorry, but "Apollo moon landing hoax" is a loaded term which actually makes an implicit statement of truth about Apollo being a hoax. "Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory" is a more NPOV term. --mav 08:31, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, I agree that it is, but I actually think that 'conspiracy theory' is also just as loaded term. The term is used disparagingly by people who want to discredit an idea or theory. There can be no NPOV use of the term, because it is a judgement of the veracity of the claim. Can we find another term? How about 'Apollo moon landing hoax accusations', or 'Apollo moon landing hoax theory'?
I agree that saying 'moon landing hoax' is implicitly saying that it is a hoax, but 'moon landing conspiracy theory' is implicityly saying that it is a conspiracy theory, and therefore false.2toise 11:41, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Isn't the whole idea of the theory that there has been a conspiracy? People do use "conspiracy theory" as a derogatory term in informal contexts, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, written in a whole different register. Indeed the very idea of a large number of people being involved in a successful conspiracy does make the truth of a conspiracy theory improbable, but that doesn't mean there are no true conspiracy theories. 11:57, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced, but I can't find an example of anyone ever self-describing their ideas as conspiracy theories, except in an ironic sense - the term is almost always used as a derogatory comment, or as a category label for ideas that are so fringe or improbable as to be not worth consideration. There's a pretty extensive discussion of this subject at conspiracy theory2toise 12:00, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is a theory about a conspiracy. That is dryly descriptive and thus NPOV. Theory by itself is another thing. --mav 23:29, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It is, indeed, a theory about a conspiracy, but you must admit that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is not simply neutral in its connotations - it carries derogatroy connotations. Rather than simply reverting the constructive attempt I made, I wonder whether you can find an instance of someone self describing their ideas as conspiracy theories?2toise 10:46, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
They self-describe it as either fact or a theory. But it is neither fact nor a theory (which in the context of an encyclopedia is defined as "a set of ideas explaining some aspect of the world that is held to be true beyond a reasonable doubt by the majority of scientists in that field". The term "conspiracy theory" is no more POV than the term cult, and yet we state that religions that fit that description are cults. NPOV is one thing, but you seem more concerned with political correctness. --mav

Sorry Mav, I don't really understand where you got that definition - I've never seen anything like it. A theory isn't defined by who or how many people believe it is true. Can you help me out on why you think who believes it affects whether or not it is a theory? Re Cult, you might want to check that page out, since there is a lot of discussion of its use as a POV term to disparage religious movements. Whether a group is a religion or a cult seems to very much depend on ones point of view. Whether or not a theory is a conspiracy theory is also a matter of point of view. I would ask you again to find anyone who describes their own ideas as conspiracy theories - the reason this is important is that the term is used almost exclusively to disparage ideas, never to dispasionately describe them.2toise 22:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. The word "theory" is often used by lay persons as a derogatory way to dismiss well-established theories like evolution, saying that it is "only a theory". This is probably what you are thinking about and why you object to the use of "conspiracy theory". But the term "theory" does not have the meaning most people ascribe! Should we not use that term as well? "Conspiracy theory" is a widely used term for this type of thing - there was even a movie by that name which was sympathetic to at least one conspiracy being true. --mav

You're right - the word 'theory' is used to point out that it is difficult to prove beyond all doubt the factual basis of a claim, and is sometimes used as a weak form of the usage of 'conspiracy theory'. Nevertheless 'theory' has an accepted technical usage, 'conspiracy theory' has no usage outside of POV judgements. There is a great difference between saying that evolution is 'only a theory' (that it has not been proven beyond all doubt) and saying that 'evolution is a conspiracy theory' ("in my opinion, only a crackpot would believe it"). I'd really like to ask you to stop simply reverting other people's attempts to reach constructive compromise on this, and try to justify the use of the word outside of judemental POV language2toise 22:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the NPOV titles of:

1. Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

2. Apollo moon landing hoax theory

3. Theory of faked Apollo moon landing

They all indicate that the matter in question is the alleged faking, or hoaxing of the Apollo moon landings, and also indicate that this is merely a theory, or an accusation, not a statement of fact. I think that any of these would be a more NPOV alternative than the current - what do you think?2toise 22:49, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For God's sake! Have you read our theory article or have been listening to anything I've been saying? It is not a theory at all! --mav 18:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it, I don't see why, even by your slightly esoteric definition, this is not a theory; evidence is presented, predictions are made that can be tested- what's the problem?2toise 18:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For the record, here is what Wikipedia has to say about conspiracy theories on the page Falsifiability: Conspiracy theories There are other examples of theories, however, that are much less controversial as examples of unfalsifiable claims. Some so-called "conspiracy theories," at least as defended by some people, are essentially unfalsifiable because of their logical structure. Conspiracy theories usually take the form of uncircumcised existential statements, alleging the existence of some action or object without specifying the place or time at which it can be observed. Failure to observe the phenomenon can then always be the result of looking in the wrong place or looking at the wrong time. Conspiracy theorists defend their position by claiming that lying and other forms of fabrication are, in fact, a common tool of governments and other powerful players.

The Moon Landing Hoax clearly specify the place, people and actions that took place. Some looneys (excuse the pun) might deny the evidence, but the theory in itself would be falsifiable by finding the evidence of the landing on the moon, either by going back or by photographing it with a telescope. The Moon Landing Hoax Theory is not a conspiracy theory by Wikipedia's definition. 2toise 16:00, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Given that this suggestion has generated no controversy, I am going to change the name to Apollo moon landing hoax theory - if anyone disagrees, I would ask them to discuss it here rather than reverting it, thanks!2toise 17:10, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No controversy in a day. I'm moving it to Apoll moon landing hoax accusations. --mav 18:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
To be fair, it was three days...2toise

I changed the title but upon second thought maybe Apollo moon landing hoax allegation would be a better title.

      n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the
           act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal]
      2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence;
         "the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of
         drunken driving" [syn: charge]
      n 1: (law) a formal accusation against somebody (often in a court
           of law); "an allegation of malpractice"
      2: statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact that
         you are prepared to prove [syn: allegement]

--mav 18:31, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That works for me, great!2toise 18:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My first impression on looking at the title was "what an odd title". Then I went over the above discussion and got to know the history. I feel the title was a temporary patch to cool the fires and it still can be improved. My objection with the title is the word : "accusations" -- the page is not just about the accusations but also the rebuttals. Its ok if its the title of a redirect page, but not the main page. Jay 19:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to call this page exactly what it is all about: 'The Apollo Moonlanding Hoax Conspiracy Hoax' - I see no need to be nice about this or express the "NPOV". Some issues aren't neutral and can be scientifically analyzed. This is one of them. The hoax conspiracy claims are outrageous and we shouldn't treat it with kid gloves. The hoaxers make claims, we can examine them with the light of reason and science. Fair and unbiased treatment does not have to remain "neutral". jim 07:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to be "neutral", not "scientific". I agree with you that these claims are completely bunk, but if we say this outright it will likely lead to edit wars. Remember that hoax believers are also capable of editing wikipedia articles --- if we reject the claims they will get angry and rewrite the article. The only possible compromise is neutrality. --Shibboleth 18:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you fail to realise is that in some countries a movie or photograph is not admissable as evidence. The majority who beleived this incident beleived that the film was admissale for their judgement. You also fail to consider that unless the Wikipedia should be dubbed Wiki-"Anglo_centric views" that the majority of the world does not beleive in the moon landing and never did. Perpetuating a lie such as the moon landing is a dangerous thing and even the Encyclopedia Britanica attempts to appease for the moment both beleivers and non beleivers by a very sublime and almost generic writeup under the title Apollo program. It allowed them to talk about the program without mentioning anyone landing on the moon. However, Neil Armstrong gets a write up about landing on the moon. I suggest someone invent a way to burn E-Text.

we are here to create an enclyopedia not appease anyone (otherwise the page on north korea would start NK is the best country on the planetly lead by the genius of kim joung il). Film is far from being the only evidence of the moon landings. Flim and photos are admissable in court in my country and indeed in most that I know of. I am not aware of high levels of disberlife in the moon landings in either india or china so your statement about numebrs of belives is probably untrue. Either way it is an appeal to popularity logical fallicyGeni 13:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Here's another moon hoax! [1] I wonder, should we turn this into a page on (alleged) moon hoaxes, or keep this one as an Apollo landing page and find another home for this?2toise 12:08, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Kubrik connection

It is alleged that in early 1968 (while 2001 was in post production) NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three moon landings. He initially said he was not interested, but, apparently, NASA convinced him using a combination of carrot and stick; exclusive access to the alien artifacts and autopsy footage from the Roswell crash site, and threats to publicly reveal Raul's (Kubrick's younger brother) links with the American Communist Party.

Kubrick is alleged to have spent sixteen months working on the project with a special effects team led by Douglas Trumbull on a sound stage in Huntsville, Alabama, with the Apollo 11 missionbeing staged in July of 1969.

Allegedly a Saturn V rocket was launched into low Earth orbit with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins remaining there while Kubrick's footage of the 'landing' was released to the press. The return to Earth and splashdown were, of course, real.

Several months later, the Apollo 12 mission was successfully staged in a similar manner.

Randall Cunningham was later recruited to direct a 'failed mission' - Apollo 13.2toise 12:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In my pokings around on the net reading up on the Apollo program I found a document from the mid-1990s that argued the "Kubrick connection". It was a very, very deadpan gag, with such subtle bits as claiming that Kubrick was into celestial mechanics and space navigation as a hobby, and that the Moon landings ended up being shot "on location". The gags were so subtle they could go right by you -- they did the first time I read it -- and it is said this item is the source of the Kubrick myth.

It isn't named, it isn't verifiable ... maybe it's just part of the conspiracy, eh? greg goebel

Suspicious Deaths

10 astronauts died under mysterious circumstances during Apollo.


  • Ed Givens (car accident) [2]
  • Ted Freeman (T-38 crash) [3]
  • C. C. Williams (T-38 accident)
  • Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident)
  • Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire) (outspoken criticism of the Space Program)
  • X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut but had flown X-15 above 50 miles (technically he could be considered an astronaut along with a number of the other X-15 pilots).
  • Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash shortly after reporting for duty to that program.
  • NASA worker Thomas Baron was a murder and a coverup of a 500 page report on the Apollo 1 accident.

Some facts: Freeman ran into a flock of geese while trying to land at an airport near Houston. (Possibly the geese were working for the conspiracy.) He tried to eject but he was too low, and "zero-zero" ejection seats weren't standard gear in those days.

Elliot See and Charlie Bassett tried to land at the airfield near the McDonnell plant in very foul weather. They were going there to get Gemini simulator time, along with Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan in another T-38. Stafford was leery about going in and banked off, only to be surprised when See, piloting the other T-38, broke away and went straight in.

Deke Slayton judged See at the bottom rank for flight skills; See blew the approach, throttled up to lift off for another go-round, and clipped the building where the Geminis were being put together. The T-38 flipped into the parking lot. There were over a dozen injuries to innocent bystanders, fortunately all of them minor. The T-38 might well have gone square into the building, spreading carnage and, incidentally, destroying the Gemini capsules being built there.

CC Williams augured in near Tallahasee in a brand-new T-38; he ejected too late. This the only one of these three incidents that could be regarded as suspicious, since the T-38 left little but a crater and metal scraps -- it hit at high speed -- and the cause was never determined. It was judged likely to be a manufacturing glitch. greg goebel

  • These deaths only appear suspicious to the conspiracy theorists. It's parallel to those who claimed there were a lot of suspiciously "early" deaths of those in some way connected to the JFK assassination, without any reference to actuarial tables of the population in general to see if there was any statistical significance, because that might have undercut their hypothesis. Test pilots die all the time. Someone should study the stats for deaths of test pilots in general and see if there is any statistical significance compared with those connected with the space program. By the way, everyone involved in the Lincoln assassination is now dead. Sounds fishy to me! Wahkeenah 16:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This qualitative judgment about deaths being suspicious also reminds me of the so-called "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, which is based solely on the premise that evolution "couldn't have happened by accident". Why couldn't it have? Because the religionists say so, that's why. And these conspiracy theories also have a religious character to them. Coincidence? I think not. Wahkeenah 16:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have some comments along this line but not appropriate here. Email if you like: greg goebel

How many people believe it?

OK, I did some brief research on this, and it seems that the last serious effort was in 1999 with a Gallup poll which said that in 1999 about 6% of Americans believed the landings were faked. While this is small, it is also a significant number of people. We should be careful about bringing the number of people who believe in a theory aggressively into the first paragraph of an article, especially unless we want to treat all minority beliefs the same way (for example, see recent Gallup polls on evolution).2toise 12:32, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have to dispute this comment about the Gallup poll. What source did you use? I'm skeptical that the poll really did say that. Oftentimes these polls will ask, "Is <blank> possible?" And then maybe 6% said yes. But saying something's possible is not the same as saying you believe it. --C S 11:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
[4] This is the link to the Gallup page on the poll they did in July 1999. But you have to a subscriber to really actually see anything like what question they asked etc. Evil MonkeyTalk 21:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Oh please. Evolution and this crackpot idea are not comparable. Evolution is a scientific theory that is held to be true beyond a reasonable doubt by scientists and has the evidence to support that claim. The moon landing thing attacks scientific evidence and states that there was, and still is, a mass conspiracy to cover up the "truth". --mav 18:31, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You can state that as often as you like, but how are they qualitatively different? What kind of falsifiable predictions does evolution produce that are any less flimsy than the moon landing? For the record, I believe in evolution, and do not believe in the moon hoax, but that's my point of view - we have to treat all theories with a certain amount of neutrality.2toise 18:43, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The moon hoax idea is not a theory! Evolution has been proved to exist in microbes, unequivocally. There is also a huge mountain of evidence to support the claim that evolution occurs in higher taxa as well. I didn't claim a qualitative difference, but a huge quantitative difference. But since you asked there is a major qualitative difference; the use of the scientific method. The moon hoax proponents don't use it while biologists do. --mav 06:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, I guess the comparison was an uncomfortable one, since the moon hoax is a social science theory, or a thoeory of human behaviour, and so scientific method is less easy to apply rigorously (you can't easily perform experiments on human history) but I doubt that you are really suggesting that the fields of social science and political science really don't generate theories because they can't perform experiments on their subjects?

In fact (althought I am sure you can find some moon hoax proponents who don't) the moon hoax theory does use scietific method:

  • Observations have been made about many aspects of the moon landings that throw doubt on the conventional hypothesis that NASA built a fantastically complex space program and flew people to the moon on multiple occasions over a number of years.
  • A new hypothesis was generated; that in fact, it was not necessary to invoke a complex space program to explain the current facts, and indeed, the current evidence could be explained better by the hypothesis that NASA faked the landings. This hypothesis could explain all the current evidence, and the evidence that is problematic for the old hypothesis.
  • Test:
    • Predict: The logical consequences of this predict, for example, that there should be no lander debris or footprints on the moon.
    • Experiment: This experiment has not yet been carried out, one can only speculate as to why, but the ESA has promised to use its VLT for this at some point.
  • Conclude: Because this experiment has yet to be carried out, we can neither accept or refute the hypothesis at this stage (unless, of course, we have already made up our minds, and are so committed to the status quo hypothesis that we are unable to accept a new one, a common enough fault in scientists).

Where is the flaw in the scientific method? We're just waiting for the experiment.2toise 11:21, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a major flaw in your reasoning; if the result of that experiment does not conform to the moon hoax conspiracy theorists' beliefs then they will undoubtably not accept those data as valid and will in fact say that that is part of the conspiracy. They have already done the same thing with the moon photos, moon rocks and moon reflectors. You cannot pretend to accept the scientific method when you only accept experimental results that conform to your pre-conceived notions. This has been an interesting discussion, but I do believe that our disagreement over the actual article and its title are over, no? --mav 11:34, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Absolutely - I don't think we disagree on the title or the article - just so you know, I'm sort of intending to merge the bullet lists into more of a discussion of the issues, I think the bullet lists are kind of kookey.
Re the scientific method though, I think it's important to distinguish between individuals, who may or may not follow the rules, from the theory, which certainly can be made to. It's really important to do that, otherwise the whole excercise becomes about discrediting individuals rather than looking at the evidence (after all, we're talking primarily about the accusations, not the accusers).2toise 12:02, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The assertion that it's easy to get 6 percent of the people to say that something is "possible" is highly important. At some point in 1973 or 1974, Harry Reasoner reported that a poll showed that more people believed in UFO's than believed in Richard Nixon. He remarked, "I don't know for sure what that says, but it says something!" It also reminds me of a time when Garrison Keillor, ridiculing polls of that type, pointed out one that said a significant percent of the public conceded that they would "consider" eating squirrel. Wahkeenah 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Kubrick "documentary"

Thought I should point out, since somebody's offered it as evidence further up this talk page, that the French "documentary" Dark Side of the Moon, about Stanley Kubrick's involvement in the fake moon landings, is - interviews with genuine Kubrick family members and US Government bigwigs notwithstanding - not true. And not meant to be true. The out-takes during the credit sequence ought to be a dead giveaway, even for people who hadn't noticed that several of the interviewees were named after characters in Kubrick movies. (And that joke about the Acidic Jew - oy.)

Paul A 03:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Can we go back to disprove? I think falsify is a little confusing in this context because of the possible interpretation of 'falsifying evidence'. We are talking about the relative easy with which the theories could be proved false, not faked. 03:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Re: (+"No qualification is offered to support this claim of "more accurate" mirrors, nor is any correlation shown between the "accuracy" of mirrors to their placement in arbitrary locations on the moon.")

I don't care to get in a revert match, but the statement above can not possibly be substantiated, because it is in a passive voice that fails to limit the scope of "who" is not offering such evidence, and says nothing about to whom the evidence might have been offered. Further, it is unlikely that an unpaid Wiki volunteer has conducted exhaustive interviews at NASA to determine what NASA has offered. The claim would have merit if the editor did the research and provided to us evidence of the comparative accuracy of the two mirrors, allowing for changes in the ability to accurately place mirrors by robot in more recent years. SoCal 21:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


This article is biased towards opponents of a moon landing hoax. See statements like:

"That the hoax believers can only produce 2 other suspicious deaths amongst the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo indicates just how far they must reach to try to support their conspiracy theories.

This is a wiki - edit it if you like - remember the principle that we should be writing from a Neutral Point of View! Mark Richards 16:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Slowed film?

I have heard a few people on some sites discuss that, after viewing moon landing footage and working out the approximate value of 'g' from observing dropped objects, that it is not 0.6g but indeed closer to 0.5, and that the footage may have been filmed on earth and slowed by 1/2. I dont have access to any of the films. Might anyone with some more experience or info on this care to add? Flippant

and if you slow down an olypic 100M sprint it looks like your school sports day. this means nothingGeni 20:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speeding up the moon landing footage by a half looks really, really, really weird. They walk like Thunderbirds puppets, dust still fails to cloud as it would in an atmosphere, the rover bounces wrong... ah, well, nice shot. Sockatume 04:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)Sockatume

"and if you slow down an olypic 100M sprint it looks like your school sports day. this means nothingGeni 20:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) "

This is NOT true, this comment's argumentation is absolutely (objectively) false, and should be removed due to its untrue status and lack of seriousness towards the treatment of the subjet.

You can't define what is true or not, or else this problem would have solved already. However, there is lack of seriousness of how one specific user treats the subject. I would also like a link to where you have seen the footage, so other people can judge the video aside from yourself.

On one of the TV shows about the alleged hoax, they took the video of the walk and speeded it up, and it clearly didn't look right (i.e. what you saw was NOT slowd to half speed.) I don't know of any links but you can buy them on DVD at Speceflight films. I have the 3-DVD Apollo 11 set. It has all of the movie film taken by NASA plus all of the TV of the moonwalk and a few still photos. It isn't cheap, but it is there.

Suggestions To Fix This Issue.

1. There has been no evidence of a moon landing other than a film (for the majority of people)

So what there is plent of other evidence avaible if you want.Geni

2. The fact that many people worked on a project is like claiming the government department of childcare knows exactly what the government department of chemo-toxic warefare is upto on the weekend.

WE have a pretty good idea what they are up toGeni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. The 358Kg of rock brought back from the moon could have been excavated from radiation blasting sites, meteorite deposits, or volcanic materials we have no substantiating proof of the sampling method used nor of the training the astronauts had for sample collection. (i would say they know nothing about them except for Neil Armstrong who later was involved with an oil mining company)

evidence for any of these claims?Geni

4. The Photos can be either seen as a source of evidence or not. Those accepting them have different opinions to those that do not accept them. I can make for instance a short film of me floating on the moon.

Really? Now makes hours of footage without makeing any mistakesGeni

5. If we accept the Moon landing as an entry then there must also be an entry for the Greeks who landed on the Sun in 700BC.

Why? There is not comaprision between the twoGeni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Off topic, but does anyone know anything about this Greeks landing on the Sun in 700BC thing? I did a quick google and couldn't find anything. Sounds like a good story... DarkSideOfTheSpoon 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

6. The majority of people in the world do not beleive the moon landing was real.

Evidence? Once again I must point out the above is a logical fallicy

We can go on debating because that is what a lie produces. It is not a cyclic argument but a spiraling argument towards the base or product of a lie. If you think it happened then the outcome of your conclusion is essentially based on two sources, a movie and writups from encyclopedias and books about this subject. I suggest that this encyclopaedia reform its content towards a propagation of truths rather than perpetuation of lies. So this is my resolution:

We have/had a debate going on medern geocentralism. Must therefor we accept that that thoery is correct?Geni

Ommit all references to a moon landing. Talk about Appollo Program, Talk about the astronauts but never mention in any way that there was such a thing as a moon landing or even space travel. Neither of these things are a reality and neither of these things have been proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.

yes they haveGeni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We may speak of attempts to enter into space and landing on the moon, but to suggest, imply or even ratify that they did is a falsification as it must also require the "creation of fact" or the use of created "facts".

prove itGeni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, before I finish I would also like to mention that the more beneficial categorical entry for all these space and high technology space achievements is "How propaganda works?". We should consider initially the impact of delivering a non stop televised broadcast to multiple nations. We may consider how it has been used like a trademark or trend for the perpetuation of lies. Maybe we should also write about how encyclopedias are used to do the same.

I seem to recall that we have an article on propagandaGeni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consider this: of the countless nations, many of which were competitors in the Space Race or enemies of the United States, or both, at the time of the landings, not one- not one has come forth to stand by the claims made by landing disbelievers. Not at the time, not after the event, not now. That the most public face of the landing skeptics is an American guy wafting around a leaf blower in a dusty quarry to attempt to disprove space flight, and not the former head of the KGB, or one of the many then-USSR spies inside Apollo, speaks volumes. Sockatume 02:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is worth noting that during the lunar scenes in 2001 Kubrick's Earth appears as a white/great ball, rather than the continents clearly outlined... I think this is significant and should be mentioned.

  • Stanley Kubrick was a movie director, not a scientist. His name should not even come up in this article. Wahkeenah 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sightings by amateurs

I added the note about amateur astronomers and amateur radio operators tracking the Apollo spacecraft. I personally saw Apollo 13 through a 10" telescope a few hours before the explosion. Rsduhamel 23:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've added that the explosion was seen from Earth. I always understood that what people saw was that the spacecraft started to be surrounded by a 'cloud'. Evil MonkeyTalk 23:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

If there is a conspiracy it involves not only NASA and the US government but all professional and amateur astronomers working at the time in all countries of the world, many of whom would have been delighted to prove the US never got to the moon.

Exile 11:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet Union: no friend of America

Barely mentioned at all is (for me) the best counter-argument to the hoax theory is: "Why didn't the Soviets even suggest it was faked?"

The Soviet Union had some of the greatest scientists in the world, and a space programme of its own including robotic landings on the moon. They had no interest in protecting America's propaganda coup, so why on earth didn't the Soviets disprove the moon landings?

They had the technology, they had the expertise, they had no motivation to lie about the moon landings. If they'd had the slightest bit of evidence the landings were faked, you can bet they'd have announced it very very loudly. Yet we didn't hear a thing about faked landings from the USSR, ever.

Why isn't more made of the silence from the Soviet Union?

Many conspiracy theories are based more on motives than proof (e.g. "The mafia must have killed Kennedy because he cracked down on them" etc), but this is one case where the motives are irrefutably against the conspiracy theory. It's almost impossible to imagine any rational motivation why the USSR would conspire with the USA to deceive the world into thinking America got to the moon first.

Agreed -- this argument was brought forward in an edition of the Skeptical Inquirer one or two years ago, and is -- in my opinion -- the single best argument to shut up most arguments on the topic -- unless you are dealing with a hard-core conspiracy theorist who believes the Soviets were in on the hoax (don't ask, they do exist!)

-- 12:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. If the moon landings were fake, one of two things would have happened. 1. The Soviets would reveal the faked landings. 2. The Soviets would go along with the fake U.S. landings, in exchange for the U.S. not debunking their own *landings* (which would be fake too, of course). Since the Soviets never claimed to land on the moon, and since they never claimed the U.S. faked their landings, I would say that's evidence enough. There's no way the world superpower that was the Soviet Union would not discover this *hoax*, especially when you consider it was *discovered* by 30-year-old virgins living in their parent's basement.

No offense.  :)


How..... would the Soviets proove the lunar landings were false? Richard 14:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

There is a lot of vague stuff here. We have claims and rebuttals in the text by "skeptics", "apollo believers" and other vague terms. I've copy edited to keep it impersonal where no reference is given, and to attribute where possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny POV

This was posted in the article by anonymous user and is too funny (and on-the-mark) to just obliterate:

Overall, the landings were real. Those who believe otherwise are probably stupid or ignorant. Despite all the counter-arguments to the above points, the greatest is that they were all theorised by weirdos. It seems somewhat co-incidental that those who 'realised' this particular 'truth' all live in caravans and drink their own blood

Now, who can argue with that? Wahkeenah 23:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'why don't we go back' question

The page doesn't mention one very common reason people believe it may have been a hoax: that we never went back. It's a valid point. Doesn't make much sense to me that we had spacecrafts going back and forth the moon in the early 70's - almost in a trivial fashion, when technology was primitive compared to today. Yet today in 2005, it seems very difficult to get anything in orbit (space sail, chalenger, you-name-your-disaster) - not to mention the prohibitive cost. I think it would be good to include this theory in the page. Adidas 11:48, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can find external sources for the argument (ie you're not just inserting it because you think it might be thought convincing), add it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)
It's not difficult to get things in orbit, it's done all the time. Granted it's expensive. The ones who raise the question "Why don't we go back?" obviously weren't around at the time. The explanation is simple: There was no reason to. And definitely no funding. Once we did the very first moon landing, i.e. "proving we could do it", public interest dropped like a rock. In fact, there was much public skepticism during the 1960s... not whether it could be done, but the simple question "WHY? Why spend the money?" As Tom Lehrer said in his comments about Werher von Braun in 1965, "What is it that will make it possible to spend billions of dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Good old American know-how!" Lehrer's ridiculing of the space program reflected the opinion of a sizable number of Americans. There was no discernible gain from it other than national pride and advancement of pure science. It soon became clear that there was nothing on the moon that was of any practical use to us. As soon as the shuttle was proposed, doing something that was conceived as actually being practical and useful, the Apollo program was history. The final 3 or 4 Apollo missions were scrapped, and NASA focused totally on the theoretically lower-risk/higher-gain projects connected with the shuttle. And with the invention of robotics and such, "trips" to Mars are routine. So why aren't these skeptics questioning whether we are actually putting robots on Mars today? My guess is that it's because they are alive while it's happening, so they don't question it. They only question things they weren't a part of in some way. Wahkeenah 29 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)
BTW: The moon ist not the only place humans went in the past but then never again: After Picard and Walsh in 1960 no other humans (and only one robot) has dived down to the bottom of Challenger Deep. anonymous 25 Aug 01:05 (UTC)
Based on the logic of the conspiracy theorists, that was probably a fake also, using outtake footage from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. >:) Wahkeenah 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Opération lune

Here is the IMDB link to the "funny" documentary Opération lune.

Going Back: Proposition

Today, a brilliant thought occured to me when I watched the Space Shuttle take off again after a two years' interval.

Now that the Bush administration and NASA have expressed their desire to go back to the moon, and since this is not possible with the Space Shuttle, which today finally, after a lot of problems and huge investments, is able to only put itself into earth orbit again, here's the following proposition: dump the entire ramshackle Shuttle program, get out the old drawings and technique from more than 35 years ago, forget progress and modern computing, and just exactly rebuild the whole Apollo program. It will save huge research and development costs and guarantee that before this decade is over we have people on the moon again.

Apollo had a success-rate of more than 85% and took us to the moon and back. And that with the technique of more than 35 years ago. Compared to this, the Space Shuttle, with all its modern technical achievements, is a lame vehicle. It cannot take us beyond earth orbit and it cannot take us more safely back to earth.

In short, if everything went so brilliantly during those marvellous early seventies: drop that lame Shuttle and bring back Apollo. Sometimes life can be so simple... Anon2 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You might be onto something. The only thing lacking in your argument is a reason to go there... the very same question that ultimately truncated the Apollo program once we had landed there a few times and had only a few rocks and nice photos to show for it. Wahkeenah 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that plan is that you just can't fire up the production lines and be off again. For starters the production lines no longer exist. You would need to rebuild a whole infrastructure that surrounded the Apollo program. For instance if you at Kennedy Space Center, you now need to "unmodify" the Vehicle Assembly Building, launch pads, Mission Control, back to what they were during the Apollo era. The blueprints for all the equipment are all still around but we are 40+ years on from when they were created and so many of the manufacturers no longer exist (for instance on the Saturn V, Boeing was the lead contractor on the first stage. It now owns the lead contractors on the other two stages(North American Aviation and Douglas Aircraft Company), with North American also being the lead contractor for the Apollo Command/Service Module). Evil MonkeyHello 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The space shuttle is engineered to go to orbit. It is designed to be a truck. The original appolo program had several flaws. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. After the mission space craft is completely destroyed. Hence not cost effective. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. A Ti-83 has a better processing power than a modern space shuttle. Landing a space shuttle or controling it does not require serious computing. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nasa plans on a permanant shuttle service to the moon. Apollo was short family trips. Meanwhile NASA is working on Crew Exploration Vehicle. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nasa also wants to establish a moon base. Technology is necesary for astronauts to survive longer space trips without hurting themselves due to long term radiation and weighthlessness. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nasa was not serious about such a thing untill recently as there was a lot of research to do here at orbit. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Moon isn't that interesting. Aside from helium-3 there is nothing there that isn't here. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Articles disputed tag/contraversial tag

I think there is a significant comunity, at very least NASA and US gov disputes/explains every detail we mention in this article. Hence the tag is aproporate. All conspirasies are contraversial, hence the tag. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct usage of the tag. In order for an article to be disputed the accuracy of the article must be disputed, not the topic itself being disputed. WolfKeeper

If you have a list of possibly incorrect points you would need to list them here. You have failed to do so, so I have deleted the tag. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. WolfKeeper


Stars were easily seen by every Apollo mission crew...

Not true. The Apollo 11 crew, at their press conference, report that they have not seen any stars. Rik G. 23:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that assertion? Wahkeenah 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The press conference itself and footage of it. Anon2 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
If true, I'm not that surprised they couldn't see stars. The brightness of the earth, moon and sun probably interfered, just as a full moon tends to make for bad stargazing here on earth. I'm curious to hear more about the context of the question, though. Wahkeenah 01:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I saw footage where (I think) Brittish astronomer Patrick Moore asked the question, and they could not see stars from the surface of the Moon. Bubba73 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


There could be some interesting psychological or sociological questions about why this idea achieved significant currency. I think one is that the Apollo landings now have a rather dream-like quality about them, since it all took place in a relatively short time a few years ago and we have not gone back. Also obsessive study of the photographs etc. may appeal to a certain type of mind. PatGallacher 12:27, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

You're right on the money. Keep in mind that these claims surfaced in the wake of the 1960s assassinations, Vietnam War and Watergate, so there was a lot of distrust of the government (unlike now - ha!) and it definitely appeals to a certain type of mind... the kind that is always trying to find hidden meanings in things, or different realities. In fact, it's similar to what was going on at the time, of going over every scrap of evidence about the JFK assassination, trying to figure out who "really" did it (the government, of course!) and denying the obvious. Someone cooked up this idea, based largely on ignorance, and it took on a life of its own. It falls into the same category as stuff like ancient astronauts, bigfoot, the Bermuda triangle... taking a few observations, leaving out obvious contradictions and logical explanations of those observations, and weaving an alternate reality. It's like starting a new religion or some such. It's basically anti-scientific. And it's no accident that believers in these alternate realities are often Luddites. Wahkeenah 15:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Stars II

Collins certainly couldn't see 'em: apollo11_pressconference.wmv Anon2 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not _quite_ what he said. What he did was was that on the DAYLIGHT side of the moon, when they weren't looking into appropriate optics, they didn't see stars (duh). Nor when they were photographing the solar corona (also duh) -- Rick Boatright 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
That's Armstrong who said that (duh to you). Collins is the guy who says "I can't remember seeing any". He stayed in the Command Module all the time. He was never on the moon... Anon2 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
True enough, but Collins was talking about "during photography of the solar corona." Which was done on-orbit, not from the surface, they were _all_ on-orbit when those observations were taken. Rick Boatright 02:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No, Collins was talking about Armstrong's "I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see". Now what is it? Did Armstrong see stars or didn't he? From this statement it looks like he did see stars (during photography of the solar corona) but cannot recall what stars they were. Anon2 10:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
How to simulate the apollo stars problem: Go outside on a dark night. Take a sheet of white paper with you. Obstruct half your vision with the sheet of white paper. Light it very very brightly. Say, 10 flashlights. Look at the unobstructed sky and see if you see stars (you won't.) Rick Boatright 11:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


Mean distance from earth:

  • ISS: 350 km
  • Space Shuttle: 1000 km (max.)
  • Moon: 384,400 km

Anon2 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


The equipment itself was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required for the astronauts was open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.

Impossible: the Hasselblad cameras had no automatic exposure and no viewfinder. Anon2 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

- The equipment itself was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission! -- 21:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

They used a modified camera with four "stops" in the focus. I think the choise of exposure had just a few presets too. Bubba73 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Very convincing site Dudtz 8/18/05 6:53 PM EST

I have read the site and found the site to be rather informative and contains video animation (although quite small). I would recommend people to read it.
After you have read that, go read [5] for the 32 answers to Cosmic Dave's questions.

Peoples Rupublic of China going to the moon?

I heard they were planning to go to the moon Is this true? Dudtz 8/28/05 6:58 PM EST

Yeh, but we'll have the last laugh on them... we're selling them the Shuttles. >:) Wahkeenah 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

how the hell do you land a shuttle on the moon? It would even be difficult to land a capsule on the moon how does an object moving at hundreds or thousand of miles an hour land on another object How do you know your calculations are correct? the moon could have moved many miles away from your plotted course Dudtz 8/28/05 7:19 PM EST

It must be possible to land a shuttle on the moon. I saw it in the movie Airplane II. In fact, according to that movie, there is air on the moon and normal gravity. In any case, landing is never a problem. Landing safely can be a problem. As far as the calculations... you and I know that. Just don't clue them Chinese folks in, OK? >:) Wahkeenah 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Airplane 2 was a comedy with Willam Shatner in it. Dudtz 8/22/05 12:27 PM EST

Indeed. But if it's portrayed in a movie, it must be true. As with Capricorn One. >:) Wahkeenah 17:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View

It has been asserted that the policy of Neutral Point Of View is “absolute and non-negotiable”. This article is in contravention to that policy in a number of respects. Firstly it places the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations in a category of ‘cranky conspiracy theories’. This has the effect of discouraging a fair consideration of the arguments of those who have analysed the data and concluded that Apollo 11 and subsequent manned missions to the moon cannot have taken place. The author(s) asserts that “Nearly all interested scientists have rejected the claim, considering it to be baseless. In short they consider this claim (that the moon landings did not occur) to be the actual hoax.” If by ‘interested scientists’ the author(s) refers to the vested interests of those who seek to discourage a fair and impartial evaluation of the data, the statement is accurate, but if, as one assumes, ‘interested scientists’ refers to members of the scientific community who take an interest in this matter, then the author’s claims are pure rhetoric and propaganda designed to support his or her own partially veiled views. There are, in fact, many highly trained scientists among those people who question the reality of the Apollo missions as well as experts in photography, filmmaking and, dare one say it, ordinary laypersons of average intelligence. The general problem is that the emotional and psychological investment that the average American citizen has in the reality of the Moon landings and the prospect for America’s loss of dignity and self-confidence should the hoax accusations be found to be true dissuades objective and impartial analysis. However, the facts remain and will not go away. The most elementary truth which stands behind the video and photographic anomalies, the silence of the astronauts etc - and not mentioned in this article - is that any serious rocket scientist knows that the performance specifications of the Saturn V rocket are utterly incommensurable with the proposed journey of 480 000 miles which it is supposed to have journeyed to and from the moon. The figures simply do not add up. One does not need a PhD to do these simple calculations. Any American schoolboy can work it out for himself. But rather like the people in Hans Christian Anderson’s story ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ we are terrified to speak what is so clearly obvious to our own eyes and our own minds. User:Langdell

I'm guessing you weren't around at the time. You probably question the Nazi Holocaust as well. The stark reality is that every one of the claims of the conspiracy buffs has been explained by people who actually know something about the facts. The characters who cooked up this conspiracy theory were post-Watergate paranoids and looneys. The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has more credibility than than the "We never went to the Moon" hypothesis... which is to say, less than none. The mere presence of this article in this so-called encyclopedia is an abomination. Wahkeenah 02:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You may be interested in this page entitled "What would be the final speed of a Saturn 5 rocket built fueled and fired in space after all three stages burned completely?". Evil MonkeyHello 03:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I kept looking for a conclusion somewhere in there. Be that as it may, this is presumably someone's independent computations, and I would assume that NASA worked it out their own way, without so many "guesstimates". If the argument buried someplace in there is that there wasn't enough thrust to get on the way to the Moon, that's a little like arguing that bumblebees can't fly, because there obviously *was* enough thrust to get there. Wahkeenah 03:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That page guesstimates the Saturn V created total velocity of 12.33 km/s, more than enough for the Earth's escape velocity. Evil MonkeyHello 03:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Kudos. Not that those facts will sway the "true unbelievers". :) Wahkeenah 04:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

I do not have a view about whether there are POV problems with this article, but it is disruptive of Wikipedia to just remove POV flags without addressing any problems the person who placed it may have. PatGallacher 23:37, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

The original POV flag was posted by an anonymous (for obvious reasons) user who thinks the article is too tilted towards characterizing the conspiracists as crackpots. If you read the words of guys like Bill Kaysing, it is clear that they are crackpots. There is not one shred of evidence that the Apollo missions were fraudulent. All the conspiracy theorists have is the fertile imagination of Bill Kaysing and others like him, coupled with a broad-based ignorance of subjects like rocket science, astronomy and photography. The mere presence of this article in this so-called "encyclopedia" demeans the latter's credibility considerably. Not that there's anything unusual about that. The fact that anons are allowed to put whatever they feel like on these pages makes this so-called "encyclopedia" nothing more than a pretentious bulletin board system. Wahkeenah 00:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If we look at the article on Holocaust denial (an article somewhat similar to the Apollo hoax), we see statements such as:
"Critics have been outspoken in denouncing those who espouse such views of Holocaust history as falsifiers of the historical record."
And there are no POV notices on that article. And as Wahkeenah said, the POV notice was added by someone who very clearly states their POV, which would suggest they would want Project Apollo to begin "Project Apollo was the alleged series of human spaceflight…". Evil MonkeyHello 00:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There you go. In fact, I think I will remove the POV flag and see if Ann objects. Here's the logic these conspiracists use, which, if you look closely, is the same kind of logic that scriptural literalists use, and that's why I argue that conspiracy theorism has a religious quality (pardon the expression) about it. That is, they start with a premise that they consider absolute, and anything that contradicts it must therefore be false, even if it appears to be true. Here goes:

  • The government is lying to us.
  • I have a question about something the government has said.
  • An expert on a subject has answered my question.
  • The expert's answer supports the government's position.
  • That means the "expert" is either a dupe or an active part of the conspiracy, because...
  • ...the government is lying to us.

In Philosophy 101, that was called "circular reasoning": A is true because A is true. Of course, I learned that at a public university, so that simple definition must be part of the conspiracy also. >:) Wahkeenah 01:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Holocaust denialists are typically Jew-haters and Hitler supporters. So while they deny that the Holocaust happened, they also approve of it. Wahkeenah 02:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Intering how you use Ad hominem attacks against people with questions. I think stalin and hilter were found users of that type logic. Funny how you turn into your worst enemy over time Look at Israel and the U.S. today for a great example. Talk about historical revisionism some people still call Native Americans, Indians, Which is a lie they are not from the west indies they are more american than americans. Sometimes you got to look back and find the truth for your self. Do not get me start on zionism right now I get more angry the more I read about it. Just because you got hurt in the past does not give you the right to hurt people and take thier land the have had for generations. The new Isreal could have been formed anywhere but zionist must have it their way sorry history will expose the truth.-- 03:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the questions have demonstrable answers which the questioners won't accept because the answers go against their premise. Wahkeenah 05:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you hit something you can see with a beem of light. Those mirrors being put on the moon by anything seem strange seeing the the whole moon is a reflective surface not only that but radio ranging is easier and cheeper ham radio operators hit the moon all the time they use it to get radio waves over the horizon. The mirror thing sounds like some thing you would to get average person to shut up because the average person does not the equipment to see if they are there or not. The goverment thing is what gets me they sould have sent scientists from differnt countries not U.S. Airforce flyboys who typical have to be able to keep secrets because of their job. I think It would have at least made it look more legit and less like a U.S. pride thing.-- 15:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your argument style goes along with the core "reasoning" of the doubters: "I don't understand the technology, therefore it can't be true." Wahkeenah 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your style is like the popes of old I have the bible the word of god from god what I say is word that goes a long way to making lasting converts. Then of course people actualy read the bible and see the facts and then reason maybe you have authority, maybe not. If not those people lose interest in you and what you have to say. Keep persucuting the unbelievers maybe thet will convert to your side after all it worked for the popes, for a while.-- 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's funny you're equating me with the Pope, given that I'm non-religious. The problem with your premise, aside from being in almost-unreadable English, is that it implicitly claims there is evidence that the Apollo flights did not occur, when, in fact, there is no such evidence. Every question the doubters have raised has been answered. The doubters won't accept the answers, because those answers disagree with the circular reasoning of their premise. There are also many people who believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it flat. Wahkeenah 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious Component

I have added this on the list of external links:

There are various links showing but nothing about religion being a factor for the hoax. Surely this is important and probably the core motive for the hoax.

--Wikiencyc 22:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

That's good. The more links "arguing that it was a hoax" which take the reader to these obviously nut-case websites, the better. Wahkeenah 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view is not the right place for you? This is not a forum for you to soapbox and push your ideas.Astronaught 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The basic flaw in your logic is the assumption that providing dignity and neutrality to these hoaxster crackpots is "encyclopedic". This article is tabloid junk that does not belong in something claiming to be an encyclopedia. But you knew that. Wahkeenah 16:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The basic flaw in your logic is your assumption that an encyclopedia is a place to discuss your judgements about who are 'hoaxster crackpots', and what is 'tabloid junk'. A belief that polls ten times higher than Buddhism has every right to be presented in a neutral way. Astronaught 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I had today added the following point to the Motive part:

"Religion - Western civilization historically has a religious basis. This past or present religious background of the people and countries that have led in space exploration has some similarity. Religion provides support for people personally but also binds people in other sectors for example in politics, entertainment, and media. There is historical evidence of links, alliances, and common agendas between Western government secret service agencies and Western religious bodies."

Not putting Religion here would be sheer ignorance. --Wikiencyc 19:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. That there was a religious motive to fake the landings? Or that there is a religious motive to believe they were faked? It seems like you might be trying to hint around about something to avoid offending someone. That's a noble goal, but I think you did your work too well.Tom harrison 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"That there was a religious motive to fake the landings." The context of the other motives is also the same and this follows the same system. --Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I read through some of the messages on the linked site as well. I'm not against including the link, but I'm still missing the point.Tom harrison 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The site was not linked to the motive, the site was in another section. --Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"Religion provides support for people personally but also binds people in other sectors for example in politics, entertainment, and media." I think this is probably true, but irrelevant. We might do better to leave this out. Tom harrison 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This was in support of the point. If you like, I can add links - Politics & George W Bush, Entertainment & Mel Gibson, and Media & Christian Science Monitor. --Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This user has added this information before [6] but it was removed by previous authors - and they were correct to do so in my opinion. This is completely unreferenced and a very general assertion - and a link to a Google discussion group does not count as a reference. I strongly believe this addition should be reverted. --PhilipO 03:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry but I cannot understand when you say I have added this information on Wikipedia before and it was removed. This is not a factual or accurate comment. Thus your opinion on that basis is also void. I will put some references to show the links between Western secret service agencies and Western religious bodies - this will show you as the possible link to the moon hoax. You would not have a NPOV if you reject these references that show that religion can also be a motive for the hoax.--Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It certainly is a factual statement. Look at the edit history for this article here --PhilipO 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have looked at it and there is nothing factual about it - perhaps if you continue to insist you can copy and paste and detail the point in a nice way here. --Wikiencyc 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So do you deny that you added the Google groups link on a previous occasion as the edit history shows above? Perhaps someone has hacked into your account! :-) --PhilipO 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Your point and was I added a particular item that was removed by someone else and you put a link to it - now you are changing your story about your accusation dishonestly. Obviously I put the Google Groups link, you can see that in this topic above.--Wikiencyc 23:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - but my point was that you had put a reference to this motive before in the article (a link is a reference) and it was removed by other editors. Apologies if my originial assertion was unclear. --PhilipO 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I answered this but it disappeared without being put here. I tried to say that I am continuously saying to you and I am not going to repeat this that the Google Groups linked was not removed by editors.--Wikiencyc 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur. Joshuaschroeder 05:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand your opposition to the moon hoax and I see this from the article page with lengthy rebuttals to short / precis points. I should actually complain as to why the length of the rebuttal is more than point. This is not fair from a math point of view - the quantity of the point and rebuttal should be the same for a NPOV.--Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
So, what's stopping you? Delete it and tell its author to re-write in such a way that it actually makes a point of some kind. Wahkeenah 05:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I see that it has been deleted. I will put forward something else for you to agree with though I understand that things are not balanced.--Wikiencyc 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The frustration we are having with you is that you are trying to say something, but you're not saying it. Be direct and succinct. Make it make sense. Your point 5, shown below, is unreadable. Wahkeenah 02:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I considered your above suggestions about the religion motive, the need for links, satisfaction and have added the following:

"5. Religion – Amongst the contemporary reported global themes in the media of Globalization, Global Empire, World Citizen, Global Civilization, Superpower, and Global Village, there are sensitive less reported global themes in the media of Religious Conversion, Religious Wars, and evidence of developing common agendas and operations between CIA, The Pentagon, Vatican and Opus Dei as published in Mother Jones and Rick Ross raises the question and suspicion of religion being a possible motive for the moon hoax also causing the concept of Securalism and the separation of Church and State in the United States being challenged. This paradoxical relationship is evident in the interesting quote about the Christian Science Monitor, “The Monitor (or "CSM" as it is known in the intelligence community) is widely read by CIA and other intelligence agency analysts because of the newspaper's attention to accuracy and global perspective.” " --Wikiencyc 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

.....your new addition [7], there isn't a single reference to Apollo or the Moon in the sources you referenced [8] [9] so I still don't think they are relevant. They might be references for general conspriracy buffs, but I don't see anything that is particularly related to this article. Am I missing something here? Please show where these sources reference the Apollo program and why they should be included in this article. Cheers --PhilipO 23:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In the Article if you do a search on the CIA, there is mention of their involvement. Take this hypothetical example - you have a train station called 'the CIA,' on his station there is track (#1) called 'CIA involvement in moon hoax' - now in the external links you have mention in Mother Jones and Rick Ross, commonly known sources, mentioning "common agendas" between CIA, The Pentagon and religious bodies - Vatican and Opus Dei. So you have the track (#2) 'CIA, The Pentagon, Vatican, and Opus Dei.'
Please tell me why you cannot have both tracks (#1 and #2) on the CIA station? I am saying because both tracks are not only related to CIA but more importantly because of "common agendas" - anything can go into the agendas including the moon hoax because they are of "broad scope." You are implying by saying that these "common agendas" are of "narrow scope" and limiting and not extending to the moon hoax - this is not NPOV and is against the evidence seen in Mother Jones and Rick Ross.
Thank you if you now understand.--Wikiencyc 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So, in other words we can create connections between the organizations mentioned above if any one of them is involved. Classic conspiracy theory nonsense indeed - which is not Apollo specific. I stand by my original point, but will let other editors decide on the addition. Cheers. --PhilipO 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, as I recall from actually having lived through that era, fundamental religionists tended to oppose the Apollo program because of the Tower-of-Babel thing, i.e. that we were reaching into "God's domain" as it were. I recall one bumper sticker that said something like, "Moon Day is a sign of the coming Dooms Day". There's your "religious component". Wahkeenah 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My two cents on questioning of the apollo program

I used to believe without doubt that that the U.S.A. landed on the moon. Now after reading both sides. The people that believe unquestioning that we landed on the moon seem like the crowd that would belive that a carpenter that walked the 2000 years ago is God. Not to say all of them are, but it just seems like you are blaspeming to say something is fishy about the apollo program. Why did the soviets just stop pursuing it and build a spacestation? Also, Why so many problems with the shuttle? Why will it take till 2018 to go back when technology today is superior? Why is it harder now, than go to the moon in the sixties and seventies?

Do not give me politcal or money reasons thier was almost the same lack of interest back then. Yes, There was hype but it was gone by the the third flight and a lot of people questioned the race in the first place, and do not forget that this was done during the upheavol and the economic times of the sixties and seventies.

The apollo program is just starting to sound to more and more people like the mythical thing it's named after. Because of that you will see more and more people question it like they question other unlikely things. Just like the the 2000 year old carpenter that is God. Don't forget a billion people still believe that the carpenter existed and is God without questioning a thing about it. I wish more people would ask questions like this one it will hopefuly bring the truth to a undeniable point.

BTW, If this seems out of place it is I just felt like trolling today. Oh, and I think this sould be theory, not accusations, and sorry for the poor grammar.

There is nothing suspicious about the space programs of the 60s and 70s. The bogus doubts were planted by publicity seekers with no practical knowledge of science. Wahkeenah 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Grissom doubted it at the time so much he put a lemon in the window of the capule to draw media attention to the problems of the program. The biggest critic dies on the pad after saying the he did not see how we will go to the moon on time. Amazing that he is one of the only three that died in the entire apollo program. Seems like he questioned it. Are you saying grissom was a nut as well-- 15:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Next thing you'll be saying is that Christa McAuliffe was killed because she threatened to expose that the shuttle flights were a hoax. Oh, but you don't think the shuttle flights were a hoax, do you, because you saw them happen, and therefore that makes them truer than something you were too young to have witnessed. Gimme a break. Wahkeenah 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

oh is she was she an astronaut Christa McAuliffe? Like Grissom -- 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your poor usage of English undercuts whatever point you're trying to make. Wahkeenah 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

To put it another way, ignorance of language and ignorance of science go hand-in-hand. Wahkeenah 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the above comment I did not try to wiki before I made it. Anyway this shows a problem in the the current program. Which nasa knew could happen but did nothing about it. I think scientific method will end the end prove one side or not. If we keep have difficulty and finding new hazzards to going back then it depite new and better technology. If we can't duplicate the the process then it is obivious that we did not go in the first place.

your ad hominem attacks keep holding you back man. I have not insulted your inteligence.

I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm pointing out your apparent education level. If you're that poor with English, you probably don't know much about science or history either... which makes you a typical member of the doubters "community". I say again, there is plenty of evidence that the moon landings occurred, and none that they did not occur. Every question has been answered, but the doubters won't accept the answers because they can't own up to the fact that their circular reasoning is flawed. Besides, there is money to be made: books to sell, videos to make; and, ironically, a lack of public will to further fund the moon program is the reason the moon programs were cut short, and space-program funding was instead directed to the shuttle development program, since it seemed to have practical use while the moon program did not. Wahkeenah 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wakeenah...I came to this "discussion" page to find out why the Apollo moon "hoax" page was protected and was quite surprised at the uncalled-for viciousness with which you attack the point of view and questions set forth by other users. This portion of the discussion page is a good example. The user who started this portion of the discussion page was simply setting forth his view of the Apollo mission and you attack the user on a personal level. It is obvious that you feel passionately about the article, but there is no excuse for your personal attack of the user. Moreover, it certainly shows that you are not being very objective. In addition, your blanket statement (that those who question the veracity of the Apollo program are simply out to make a quick buck) is an unsupported and ridiculous assertion. The whole issue with this article, and the main line of discussion, appears to be whether the veiled and unveiled negative point of views should be scaled back or eliminated. If you are going to accept the requirements of wikipedia (that articles should be supported by independent citation to sources, and that there should only be a neutral point of view when writing articles) then the negativity and "loaded" statements in the article should be eliminated. The internet is a wide, and seemingly limitless, world of information and there is enough room outside Wikipedia to set forth points of view that are not slanted to either side of the debate. Even though most people may believe that the Apollo "hoax" theorists are crazy and delusional, the article should remain neutral. This article should be amended and edited heavily in order to conform to wikipedia standards and I would request that an independent and seasoned Wikipedia editor take a look at this page, remove all statements without a neutral point of view and then keep the page protected. User:Karel12345 Edit actually by anonymous user at User:

The problem I have with the "neutrality" on this issue is that it legitimizes and dignifies a totally bogus claim. I recall watching the TV show in 2001 or so that talked about this. I was interested to see what they had. The answer is that they had nothing. I could tell right away that the "evidence" put forth by the accusers was thoroughly fraudelent, based on either willfull or ignorant misinterpretations. This hoax does not deserve neutrality. Every question they have raised has been answered, but they won't accept the answers due to their circular reasoning and, I suspect, their unwillingness to be real men and admit they were wrong. Hopefully this stupid issue will someday go the way of "cold fusion" and of the nonexistent Bermuda Triangle mystery, but I'm not so sure, as so many who have no idea what they are talking about keep asking the same already-answered questions over and over. Wahkeenah 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • * *

Again, wikipedia is a forum for exchange of ideas and it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the "hoax story" does not "deserve" neutrality. First of all Wahkeenah (see above), who are YOU to decide what stories deserve neutrality and which don't?!?! If the idea or issue is so outlandish then the evidence to support that should be set forth. Do I believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax?? No, I don't. However, the issue can be presented without reverting to character attacks and a skewed presentation of the issues. The way to approach this article is quite simple: (1) Present the ideas and "support" or "evidence" for the hoax ideas. Therafter, a person can simply insert their "two cents" and the evidence and support for their "two cents" in the article.

For example, the hoax theorists claim that the pictures allegedly taken on the moon are a hoax because they claim the radiation from Earth to the moon (and on the moon for certain periods of time) was too intense and the film would have melted or shriveled up. Ergo, the pictures could not have been taken on the moon. That is as "dry" and as neutral a way as the article can be presented. The rebuttal, or evidence in rebuttal should be presented in the same neutral and "dry" manner. Thus, in the article, the rebuttal should be presented as follows: "Claims of a hoax relating to the Apollo pictures have been denied as follows: Scientists have denied that the film would have been affected by the radiation because it was (1) well protected inside the moon cameras, and/or (2) the radiation levels were not high enough or intense enough to have affected the film as the hoax claimants allege."

DO YOU SEE!!!! That is the way that the article should read. Instead, people claiming to be scientists or science students have taken to drafting the article in a manner that displays a lack of neutrality that leaves a reader with a bad taste in their mouth. I for one, came to the article to look for the arguments for and against the claims of an Apollo hoax. Instead of coming away with a clear understanding of the issues, I felt as though certain contributors were desperately trying to deny the rumors with vitriolic edits and character attacks. Quite simply, that is what needs to be eliminated in the article. karelroc123

Ya see? Ya see? Yer stewpid minds! Stewpid, stewpid, stewpid! Wahkeenah 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I was channeling Plan 9 from Outer Space for a hot minute there. Speaking of which, where's the neutrality on that subject? It was based on sworn testimony, you know. And the Gallop Pole found that 6 percent of the public thought the storyline of Plan 9 was "possible". That should be a sufficient critical mass of morons to warrant non-POV coverage, by yumpin' yiminy. Wahkeenah 01:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Darn those socks :-) --PhilipO 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, lay off them socks. They might go to the World Series. ;) Wahkeenah 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious from your nonsensical replies that you truly are an idiot Wahkeenah (and since this is the discussion page, I need not keep a neutral position on that subject). No point debating you on the issue of neutrality since you seem to have your own ridiculous opinions on the subject. If we applied your logic to every article in Wikipedia then we would have to rely on polls to decide which stories are credible and which ones are not. Again, I don't advocate that the Apollo moon landing hoax stories are true, but the way the whole issue is portrayed in the article is absolutely one sided and non-neutral. Your "Plan 9" argument is simply non-persuasive. ALL STORIES in Wikipedia deserve a neutral portrayal. karelroc123 2:29, October 13, 2005

I don't care what you call me, since I know I'm right. Is it your contention that every crackpot challenge to every proven fact is to be treated as though it's legitimate? That's not just neutrality, it's brainlessness. Get outta here, ya knucklehead. Wahkeenah 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this discussion going off topic? Please, if you have to argue, at least stay off this discussion page, which should be about "Moon Landing", not "you truly are an idiot" or "Yer stewpid minds".

  • The page focuses on a bogus issue as if it had any merit. It has, if anything, less merit than Bigfoot, Ancient Astronauts or the Cardiff Giant. The page should be deleted from this so-called encyclopedia, which is unlikely to happen, so as long as it persists, I will continue to ridicule it. Wahkeenah 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Made some general NPOV changes, removed editorialising etc.


It is claimed in the article that 'On the other hand the Apollo retroreflectors are more accurate and more precisely placed than the Lunokhod mirror.' Is there any evidence for this? Who claims it? If we can't reference it, we should remove it. Astronaught 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for any referencing of the reflector claims... Astronaught 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Interestingly the source you give does not make any comment on the relative accuracy. There is still no source for this 'factoid'. Astronaught 18:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out " The Apollo retroreflectors are claimed to be more precisely placed than the Lunokhod mirror due to their position on the mooon. " No one hasw shown any source that claims this. Astronaught 18:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before hacking out sections of the article, why not spend a few minutes looking for a second source (like I did)? --PhilipO 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah - got it! Astronaught 19:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

removed this

I removed this paragraph of unsourced editorializing. I don't think there's any justification for it. Astronaught 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When weighed against these respective criteria, the Moon hoax accusation faces some heavy challenges:

  • By Occam's razor, the scientific and technological challenge of travel to and from the Moon may be thought to weigh in favour of the hoax, while the social and political challenge of containing the 'secret' (in a project at times involving 250,000 people) will weigh against.
  • Any number of psychological needs may be posited where such a resonant historical event is involved.
  • Proofs offered for the accusation tend to be tactically discarded as counterproofs emerge from the mainstream account.
  • Depending on how 'high' the conspiracy is claimed to reach, an implausibly large number of disparate individuals around the world are required to be 'in on' the secret.
Actually, I think it is a perfectly valid entry in this artcile. I disagree with your view of NPOV in this article. There ain't any really doubt about this this event, and that needs to be communicated in the article. Anything that pretends that this isn't considered an out-there conspiracy theory (up there with cattle mutilations) isn't a fair representation. --PhilipO 17:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am disturbed by your assertion that there is no doubt about this event. There is clearly doubt, 6% of Americans say they have doubt about it, ten times more than say they believe in Buddhism. It is certainly fringe, and I do not personally believe it, but, like anything else, we should not impose our opinions. Let the facts speak for themselves. Astronaught 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to compare belief in this hoax versus a metaphysical belief in God, go right ahead. --PhilipO 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. Astronaught 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Why do you agree with this? Many unsourced claims are passed off as fact in this passage with no thought to any kind of referencing:
  1. the scientific and technological challenge of travel to and from the Moon may be thought to weigh in favour of the hoax - may be thought by whom? Why?
By people unfamiliar with technology. Most people know very little about physics and have no concept of what is required to carry out these tasks. They are badly equipped to guage what is actually possible. --PhilipO 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, I, too, want to take this out. It is speculation. Astronaught 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. the social and political challenge of containing the 'secret' (in a project at times involving 250,000 people) will weigh against. - maybe, but it's pure speculation.
  2. ny number of psychological needs may be posited where such a resonant historical event is involved. - maybe, but again, speculation. We are not talking about any number, we are talking about a specific one. Agreed - this really isn't say much. Fair enough. --PhilipO 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
OK Astronaught 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Proofs offered for the accusation tend to be tactically discarded as counterproofs emerge from the mainstream account. - The converse is also true, and is a pointless generalisation.
I see no evidence for this type of straw man argument in the article. --PhilipO 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's present some occasions when this happened, rather than make a blanket statement. I do not see any evidence for it either. Astronaught 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Depending on how 'high' the conspiracy is claimed to reach, an implausibly large number of disparate individuals around the world are required to be 'in on' the secret. In whose opinion is the number implausible?
I think it is generally acceptable that the 250,000 odd people working for NASA at the time (or even a small percentage of them) is considered implausibly high. Anything else is weasel words. --PhilipO 18:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It's great that you think it's acceptable, but we need to source someone relevant who thinks it, or take it out. Astronaught 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Astronaught 18:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to bend over backwards recasting this article in language more favorable to those who believe the landing was a hoax. The moon landing is well-documented history. This is not a matter about which reasonable people disagree. User Astronaught's recent edits aren't removing non-neutral POV, they are adding a POV of unreasonable credulity. Tom harrison 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary. We have a duty to present fact, not our editorial opinion. The facts will speak for themselves. Adding loaded, POV terms actually undermines the case you are making. Astronaught 18:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course, this is completely correct. However IMHO you need a more varied edit history before I will accept that you are applying this fairly to all articles. --PhilipO 18:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion, but I don't see any justification for your being able to exclude users from applying the NPOV policy solely on the basis of their not having edited much elsewhere. How strange. Astronaught 18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no justifcation for it all - it certainly isn't a Wikipedia policy. It's simply my opinion. :-) Cheers. --PhilipO 18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

OK! Astronaught 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But why the loaded (at least in relation to this article) username? --PhilipO 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a whimsey. I was editing this and others as an anon, and decided to get a username, and this was on my mind. Perhaps it was a foolish one to choose! Astronaught 18:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed this unsourced editorializing. Obviously there are a range of beliefs on this. By each of these respective criteria, the Moon hoax accusation faces some heavy challenges:

  • By Occam's razor, an elaborate hoax and coverup involving the collusion and lying of thousands of individuals is less probable than the evidence (including materials, machines, designs, and lunar rock samples) being part and parcel to an actual event.
  • Many moon landing hoax enthusiasts are believers in other outside the mainstream conspiracy theories.
  • The evidence is available that falsifies the idea.
  • Depending on how 'high' the conspiracy is claimed to reach, a large number of disparate individuals around the world are required to be 'in on' the secret.

Confirmed experts?!

I replaced Confirmed experts who have spoke on the subject all reject the claim, considering it to be baseless. with Nearly all interested scientists have rejected the claim, considering it to be baseless. Who are these 'experts'? Who 'confirmed them'? When was it that they 'spoke'? It's true that nearly all interested scientists reject it, but let's not make vague overarching claims. Astronaught 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - that change is fine with me. --PhilipO 18:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Phew! Something we agree on! ;) Astronaught 18:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


I removed "The number of resignations was not greater than the normal number of resignations in governement agencies as administrators and officials switch jobs and positions." Is this true? Can you source it? Where does it come from? Astronaught 18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


"A version of the idea postulates that the Apollo mission did land on the Moon but the actual footage was never shown to the masses for it included the sight of extraterrestrial beings or artifacts. Wanting to cover up the actual existence of these, the alleged faked studio footage took place."

Who claims this? I have never heard it. I suggest we remove it unless it can be sourced. Astronaught 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Them for one. You should learn how to use Google. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! It's not my responsibility to source every crank theory you find though! Astronaught 19:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Nor is it your responsibility to remove facts from articles. Joshuaschroeder 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It will be better if you would provide us the source (since you have found it, not us), rather then having us use search-engine (it's not about being lazy, but being more efficient).


Why do you want to remove a statistic that puts this in perspective? 6% of Americans say they don't believe NASA went to the Moon, and a quote saying 'well, 6% of people will say yes to anything' is ok, but pointing out that only .05% of people say they believe in Buddhism has to go? Why? Astronaught 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The surveys are conducted differently and the should not be compared. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Heaven forefend we should face facts... Astronaught 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If you cannot understand the reason the surveys are different, you should perhaps consider taking a break from adding information about surveys to articles. Joshuaschroeder 19:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Beyonf whether Joshuaschroeder thinks they are or not, what are the criteria for refering to someone as a 'scientist' in this context? There is a danger that 'scientists' are people who agree with our POV, and 'cranks' are people who do not. Astronaught 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a scientists is someone who is a member of the scientific community. This usually means they work in a technical aspect for a research group interested in scientific research. Getting an opinion of a scientist also means that they are giving a "scientific opinion", based on their own expertise in the area they study. Bill Wood, to my knowledge, does not satisfy these criteria. Joshuaschroeder 19:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that to be a member of the 'scientific community' limits what one can research. All you are saying is that all of the people who agree, agree. Astronaught 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific method defines what is science. If you don't like it, you can study things other than science. Joshuaschroeder 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So how does that help determine whether or not Bill Wood is a scientist? It is tautology. If he disagrees with me, then he is not using the 'scientific method' (according to me), so he is not a scientist. If he agrees with me, he is... Astronaught 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

All you need to do is refer to his credentials, his writing, and his research program. That is enough to establish him. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)