Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

(RETURN) to the moon

I think we will know the TRUTH when USA return to the moon by 2020 or when china send a man to the moon

NASA donig the return in a very diffrent way and very very slow.

consider this:

  • NASA will need 15 years to return to the moon now with all advance in rocket scince,comuters,space....etc
  • but in 60's it only take 9 years to go to the moon for the first time and it's not just onec, in a time when the super computer is slower then my PC?! - preceding unsigned comment by Zayani (talk • contribs)
Folks that really think we didn't will probably just claim that any new landings are fake too. With respect, there's no credible reason to doubt we went, and only fringe conspiracists really believe that it was faked. - CHAIRBOY () 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well stated. The 60s were a can-do time. NASA was given a very aggressive schedule, to catch up with and pass the Russian space program. The incentive to do it quickly was there. That is no longer the case. Since the time of the Mercury / Gemini / Apollo programs, the various shuttle disasters have made people more cautious (or at least I hope they have). That, along with shifting priorities and the attendant bureaucracy, are all working against new manned voyages, and all this is likely slowing the process to a crawl. And the same kinds of questions are going to be raised that caused the final missions to be cancelled, including questions my own parents and grandparents raised at the time: Why spend the money to go to the Moon, when we have wars and other disasters to fight here at home? Wahkeenah 18:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I saw a program 2 or 3 weeks ago that said that if we were using Apollo technology today, they would not even attempt to go to the moon because it would have been too dangerous. Makes it all the more remarkable that they did. Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No question it's remarkable. It was a time when we thought we could do anything, before anybody told us we couldn't. It was a "can do" era, before the bean counters and politicians totally took it over. Wahkeenah 00:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Quoting from above but in 60's it only take 9 years to go to the moon for the first time and it's not just onec, in a time when the super computer is slower then my PC?! The computers were powerful enough. The LM landing computer exexuted either 100 or 1000 instructions per second (I forgot which), but it was enough for what it had to do (1201 and 1202 alarms notwithstanding). Most of the computing was done by mainframes on the ground. Probably a great deal of it was done ahead of time, computing orbits, etc. Once the thing is in free flight, it doesn't take a whole lot of computation. Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of the original assertions here are cliched ('computers were slow then, omg!') and highly misspelled. The reader might generalize hoax believers as ignorant. I feel like their presence might be for just that reason. Anyways, a return to the moon can't prove that we were able to make the trip then. Although being unable to in the present day would be very good evidence that we shouldn't have been able to then.
We've been "able to" at any time since then. What we have lacked is interest in doing so, i.e. in spending the money. There was much opposition at the time, and once it was accomplished, the public was like, "OK, that's done, now spend our tax money on something useful." Wahkeenah 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability

"While the evidence for the landings are considered by most who are aware of it to falsify the idea of an elaborate hoax, it has been suggested that observations could be made (either through new Moon landings or by remote sensing) of the physical evidence left on the moon(for example landing bases, equipment and footprints)."

OK, the issue here is that the hoax claim generates a testable hypothesis. It can be tested, and therefore falsified. There is no need to repeat the claim that most people don't beleive it, it's already at the top. Astronaught 19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a need to restate it because there is no reason to refalsify a claim that's already been falsified. Let's say someone discovered a brilliant way of proving that the luminiferous aether didn't exist. This person would be short on funding and generally ignored because this idea has already been falsified. In this sense it is important to point out that the hoax accusations have already been falsified. Joshuaschroeder 20:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You are using the word 'falsified' to mean 'I don't believe it'. It has a formal, scientific meaning, which is 'proven experimentally to be false'. The experiment (of looking, to see if the lunar lander is there) has not been done, so the theory has not been formally falsified. That is not the same as saying people beleive it. Astronaught 20:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Falsifiability defines the word falsifiable. What falsification implies from this is that an experiment or observation has been made that has shown the idea to be false. This is absolutely the case with, for example, moon rocks. There are apologetics that the hoax enthusiasts make for moon rocks, but this is beside the point. To claim that the only experiment which will "falsify" the hoax accusations is a view of the landing site is a ludicrous false dichotomy. What you are saying is that such an experiment would somehow be beyond rapproach of the conspirators, but you haven't shown why this is to be accepted but other observations which show the hoax proponents to be wrong are not accepted. Without appealing to science, you cannot make a claim to falsifiability, and science has you firmly in the camp of Apollo landings actually taking place, I'm afraid. Joshuaschroeder 20:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the concept. The example of viewing the lander is not the only way to falsify the theory, but it's existance proves that it is falsifiable. One of the important elements of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable. The arguments about the rocks have not generated clear results. Actually viewing the lander etc would, beyond doubt, show the landings took place. Astronaught 21:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A theory must be falsifiable, but just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean its a theory. I can prove that I am sitting down or not - but that doesn't mean it is a theory. But you know this. I tried to edit this in good faith, but I now have a hard time believing you're not here pushing your own POV. The hoax is simply a claim - nothing more. --PhilipO 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Besides which, the complexity and expense of building and deploying a telescope capable of viewing at this resolution (roughly x10 more powerful than Hubble) would presumably mean that relatively few hoax believers would get the opportunity to present their own eyeball to the eyepiece. After all that $ investment in scope time, what's to stop even these lucky few deciding that the lander they then clearly observe is more likely planted there by a stealth robot mission?.Adhib 09:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, at some point "common sense" (gasp!) has to come into play. Some of these guys have been watching too many James Bond movies and think that they are documentaries. This reminds me of a discussion I had with a conspiracist about the government testing ground popularly known as "Area 51", and all the supposedly secret stuff going on. I asked him, If it's such a secret, how come everybody knows about it? I then posed the hypothesis that maybe Area 51 is just a ruse covering for the real secret testing ground. That gave him some pause. It's technically known as "messing with someone's head"... which is what the Bill Kaysing's of the world did with the gullible public. :) Wahkeenah 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


I suggest this "The hoax theory generates a formally testable hypothesis: If NASA went to the moon, there should be evidence in the form of the lunar lander, equipment and footprints. This could be tested by making observations (either through Moon landings or by remote sensing) of the physical evidence left on the moon. To date, the theory has not been tested in this way." as an alternative. It is clear and concise, without expressing a point of view. Astronaught 19:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Theory vs. idea

Please, User:Astronaught, do NOT continue to reintroduce the term "theory" into the article. It is manifestly not a scientific theory and using such a term in this context confuses the issue. Idea or belief work just fine. Joshuaschroeder 20:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is a scientific theory. Whatever makes you think it is not?
  1. There is a set of data to be explained regarding photos, moon rocks, etc.
  2. Two theories are proposed: 1. NASA went to the moon. 2. NASA faked the moon landings.
  3. A critical experiment is proposed that will determine which better fits the evidence: Go and look, or train powerful telescopes to look for the lander.
  4. If the lander etc is there, you can accept the first hypothesis, if it is not, you must accept the second.
  5. Noone has yet performed the critical experiment, so the hoax theory has not been formally falsified.

Astronaught 20:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read up on scientific theory and get back to me. A theory is not a hypothesis. At best this is a hypothesis. It is definitely not a theory. Joshuaschroeder 20:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The moon hoax is simply a "claim" or "conjecture". I think User:Astronaught is confusing the lazy way we all use the term Theory and its stricter meaning in science. --PhilipO 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Erm, I've read it, and studied sciences. Please make your point a little more cogently. Why do you feel this is not a theory? Simply stating it is not does not make it so. The hoax theory is an explanatory framework that seeks to accomodate all of the data and makes falsifiable predictions. What more do you want? Astronaught 20:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Here are some theories: Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Modern synthesis. These are ideas which are based on observations, are subject to testing, and have never been falsified. Moon hoax accusations are not based on observations, are subject to testing depending on whether the accuser will believe the test, and have been falsified. There is a difference, and it is a big one. Joshuaschroeder 20:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. The moon hoax theory is based on observation.
What observations, exactly? --PhilipO 21:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
They are detailed in the article. Astronaught 21:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
No. This is where you are making your mistake. A theory is created to explain a set of observations and when the observations are not in doubt. For example, things fall to the ground, and over time a theory of gravity is created, tested and accepted to explain this. The observations are not in doubt. Simply making a claim about something and then accepting that is could be proved wrong does not make something a theory - not in the sense that you are saying here. Everything is a theory in that case. Hoax proponents claim that NASA is lying to them, that the pictures are suspect etc., etc. This is not a theory - these are not observations from which a theory can be made. It is a claim, allegation, conjecture, etc.
What is wrong with saying "the hoax claims can be refuted" as I wrote. What is POV about that? If we both agree that it is the lazy meaning of the word theory we mean, I don't see the problem with my edits. The consensus in the community for a long time is that this does not qualify as a theory - and I suspect you are being disengenious to claim otherwise. That is the main reason why I am reverting and revisiting your edits. The onus is on you to before making these changes. If you respect the process you will see that the history of edits and other contributors agree with me on this one. --PhilipO 22:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This is eminently reasonable, Astronaught. It wouldn't harm your interests at all to step down a fraction, here. Adhib 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. The moon hoax theory is subject to testing (the fact that there may be some looneys in boths camps who will not believe any test is comment on them, not the theory).
  2. Whether or not it has been falsified is subject to dispute - the clear critical experiment has not been performed.

Astronaught 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, is it me, or don't the retroreflectors constitute a clear, critical experiment? I don't think anyone seriously disputes that they're installed. If the tangible fact of their existence is not to be admitted as disproof of the hoax accusation, then it seems to me that the hoax believer has to multiply the conspiracy by a factor of, what, hundreds, to work around this evidence? The only way they could be there is by several stealth missions, using highly-advanced, secret technology that has since had to be expensively 'invented' again, with Soviet complicity and not a single astronomer or pad watcher reporting any unusual activity. This is what I think we all mean by moving the goalposts. It suggests that there is no critical experiment that could satisfy the moonbats - why would new photographic evidence in the Photoshop age be any more credible than the original negs? Adhib 18:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You have hit on precisely what the problem is. No matter what you do, the "moonbats", as you so aptly put it (may I use that?), are never going to accept it. Every question they've asked has been answered, but they won't accept the answers. That's why there is no point, for example, in NASA conducting a meeting with them, because nothing will alter their underlying premise that the government is lying about the moon missions. Wahkeenah 19:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
See True believer syndrome. --PhilipO 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm, if you accept the data from the reflectors (which I do) then they demonstrate that something placed them there. The problem is it could have been a robot mission. The Soviet one broke down before the reflectors were deployed, there's nothing about it being a robot mission per se that means the reflectors don't work. True believer syndrome could be at work either way here. Unsigend comment by User:24.254.49.37. Appears to be [1] a sock puppet of User:Astronaught

  • This kind of explanation is the trap that the accusers fall into. Once a fact is undeniably verified, they have to invent ever-more elaborate explanations of why their premise is still viable. So they are willing to accept the notion that we safely soft-landed a reflective device onto the moon, and yet still argue that men were never sent there, but only the device, as part of the "plot"? It gets sillier and sillier. Wahkeenah 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

24.254.49.37 confirms that to deny the retroreflector evidence it becomes necessary to add a belief in stealth robot missions to the Moon to the initial skepticism towards manned Moon missions. That is, to accommodate the retroreflector evidence, the hoax believer has to expand the scope of the alleged conspiracy to include every technician and administrator involved in the stealth mission - robot design, build, launch, and cover-up (and the hard-earned technical developments required would have to be erased somehow, unless later technical teams working on robotics at NASA are to be considered in on the fix). Then there's the small matter of sneaking these vehicle(s) out to the Moon without any rocket-spotters or the Soviet Union blowing the whistle. Perhaps the entire Communist bloc was in on the fix, too. Finally there are all the independent observers (astronomers, expecially), who might need to be nobbled during these stealth operations. If the 'theory' can bend so flexibly to accommodate evidence, no evidence can disprove the 'theory'.Adhib 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some version of this dialogue should be presented in the falsifiability section? Adhib 07:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It's worth trying. Better you should write it than I, as I obviously have trouble keeping objectivity. "Expanding the scope" is well-put. This whole argument reminds me of what a creationist once said to me about dinosaurs: That maybe the dinosaur bones were put in the ground by Satan just to confuse us. That's the level of desparation that the "moonbats" resort to in their own defense. Anyway, if you can word it more dispassionately than I can, give it a go. :) Wahkeenah 08:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected

...because y'all have been so busy today. Please work out your disputes here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we all have a read of the NPOV tutorial section dealing with accusations? In particular, the passage:

Obviously, false accusations are unfair and non-neutral, so if you suspect or know an accusation to be insincere, attempt to "neutralize" it. Unfortunately, absent a confession from the accuser, insincerity is hard to prove. But often there exists an obvious motive for accusers to lie or exaggerate. If you spot one, point it out or still better hint at it.

Adhib 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Article has been unprotected. Please play nice and try to work things out here instead of reverting. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Reasons for there not being a hoax landing

  • All the other states (including those then hostile to the US) would have had a field day trumpeting to the effect "we were not able to track any object the size of a spaceship going in the direction of the moon."
I don't believe that Americans got significant exposure to Soviet media during the Cold War. Russia is no longer our enemy, media is decades older, and my cable company still doesn't broadcast Russian News. A separate point - Did we call the Russians and dare them to track our shuttle into space? They may not have been looking. If the Soviets were actually verifying this mission, then is there Soviet documentation that the shuttle returned to the Earth (preferably from the moon :-))?
  • The "appeal to greed" motivation - how much "someone" involved in the project would have made by being the first to reveal the truth.

There is probably more to a case that some pictures etc were "tidied up" etc - for the same reason(s) that they are for publication generally.

Critical experiment: observe their litter?

The article currently states that existing equipment is capable of resolving the landing sites with sufficient precision to prove or disprove the existence of Moon walkers' leftovers. Yet, according to this external site:

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012", however the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.

That certainly sounds impressive. Any astrophysicists here confirm if it's true? If you can, we need to fix the claim in the article. Adhib 20:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't, but it's moot, because telescopic images would never convince the "moonbats", who would say it was faked. The only thing that would convince them is to take them there... and, with any luck, leave them there, in the hope that they don't reproduce. Wahkeenah 23:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it is true. However, even with a telescope 10 times better than the Hubble, with a resolution of about 30 feet, the largest pieces of hardware would be only one pixel in size, clearly not enough to tell what it is. Sidenote: I think that some recent lunar orbiter showed something at the claimed landing site of Apollo 15, but not enough resolution to tell what it is. here and here Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nifty stuff. The moonbats will say it's fake, and meanwhile will continue to claim there is a face carved in the surface of Mars. Wahkeenah 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe the claim could be that they knew they couldn't meet the goal of landing on the moon by the end of the 1960s, so they faked the first few (Apollo 11, 12, and 14), but Apollo 15 through 17 were real.  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating twist on the hoaxers' hypothesis. I like the way you think - outside the box. Wahkeenah 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Moon Landing Page

Is it time to (re)consider merging this page into the Moon Landing page? I believe that having a second page with the word "hoax" in the title tends to diminish and delegitamize the contents of the page.

Also, it appears to me that the general direction of the comments and substance of this page could be more useful when turned in a different direction. Rather than using the unscientific method of assuming a fact (e.g. that man landed on the moon) and attempting to disprove it, the conjecture should instead be focused on the shaky hypothesis that man did land on the moon, and attempt to prove it. Evidence, ideas and theories collected here would be much more useful when used to buttress that argument than when standing alone.

I would submit that this discussion page be used to lay out the general hypothesis, which would be a few sentences regarding the U.S. space program and the events leading up to the alleged lunar landing, taking care to differentiate between provable facts and conjecture. The two pages (lunar landing and this hoax page) can be merged, with a heavier emphasis on facts and more questioning on the lunar landing and a section detailing possible, unproven theories.

It appears that this is a difficult subject to deal with for many people and it also appears (based on my own anecdotal evidence) that people's belief in the lunar landings varies directly with age. For many, it seems to be a fantastic, unprovable notion and therefore, scientifically invalid. Others, for other reasons which I cannot discern, cling to the belief of a moon landing. The way to resolve the dispute is not to poke holes in each other's viewpoint with (sometimes) unprovable assertions, but rather to challenge the beliefs of the other side. I think we're getting there. I hope this discussion topic helps us get there a little faster.

  • I am beginning to believe that (sockpuppet [2]) postings like this are here to wind the Wikipedia community up. :-) --PhilipO 20:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I suspect you're right, that "Glowing Dick" (translating from the Latin) is here purposely to cause annoyance. So far, it's doing a good job. >:( Wahkeenah 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No, not a sock puppet, sorry to disappoint, just a first time user. I neglected to add my username and date stamp to the above posting, which I claim as my own. Lumenpeter 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You have remarkably good editing skills for a first time user! I congratulate you. --PhilipO 16:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Including this bogus tabloid garbage in the Apollo article would prove that wikipedia has no credibility. There is nothing "shaky" about the moon landings, only about the claims of the accusers, whose every question has been answered soundly and the doubters won't accept the answers, in large part because they don't understand the answers. For example, they clearly know nothing about photography. This "did we go to the moon?" question has itself been a hoax from day one, perpretated by egotists and publicity seekers, and gravited to by people with no knowledge of science or much of anything else of a practical nature. Do you also question the reality of the shuttle program? Of course not, because it happened in your lifetime. Wahkeenah 11:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • More to the personal point, what is your own "belief" based on? Mine is based on having lived through that time and having observed no reason to doubt the legitimacy of it at the time, nothing that rang any alarm bells (in contrast to the various assassinations, the Vietnam War, etc.), and since then having observed that any alleged "evidence" that it did not happen is based thoroughly on ignorance and fraud. Any questions I had were answered by that 2001 "documentary" which I could tell was bogus from the get-go. I am too young to remember World War II, but I "believe" it happened because there is plenty of evidence that it did and none that it didn't. Likewise with the Apollo program: There is plenty of evidence that it did happen, and none that it did not. As simple as that. What specific question or questions raised by the doubters, and not already addressed, still linger in your mind? Wahkeenah 11:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"what is your own "belief" based on?" - Wahkeenah. That is a great question, to which I would add the requisite "why?". While I am not sure that my own beliefs should be relevant, the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge that helps people to establish beliefs. With that in mind, the utmost care needs to be taken to ensure the the information contained in the entry is accurate and correct and that it is presented in the proper light. As always, we must consider our reader when creating these entries.
I agree with you that many of the allegations in this article (e.g. CIA involvement) are currently unfalsifiable and unprovable. I think that there is a proper, limited place for them in the main moon landing article. I think the structure of the moon landing article would be to present the background that the space race was set against, the progression of launches, the "moon landings" and then space program's accomplishments since that date. After providing that information (all based on solid, provable facts), we should set out to prove what we can in the remainder of the article (e.g. if NASA landed on the moon or not). Included in that section would likely be a section detailing some of the theories presented here, mainly for the purpose of providing alternative explanations (since it is likely that no explanation will be definitively provable).
As for my beliefs - they are limited and they can change over time as more information becomes available. Just a basic overview of the history of the NASA program shows that they did some great things, but as for landing on the moon, to me it appears unlikely. Many of the conspiracy theories appear unlikely as well, but as stated above, they exist to offer alternative explanations while the space race in general shows that there could have been motive to stage a lunar landing. I think that is the purpose of this encyclopedia and this discussion page - to bring together people with differing viewpoints and break down those views into hard, concrete facts to determine what is provable. I will attempt to put together a short outline of how I would envision the moon landing page to look like and present it here for comment. I fear it may take a week or longer, but I hope that it will be worth the effort. Lumenpeter 13:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Take as long as you want - I look forward to seeing your results. However you should know that there is absolutely no chance that a proposal to merge these articles will be accepted. There isn't a single serious member of the Wikipedia community who would agree to it. If you are a new user, acting in good faith, why not edit some other less controversial articles, and return here when you have more experience? Cheers. --PhilipO 16:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What you or I "believe" or think "likely or unlikely" is not relevant. Arguably, the only things we can truly "know" are what we've witnessed personally. Everything else is based on the "belief" that what is being reported has at least the ring of truth or possibility. I don't "know" that President Kennedy was assassinated, but I "believe" it because it was a news event of the time and no evidence has emerged to refute it. Similarly, the Apollo program was an ongoing historical event (like Vietnam and the political assassinations and Woodstock) and is well-documented and verifiable. Nobody questioned it at the time, because it was happening then. The accusations that it did not happen are based on a generalistic and unprovable premise... and conveniently picked up steam well after the program was cancelled, when the accusers knew it was "safe" to raise these notions because we weren't going back again. To have raised the question while we actually were flying to the moon would have been met with total scorn and ridicule. It would have been like saying the Vietnam War wasn't real. Why don't you also put the Holocaust denial article into the article about the Holocaust? It's based on the same premise, namely that people who weren't around when an event happened somehow know more about it than people who were. You're saying an article shouldn't be based on beliefs but on facts. The facts are all on the side of the ongoing events of that time period, known as the space program. The beliefs (minus any facts) are all on the side of the accusers. There is no "information" that can refute the space program, only premises and concepts... and, for the most part, fantasies. On the basis of your own argument, the hoax accusation has no place in the space program page. Wahkeenah 12:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Rather than using the unscientific method of assuming a fact (e.g. that man landed on the moon) and attempting to disprove it, the conjecture should instead be focused on the shaky hypothesis that man did land on the moon, and attempt to prove it." That's not the way it works, in my opinion. Look at the evidence first and then draw a conclusion. Bubba73 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The Apollo mission was merely part of an ongoing space exploration program that began with the development of rockets in the 1930s and 1940s, and continues to this day with the explorations of distant planets... which, if you'll notice, the "moonbats" do not try to refute, because it's happening now. The guy's comment that the evidence for moon landings is "shaky" is ridiculous. The space program's missions are well-documented. It is the accusers so-called "evidence" that is shakier than San Andreas. Methinks logic and reason are no longer taught in the public schools today. Wahkeenah 01:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if some of my remarks were a bit caustic when I posted here earlier. Following is my proposal for the page. If you disagree, please let me know why. If you agree, your assistance with the redesign of page would be appreciated.

As this is an encyclopedia, the article should be written less as a contemporary event and more as a historical reference. As such, rather than trying to prove or disprove the moon landing, the article should maintain an objective tone. In addition, as the moon landing (whether or not a hoax) was a iconic event, more attention should be focused on the time period and the history surrounding it. With that in mind, the structure should proceed along the lines of the following:

I. Brief history of flight

    Wright Bros.
    Rocketry (German V-2s)

II. Sociopolitical atmosphere of the 1960's

    Space Race/USSR
    Nixon/Vietnam

III. Moon Landing

    Rapid progress of Apollo missions
    Remain based on fact (e.g. no wild conspiracy theories, no "man landed on moon," only proven facts)     

IV. Space Program from Moon Landing to Date

    Briefly list triumphs and failures
    Compare/contrast to Apollo missions.


It is important to view the moon landing in context; something that neither this page nor the actual moon landing page suceeds in doing. It is important for one viewing this page to be provided a brief history of flight to understand how amazing a moon landing would be. It is also important for our reader to be aware of concurrent events and the social-political atmosphere in which the moon landing occurred. Finally, it is important for our reader to learn of the space program since that time, to gain a full picture of the event. Again, in my proposed rewriting of the page, great importance should be placed on the objectivity of the authors. Lumenpeter 04:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The basic flaw in your premise and that of the article in general is the notion that there is somehow a need to "prove" this or any other well-documented historical event. The burden of proof is on the accusers, and they have proven nothing. To take a "neutral" stance and thereby dignify this bogus tabloid junk undermines what little credibility this so-called "encyclopedia" has. You should take a look at the Wright Brothers article and see how deftly they have handled the questions that some have raised about whether they were the first to successfully fly an airplane. If you would bother looking at the history of the space program, you would see the continued improvement in the technology over the decades. We stopped sending people to the moon because there was no longer any public support for the expenditure. The moon flights evolved into the Apollo-Soyuz program, the shuttle, and the various space stations, along with the far-ranging unmanned flights to the outer planets. Even some of the moonbats concede that we successfully placed a laser reflector on the moon. Why they continue to profess that we couldn't have similarly soft-landed a manned vehicle is beyond logic and reason. It comes down to simply a fanatical belief in their premise, which is based on nothing. What is it going to take to get that simple fact through your thick skull??? As my mom used to say when we would do something dumb, "Use your head for something besides a hat rack!" Wahkeenah 08:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, here's a compromise solution. Since only 6 percent of Americans polled think (pardon the ironic metaphor) that the moon landings were fake, then the subject should be allotted 6 percent of the total article. That would be more than generous. Wahkeenah 11:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
More than generous, aye, but too US-centric (tsk, tsk). I'm sure a global survey would reveal that fewer than 1 in 100 of the total world population buys into this cynical boob tube pap. One word for them, 99 for us - now that seems more like it. Adhib 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. Wahkeenah 02:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind, could you explain what the reasoning would be for dividing the space in the article based on a 1999 Gallup poll? I would think that with an encyclopedia, the mission should be to search for and present the truth of the matter, regardless of polling numbers, but I am open to space allocation if there is a suitable reason provided for such allocation. Lumenpeter 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am against merging this with the moon landing page, but there should be a link from one to the other, of course. Bubba73 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There already is a link from the Apollo Program page to this page, and that's more than sufficient. Wahkeenah 01:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
then it is as it should be. Bubba73 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

blast crater

IS this anothr possible factor for the lack of a big blast crater: On the Earth the hot exhaust for a rocket heats the atmosphere, causing it to expand greatly. This pushes on things. On the Moon there is no atmosphere to heat and expand. Should that be added? Bubba73 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an excellent point and I believe it should be added - I am pretty sure it is true and think I read it somewhere. I am reluctant to add anymore unreferenced statements though - if we could get a source that would be great. --PhilipO 02:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Apollo 13, etc

I'm wondering how people who believe that the moon landings were a hoax feel about Apollo 13. Do they think that the emergency was faked too? Also, how do Apollo 8 and 10 fit in? They "allegedly" went to the moon too, but didn't land. Were those real or fake (in their opinion)? Bubba73 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, and which you're hinting at, the various flights were all a part of an ongoing mission, each one going a step beyond the previous one, and each one essentially an experiment on a grand scale. The accusers have forgotten (or likely never knew) about some of the other perils and setbacks that had to be dealt with. One was an aborted docking maneuver during the Gemini program, due to the unmanned docking device having failed to jettison its cover. A costly and very public failure. Apollo 8's mission was to circle the moon and come back, which it did. Apollo 9 was earth-orbit bound, but successfully practiced the docking maneuver with a lunar module, although it had some technical problems. Apollo 10 went back to the moon, with a lunar module in tow, which was deployed to about 10 miles above the lunar surface, then came back to re-dock... and nearly had a catastrophe of its own, as the ascent got messed up due to a mechanical problem, leading to these fear-tinged words of Gene Cernan on live TV/radio coverage, which were later replayed on newscasts minus the first phrase, which was forbidden language on TV in those days: "Son of a bitch! I don't know what the hell that was, baby. The thing just took off on us. I tell you, there was a moment there.... I thought we were wobbling all over the sky."[4] Apollo 11 was the final step in the vision laid out by JFK: going to the moon, landing the lunar module, taking off, docking and returning. Each mission after that took the process another step farther, with the deployment of a rover, etc., along with the setback of the other near-catastrophe of Apollo 13, of course. It all makes sense and has the ring of truth. The failures and the successes were all public and aboveboard, in contrast to the highly secretive (and failed) Russian program. The accusations do not have either the ring of truth or logical sense behind them. I have concluded that the doubters doubt just because it feeds their ego and sense of self-importance somehow, their illusion that they "know something that's a secret". If it really were a true secret, it wouldn't be "known" at all. Again, logic and reason go out the window where these characters are concerned. Wahkeenah 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Bubba, to ask the question is to mistake the nature of the story believers are telling. Like Creationists proposing logical and empirical proofs for the existence of God, these people are actually engaged in a narrative which is primarily for defining their identity, not defining the truth. This is why disproofs fail to connect. But I agree with you, it's frustrating when you attempt to place that narrative in context, and see how badly it fits with so much of reality. Do they dispute that Huygens reported back from Saturn's Moon? Adhib 09:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

It is not appropriate for any user who wants to simply trumpet their views about "empiricism" and "proof" in regards to this issue. Why is an observation the only "proof" that is "empirical" enough? Why is "faith" referenced? These are all issues for another page and as this claim is not referenced it does not belong here. There is no indication that this is a commonly held belief of hoax advocates, and so the entire "Other issue" has been rightly removed. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Loop

Here's how a typical debate with a "moonbat" goes:

  • Moonbat: Um, what about "A"?
  • Rocket scientist explains "A".
  • Moonbat: Er, what about "B"?
  • Photographic expert explains "B".
  • Moonbat: Erm, what about "C"?
  • Ninth grade science class student explains "C".
  • Moonbat: OK, Dude, what about "A"?

--Go to top of infinite loop;

Isn't A at the bottom actually A1, meaning A is tweaked with further conspiracy. - RoyBoy 800 03:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Dude. Wahkeenah 04:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
And the only "conspiracy" is by the morons who keep raising the same questions after they've been explained ad infinitum. Wahkeenah 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny stuff from the fringes on both sides of this issue. Personally I find it funny listening to my (slightly senile) neighbor explain his POV to his grandson.

  • Neighbor: Yep, and so they flew all the way up to the moon.
  • Grandson: Really? What did they find up there?
  • Neighbor: Eh, there's nothing up there, that's why they haven't been back. They just took some soil samples, hit some golf balls and then came back down.
  • Grandson: They hit golf balls?
  • Neighbor: You bet! And they put a mirror up there so they could beam a laser from the earth and...
  • Grandson: You think a laser can travel 240,000 miles there and back?
  • Neighbor: Sure, why not?
  • Grandson: Grandpa, I think you need help.

Lumenpeter 3:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

They didn't go to the moon, but they did find UFOs there! :-) Bubba73 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Alan Shepard hitting the golf balls at taxpayer expense probably helped hasten the demise of the program, as we had more important things to spend money on. Like fighting the War on Disco. Wahkeenah 06:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That was on Apollo 14 in Jan 1971. Three Apollo missions were canceled - the first on Jan 4, 1970 and two more on Sept 2, 1970 (see Apollo 18)- all before Apollo 14's flight. Bubba73 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm being funny. Except for the part about having more important things to spend money on. Apollo evolved into the space program as we know it today, such as it is. Wahkeenah 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

sequence of photos

Somewhere I've seen the sequence of photos taken during the moonwalk, with the time it was taken, who took it, and other data like direction. That would be a good thing to link to, but I cuoldn't find it easily.

On Apollo 11, there was only one still camera used on the surface, and it was swapped between the two astronauts. I think that both astronauts had cameras on subsequent missions. Bubba73 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's get serious

The article's format has gone from the ridiculous to the downright despicable since I last looked in. That's a good thing for those among us who can tell our Gluteus maximus from our Articulatio Cubiti, in that no-one in their right minds who encounters it is likely to read any of the inane pap that ensues. Nonetheless, it is a discredit to the 'pedia. Anyone fancy joining forces to impose some kind of readability rules onto the rambling - and perhaps some sense of proportion along with 'em? I've recently had some (temporary) success overhauling an article with similar and related signal:noise ratio problems, and have discovered a yen for more punishment. Adhib 20:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you explain more about what you had in mind? Can you point out something in this article that would work better? --PhilipO 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess the most severe and urgent problem is all the meanderings in the intro, prior to the index. The intro should be a simple what, and maybe when, not why, who and how's yer father. Merely moving the excess material to more appropriate places below the wire would be my Level One intervention. Level Two would include an attempt to place the disjointed sections below into some kind of logical order, and to weight them more appropriately. Stripping-out all the original research would be level 3, and clearly quite controversial. Like the sound of any of those? Adhib 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections, I am proceeding to the 'Level one' intervention so specified. Adhib 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Moon conspiracy and religion MERGER

A few days ago I put a new Wikipedia page Moon conspiracy and religion, today I have a box on the top of the page suggesting that the new page could perhaps be merged with here?

In October 2005, I tried to put the Religious Component into your page. All the contribution got taken down at various times and you can see the discussions in the archives or user pages.

Could you tell me if you want to merge the pages?

--Wikiencyc 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you ought to junk the Moon conspiracy and religion page as it currently stands, because the wording of it makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you could try writing it in such a way that someone besides yourself might be able to figure out what you're talking about. Wahkeenah 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is good that you are not saying to junk it completely and instead you are saying put it differently. Can you perhaps attempt as to how you would want it? Better option than tennis argue with you :) Thanks --Wikiencyc 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say it differently because I don't even get what you're getting at. Maybe try to explain it directly to me, straightforwardly, here on the talk page where it's relatively "safe" to speak freely, and we'll see where we go from there. Wahkeenah 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture entry

In Family Guy Neil Armstrong gets out of the studio after finishing a Moon take,A Fan say "Hey your neil armstrong! but wait i just saw you on tv,Neil trys to make up a theory but then attacks him with his helmet.

Removed this from pop culture as I couldn't confirm it. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know if it's in the show, I never watch it... but it would be interesting to take a poll and see which side of this debate everyone thinks the writers were making fun of. :) Wahkeenah 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh..no it wouldn't. It's the Family Guy. I don't think they were making any jabs at either side, just discovering the hilarity of "what if this happened and something else happened too." It was in the show, by the way. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In other words, they are making fun of the situation in general, not taking any sides. That probably belongs in some spinoff section about "Parodies of this phenomenon" or some such. Wahkeenah 07:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moon Wide Web

I have put this external website: Moon Wide Web about religion and moon.

--Wikiencyc 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Observing the landing sites

Article says

it appears doubtful that the VLT's highest resolutions (using interferometry across four mirrors) would be available for observing the Moon, a relatively dim celestial target.

Isn't the moon the second brightest celestial object (after the sun)? That statement thus seems very questionable. It doesn't seem important to the article anyway. -R. S. Shaw 06:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Counterintuitive to non-astronomers, but a celestial object which passively reflects light does not radiate it like stars, pulsars, etc - all the actively radiating bodies which interferometry is better suited to.
Think luminescence per unit area. A star, while very small, is also very bright. The moon, while large, is comparitavely dull.
The relevance to the article is twofold. It explains why one hoax-booster supposition (that current technology could resolve lander details, if only the conspiracy didn't prevent us turning these telescopes on the target) is empirically false. It also serves to underline how much skepticism is required in reading press reports, and even the spectacular claims of scientific teams bidding for scarce resources. (Adhib)

Original research?

If anyone misses this content, could they please provide it with a citation before returning it to the main article? A more subtle version of the idea is that although the Apollo missions were not faked, some of the photographs were doctored. According to this, the U.S. government feared the humiliation that would occur if the mission failed and fake photographs were prepared on Earth "just in case." By this account, although the mission was a success, some of these fake photographs were so impressive that it was decided to release them anyway for propaganda purposes. Adhib 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for: 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. In order to cover up the actual existence of these, the alleged faked studio footage took place. Adhib 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain relevance

It would be possible for future unmanned spacecraft in orbit around the Moon to produce high resolution images of the Apollo sites. NASDA's SELENE, for example, will carry instruments that are capable of detecting leftover Apollo hardware. However, since the mission is primarily intended for geological study, there is uncertainty as to whether or not SELENE will photograph the Apollo landing sites. ESA's SMART-1 might also be able to photograph the Apollo with its AMIE camera, but, like SELENE, considering (1) the fact that SMART-1 is a purely scientific mission and (2) the camera's resolution and altitude, such an opportunity is unlikely. A NASDA or ESA press photo of Apollo hardware is not an impossibility, however. I have moved this out as part of an attempt to bring the article length down within wiki guidelines. Naturally, this involves hard editorial judgements. In this case, I wasn't certain if anyone else can see a great reason I have overlooked for this to be there. The issue in that section is whether or not an experiment can be designed such that hoax theories might qualify as falsifiable, and thus claim to be scientific. This seems to be a contribution by someone who is keen to share (true) information about SELENE, but perhaps not in the most relevant place: it looks like a sub-plot we lack space for. Too harsh? Adhib 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being too harsh. And even if it does show our hardware on the moon, the hoax believers will say that it could be unmanned. And even if it shows footprints, that could be hoaxed too. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
One thing, though, I don't think it should be edited down just for size. WP guidelines says to try to keep articles under 32K or something like that, because a few people can edit files larger than that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, where this article is concerned, any size above zero-K is questionable. Wahkeenah 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get serious (Part deux)

OK, so I've done my Levels One and Two. That's the easy part. The hard part is shaving off that last chunk of fat - about 6 or 7 k's worth. It'll require some considerate truncation of waffling sentences, trying hard to preserve all factual references. Anyone wanna join in? Adhib 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Square?

The article says "The primary basis of their claim was that it did not square with their belief that the Earth is flat." I was going to change "it did not square with" to "it was not consistant with", since that has a clearer meaning. But when I started to edit, I saw that it may be an intentional pun, so I left it for now. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Other groups have since called on NASA to level with the American people... Tom Harrison Talk 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Won't you use plane English, please? Adhib 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)