Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMoon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Edit warring on lede[edit]

I am calling on MrOllie, I am A Leaf, and Robby.is.on to cease edit warring and return the text to the status quo ante. This[1] is textbook WP:POINTY behavior. Leave the final decision to page watchers who are uninvolved. Sennalen (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Sennalen (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia - I am not doing this to be disruptive or to score points on another talk page. I firmly believe this is an improvement. And an improvement is worth implementing no matter who the idea came from. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Importing disputes is disruptive, even if you believe you are on the right side of the dispute. This article was cited as a positive example of how to frame a lede. Your choice to follow that link and mar exactly the text that was being held up as a positive example was WP:POINTY. Further, edit warring is inherently disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an extreme position. I doubt you would find consensus that a mention of an article on some other talk page would then make editing that article off limits to those who read the comment. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a strawman of what WP:POINT is about. Sennalen (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems to be a pretty exact depiction of your interpretation of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if its a straw man they've made it nearly identical to your argument to the point where they're indistinguishable. Was your argument a straw man the whole time? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an opposing lawyer in a court said "the defendant falsely claimed ..." then the judge would stop him immediately and ask him to rephrase. Determining whether the claim was false or not is the point of the trial and cannot be presupposed. The same should apply here. We state what was claimed. Then we look into the supporting facts and only after this proof do we say true or false.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. With "falsely" taken out, it still says that "conspiracy theories claim...", with a link to CT, so those who do not know what a CT is can click on it and see that thy are false, by nature. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a court of law, and the lede of an article is not a lawyer's plea. If you do not want spoilers, don't read Wikipedia ledes, because they are supposed to summarize the article. Your reasoning is invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how leads work on wikipedia... They're a summary of the article not an introduction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if we told readers a bunch of straight up lies, and then at the end of the article - we tell them the whole page is a hoax and that they should learn how to do their own research! What do they think this is? An encyclopedia or something? 58.7.108.95 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Donald Albury 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1184666088

How did they get off the Moon?[edit]

Closing per WP:FORUM — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Landing is one thing but how did they managed to get BACK to earth?????! 2600:1011:B12C:4342:F457:3EC:2626:383 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article Apollo Lunar Module, particularly the section titled Ascent stage. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The top half of the lunar lander (the ascent stage) took the 2 astronauts back to lunar orbit to rendezvous with the command module. It was then discarded. It was much smaller than the Saturn V rocket because it had less mass to haul up and the moon is 1/6 the mass of Earth, so the ascent stage was fighting less gravity. The Saturn V had to lift everything and fight against the much larger mass of the Earth. Both the mass to lift and the mass to fight against are exponential (double the mass and you quadruple the problem), so lightness helped a lot.
Once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module (and the lunar model discarded), the command module fired its engine to return. The command module leaving lunar orbit was much smaller than what left Earth orbit and was also fighting the smaller gravity of the moon rather than the larger gravity of the Earth. In fact, after a short while the Earth was pulling the command module (gravity tends to do that), so the command module only needed enough energy to leave lunar orbit (technically, it only raised its lunar orbit high point enough for the Earth gravity to dominate over lunar gravity and then let the Earth gravity do its thing).  Stepho  talk  05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Lunar orbit rendezvous. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did they risk the lives of the astronauts? What if there was a technical issue that arose on the moon? There would be no way back.
It is clear to most logical thinkers that NASA would not have sent the astronauts on a mission with even a small chance of failure. It would have been a PR catastrophe and extremely unethical. In all my time researching this issue, I have never seen a satisfactory response to this point.
To argue that there wasn't a small chance of failure is ludicrous. The lunar landing alone (without an atmosphere to slow the craft down) relied on untested and extremely complex technology. Even 50 years later unmanned craft have a poor record on moon landings. See Beresheet and Japanese moon lander . And even had the moon landing gone to plan the craft would have to have landed in a perfectly aligned manner on a totally flat surface to have even the slightest chance of relaunching. This would have been known to mission planners and there is no way they could possibly take such a massive risk. 185.182.71.18 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NASA knew there was a risk. So did the astronauts. They had all seen the results of the Apollo 1 fire and they decided to continue on anyway. They did all they could to mitigate the risks down to a sensible level but nobody deluded themselves into thinking that there was no risk. In fact, each mission had several prepared speeches for when things did go wrong. These covered things like if the vehicle crashed, if they got stuck on the moon, if they got stuck in orbit, if the craft lost all its oxygen, etc. They also had multiple backup system where possible and did massive training to cover practically every eventuality. Eg, the LM lifeboat technique that saved the lives onboard Apollo 13 was initially a theoretical exercise that was never expected to be used but they practised it anyway - just in case. There is no such thing as zero risk in such an environment at the leading edge of technology and they all knew it.
Also, the majority of pilots were from the armed forces that knew all about risk. Many of them came from flight testing centres where the risk of dying is even higher than the rest of the armed forces - testing new aircraft with new, untried technology. Risk was their constant companion.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Stepho said, here is a NASA assesment of the risks involved in the Apollo and Shuttle programs. Donald Albury 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the equipment and Lunar Module were extensively tested in flying conditions. Many forget things like the Apollo 10 mission, which flew to the Moon in order to take the Apollo Lunar Module out for a test drive. Successfully completing four lunar orbits on its own, unattached to the Command Module, astronauts Stafford and Cernan then docked, proving that an independent LEM could complete all phases of its mission. An interesting nugget: NASA did not give the Apollo 10 Lunar Module enough fuel to land and take-off, as they were a bit worried that the astronauts, seeing the Moon so near beneath them, would decide to break-mission, mutiny, and land for the historical first exploration. Stafford and Cernan could have done so if they had the fuel, and the success of Apollo 10 proved that it was possible to fly, maneuver, and function relatively safely within the Apollo Lunar Module, setting the stage for Apollo 11 and beyond. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Section[edit]

Would it be possible to include an "In Popular Culture" section with the following information? :-

In the 2024 film " Fly Me to the Moon", a NASA director hires a marketing specialist brought in to fix NASA's public image and stage a "back-up" plan for a fake moon landing in case the transmission from the real moon landing fails.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1219550547"