Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moon landing conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|Moon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.|
|Current status: Former good article nominee|
|This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.|
|edit||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
|Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708063431/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/kik.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kik.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rad.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
While this is all fringe and speculation, should we include other conspiracy theories, such that the astronauts spotted alien spacecraft on the moon or that secret moon missions continued after the Apollo program? Some people believe that, you know. Czolgolz (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The title of the article gives the scope of the article. This article should restrict itself to conspiracy theories about the moon landings and not drift off. Other conspiracy theories may (or may not) deserve their own pages. 23:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggest that under the section "Conspiracists and their contentions" you include the Australian Jarrah White and link to his youtube series titled "Moonfaker". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be just repeating claims already made by others. Nothing new. Also, his photographic expert seems to be looking at the photo for the first time and then asked for an opinion about perspective on shadows. She didn't have time to consider alternative explanations - only the explanation that was hinted at by the interviewer. Very unprofessional reporting. 07:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Van Allen Belts, cosmic radiation, lunar surface radiation, solar flares
This whole page gets straight into fiddly pictures and debatable claims about shadows, surely it's worth a good look at the #1 conspiracy theory and addressing that first????
Ask most doubters and they'll mention the radiation. They'll say that there was too much radiation for any manned space travel outside of earth. This wild theory relies on the fact that apart from Apollo, no one has been anywhere to visit anything except LEO, thus drawing the wild conclusion that no one can get beyond 500miles up without dying, and the anomalous travel - Apollo - was therefore faked.
The belts themselves are discussed here: Van Allen radiation belt
From that page the claims that "proton energies exceeding 50 MeV" have not been ratified and in fact the Apollo missions would have only been within the grip of the belts for 90 minutes. It's of huge benefit that the Apollo service, command and lunar modules were so ruggedly built with lo-tech equipment because today even in the ISS a laptop will crash as it brushes into the rather low altitude parts of the belt in the South Atlantic - known as the South Atlantic Anomaly.
If the aim of this page is to dispel the rumours of conspiracy nuts it's doing an extremely poor job at not even mentioning the hard radiation found in space, the multiple flares during the Apollo missions and how the thickness of the tanks, hull and the short timescale of the missions meant that a few days out in space next to The Sun isn't such a big deal. Proof of that of course is in the excellent health and longevity of the astronauts, thus proving that the radiation is quite manageable. If that radiation was half as bad as the hoaxers claims they'd have all dies of cancers years ago.
By ignoring the Van Allen belts this page simply plays into the hands of the conspiracy nuts, and while I'm sure they warrant a listen, it's surely not Wikipedia's job to supply their ammunition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- The aim of this page is not to "dispel the rumours of conspiracy nuts". It is to document the Moon landing conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps that's not the stated aim, but by establishing the facts that's what happens, conspiracy nuts can't argue against the fact that we went, so this page needs to cover the factual state of the radiation environment. That the page makes no mention (that I could find) is highly suspicious and we need to have a complete page.
- When I direct any hoaxer to this page they come straight back with the missing radiation argument. Why is it missing?? It's their main objection - duh! So much for balance.
- It's a topical subject too because NASA is actually planning to measure the radiation (obviously the Apollo team measured it already but in only a few areas - we need to publish their results too), so we have solid references. See: NASA page on moon radiation
- First - the way to get changes done is not to come to a page and say "you suck". This is typically a way to get your opinion ignored - so word to the wise for next time.
- Second - your information is somewhat lacking as we've had several satellites that have measured the strength of the Van Allen belts so I'm not sure why you are stating that no work on it has been done since the early 70's. In addition, I seriously doubt that this is the most popular theory for the conspiracy nuts because it is very easily explained due to the very short time the astronauts spent in the belt and the protective nature of the water tanks and the hull of the CSM.
- Finally I agree with Escape Orbit that the object of this page is not to dispel arguments - its merely to discuss them. I'm sorry that the page has allowed "all these crazies" to continue to believe stupid things, but that's not the intent of Wikipedia. There are several very good sites on the web that actively work to debunk Moon landing non-believers just fine and go into very intricate and specific scientific detail.
- That being said, if you believe that strongly on the subject and have a suggested edit for what you would write and where it would go, put it up here on Talk and we'll look at it for you so that you can post your own "fix" to the content you see that's missing. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
FFS Wake up and smell the coffee!
This situation is just moronic. It also an indictment of the mindset of set of editors who laud it here.
They'd rather have an article about fake news and bullshit that is bigger than the actual facts..!!
- There was only one type of moon landing (repeated a few times). But there are many, many crackpot theories. This article only gives an overview of each theory and a small rebuttal in order to dismiss it. What would you have us do? Cut each theory summary and rebuttal down even smaller so as to make it useless? Or leave theories out? Perhaps we could replace the whole article with the state "The moon landing was real - every other theory is junk !!!" but give no proof of any type? Do you have some form of concrete suggestion or do you just want to rant while leaving it up to others to do the actual work. 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- There are many articles about the Moon landing, other than the main one. There are articles about many pieces of hardware - the rockets, the command module, the lunar module, the lunar rover, the experiments left on the Moon, the launch pads, the VAB, the Crawler-transporter, Mission Control Center, tracking stations, the TV cameras used, the space suits, the rocket engines, and even each stage of the rocket, etc. There are articles about the Apollo program, each mission, each astronaut, etc. There are articles about the methods to get there. In total, the real thing is much larger. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- The quality or value of an article is not measured in MBs. And since Wikipedia is not short of room, the size of this article has absolutely no impact on the size, or value, of others. Hope this clears up your bafflement. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
LEM left no crater
Missing from this topic is that three of the four LEM foot pads had five foot 'probes' which shut off the engine while still in the 'air' to reduce the effect of the descent rocket blast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- True. Where would you suggest that this would need to be added in? Ckruschke (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Actually, the probes did not automatically "shut off the engines"; they simply lit a Contact Light on the instrument panel, which the LM Pilot annunciated to the Commander, who manually shut off the engine. Sometimes the engine would be shut off earlier or later than others. The intent was to avoid the exhaust gasses damaging the bottom of the LM, not to avoid disturbing the lunar surface. Also the probes were 5½ feet long. Our verifiability rules require that we don't speculate or make our own arguments. The absence of craters is adequately addressed by the reliable source already cited in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Mechanical issues item 1. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)