Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 15

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



Is there any material which we could all agree on that could be summarized and split into another article? The page is over 105k now, which is a sure sign that summary style isn't being used enough... (and yes, before anyone asked, I know about the recent AfD for... whatever that other page was)
V = I * R (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Several articles were split out a couple of years ago. Two of them had recent AfDs - one was kept. one was deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to trim it just down to a smaller article. The LRO revelation pretty well knocked the solar wind out of this nonsense, and at this point it probably has too many kilobytes devoted to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Trimming the page is vastly superior than splitting it up. Baseball Bugs is right, this is pretty stable at this point and there is no compelling reason to split it into pieces. There's just not much more to be said on this subject and a little copy editing will resolve the size concerns. RxS (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no, I understand the argument... It's just that copy editing can't really address the article size issues, since (from what I can see) most of the article is already in summary style. I'd actually term that level of editing as content editing. I don't see any obvious, rambling screeds in the current article, anyway. I guess that I'm mostly balking because the idea of excising as much materiel as it would take to address the size concerns goes against my illusionist tendencies. I'm certainly not looking to start edit wars, but on the other hand I'm not particularly concerned about them either (primarily because I just wont participate).
V = I * R (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not that concerned with article size. I think articles should be the size they need to be rather than some small limit. Of course, summary style is good in some cases. But the limit to 32KB was based on limits of some very old systems. It doesn't matter much if someone with a Comodore 64 can't edit a large article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, retention of the facts that these claims existed at all ought to be worth something (if only to remind us that we can delude ourselves into believing anything). Obviously, copy editing is appropriate, but that really ought to occur with an eye towards improving the prose rather then simply shortening it. To be honest, I think that you may have allowed yourself to become overly polarized in defending the fact that the landings did in fact occur. Despite the conspiracy theorists soto voice appeals to "logic", obviously the Moon landings occurred, and these are certainly fringe claims. Of course we should be careful not to give them undue weight, but that doesn't mean that we need to excise their statemented completely or even shorten them at all. Avoidng undue weight is really an editorial issue, not a length or inclusion issue (it's all about the manner in which the opinions are stated).
V = I * R (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The claims and answers need to be kept around, and my concern in spinning them off is that it will marginalize them and give the hoax theories undue weight in the main article. As far as defending NASA is concerned, I remain open to actual evidence that contradicts the history of the space program. So far, there isn't any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing to keep in mind is that individual points of a fringe theory are irrelevent if they haven't received covereage by reliable sources. This article cites a number of primary sources. If no, (or even few), third-party, reliable sources have reported these veiews, then it shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
So you take them out, and the edit war starts again - and then I say do svidania to it, because I first got involved with this thing three years ago, and I'm sick of the edit warring. We've got a fairly stable article now. Muck around with it, and it will be up to you to fend off the attackers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
meh, let them revert and change stuff, I don't mind... WP:OWNERSHIP applies anyway, after all. Personally, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything regardless, and Wikipedia itself shares that view. The trouble is that conspiracy buffs are usually paranoid enough not to share this view at all, making actual collaboration with them extremely difficult, if not impossible. The thing is, "we" (non-paranoid, "normal" folks) will be around a lot longer then they will, so I'm not worried. Remember, Wikipedia:There is no deadline.
V = I * R (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine. I'm done watching it as of right now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, don't be like that! first "lambda" (or whatever), and now you? What's up with this page?
V = I * R (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this page, along with ethnic & religious subjects, attracts folks who have a near-fanatical belief in the fringe side, and invariably wear down those on the side of WP:V and WP:NPOV. When we finally get some calmness on a page like this, people are understandably nervous about stirring the hornets nest again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
True... but, the good thing about fringe beliefs is that their by definition in the minority. Someone is bound to be around to correct the problems that occur. That being said, I'm not dead set on any spliting here. I wanted to bring the subject up is all, due simply to the length of the article. There seems to be a clear consensus to keep it all together though, and there appears to be a couple of legitimate reasons (non-fear of cfork or tendentiousness) to keep it all together for now.
V = I * R (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not the case that someone is always bound to be around to correct problems. I haven't read it in a while, but green fireballs at least was a counterexample to that. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, there isn't always someone around immediately to take care of problems. On the other hand, those pages that are regularly problematic (such as this one) attract a disproportionate amount of attention from both problem editors and those looking to fix them. More importantly though is that there is no deadline and we shouldn't panic about anything. There are over 3,000,000 articles on Wikipedia now, and I think that we're all fairly confident that there are many problems in a good percentage of those articles. So, fix whatever you see, when you see it and are able to fix it, and don't sweat the rest. I'm not trying to make an excuse for doing nothing either, just for being less stressed about it all, really.
V = I * R (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave up on pseudoscince articles about three years ago because the true believers in them shouted down everyone else. Bubba73 (talk), 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but see, that actually can help to illustrate what I'm saying. You're obviously still here. How many of those who "shouted you down" are still here? I'm sure that they screamed, shouted, and generally obstructed any immediate resolution, but in the long run "we" (meaning the NPOV, more reasonable editors) will always win out.
V = I * R (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still here, but I used to do major editing in the Rational Skepticism project, but I haven't edited those articles in about three years. I started editing chess articles instead. I know of great editors who left WP because of the fringe element on pseudoscience articles. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────People take their place though, or they come back... or, as with you, they don't actually leave, but they avoid some subjects. My point is simply that there is, and always will be, instances of pedantry and tendentiousness on Wikipedia. It's simply the nature of the beast. I just let it go, because worrying about it does no good. Wikipedia's basic design isn't going to change, the conspiracy theorists are not going to change, and really... I just don't care that much about fringe theories and conspiracy theories. You know what they say about opinions...
V = I * R (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose split. The article is large but not unwieldy large. All material is related and logically organized, so no need for a split. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo of revision 307937925

The edit by seemed like too much detail for the explanation of the landing accuracy difference between A11 and A12 so I took it out. If consensus disagrees please put it back. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with taking it out. Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Done. Seems least-wordy common name to identify the topic specifically at this time. DMacks (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theoriesMoon landing conspiracy theories — Simply because the current title is unnecessarily cumbersome. There's nothing particularly wrong with the current title, but I don't see how a shorter, more succinct one would cause any ambiguity as to what the subject of the article is.
V = I * R (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want some (not very) entertaining reading, go back in the archives and see what a brouhaha there was over including the expression "conspiracy theories" in the title. I think the current title was essentially a compromise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm certain that there was, but there hasn't been any recent debate on the issue that I can see and WP:CCC. You never know, given some time cooler heads may be able to prevail. You should also be able to detect the careful couching I added in the presentation, since I was sure that there will be those who object because they feel strongly about the issue.
V = I * R (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"Hoax" makes the title awkward, I think it could easily be taken out. "Apollo" is a little different - there aren't conspiracies (or hoax charges) about Moon landings other than Apollo. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the point about the use of "Apollo" in the title, but I think that it's unnecessary. I don't think that specificity is really needed here, since "Moon landing conspiracy theories" seem to be clearly associated with the Apollo program. WP:COMMONNAMES is suggestive that more succinct names are preferred. I'm definitely less concerned with including "Apollo" then I am with "hoax conspiracy" however, for the reasons which you outlined.
V = I * R (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There have been various orbiting and landing craft sent to the Moon, and the hoaxsters don't really talk about those. It's Apollo that they harp on. P.S. The lack of recent contentiousness is a blessing. You should have been here 3 years ago and then 2 1/2 years ago when there was a serious edit war going on here. Those characters were finally dispatched, and it's been relatively quiet since then. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, but that "the hoaxsters don't really talk about those" actually supports my point that the Apollo program is automatically associated with "Moon landing conspiracy", in common parlance. Who knows, perhaps at some future date after the Chinese space program or someone else lands people on the moon we will need to specifically disambiguate the page, but I don't see any reason to do so currently.
V = I * R (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This is such an inexact science in determining what the most common name, but a Google search of reliable sources seems to indicate that "Moon landing conspiracy theories" is more common than "Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories". Of course, this is very inexact and "Moon landing conspiracy theories" is much shorter, so it's bound to get more hits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There is this one little glitch I see here, since "Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories" includes every word of "Moon landing conspiracy theories", it would be very common to have the latter including all of(or at least most of) the results of the first one. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I enclosed both phrases in quotes when I did the Google search. "Moon landing conspiracy theories" omits the word "hoax" which in in the middle of "Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories" so one wasn't a subset of the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, my bad, had to ask the obvious. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I give much more weight to the references that are in the article, when enough of them exist (as in cases such as this), to make WP:COMMONNAME type decisions. Google can occasionally be valuable in terms of being suggestive or supportive of one view or another, but there's so much ambiguity in raw searches (search structure and terms, site mirroring, and reliability issues, just to name a few issues) that I don't find Google results particularly persuasive of anything unless the results show extreme positions (1 billion hits to 0, for example). Even when there's no references in the article, if Google actually returns results that only suggests to me that involved editors better begin adding references to the article.
V = I * R (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think a google search is much more likely to include "hoax" than "conspiracy theory". Bubba73 (talk), 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Arguments from the perspective of easier (or harder) searches are kinda blown away by the existence of redirects. Even if the article were to be renamed, there can (and typically will) be a redirect from the old name. In the end, the only concern with the actual article title is what appears at the top of the page. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply because there are conspiracy theories surrounding other Moon landings besides the Apollo program. (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    ...such as? I'm completely open to hearing this argument, it's just that I can't imagine anyone immediately thinking of something other then Apollo when the subject of "Moon landing consperacy" or "Moon landing hoax" comes up. Now, My opinion doesn't really count for anything here, and I'm fine with that, but my opinion seems to be backed up by the fact that there are no other "<whatever> Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories" articles, and so we should avoid unnecessary disambiguation IAW WP:DAB.
    V = I * R (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't understand that comment either. I don't know of any other conspiracy theories involving Moon landings; and if there are, you should be in favor of the name change. Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Simpler is often better. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Gets the job done without stringing six nouns in a row. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

copy edited opening paragraph

Just an FYI that I've just now copy edited the opening paragraph. The changes to the first sentence were definitely made with an eye to this proposal/discussion, so if someone feels the need to revert them I completely understand (and I won't try to fight it). Usually, concrete examples of exactly what a change means tends to facilitate understanding, is all, which is why I performed the edit now.
V = I * R (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How many left Earth orbit?

According to the [[1]]:

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[71] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.

There where 9 manned missions to Lunar Orbit (thus, that "left Earth orbit"): Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and Apollo 17. All of them with a crew of 3.

--Cesarakg (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there were some duplications. Lovell was on A8 and A13. Cernan was on A10 and A17. Young was in A10 and A16. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion section

The statistic from Fox News about 20% of people not believing in the moon landing after their program ran is highly suspect. I have seen this number quoted other places and all that is ever said about it is that it is from Fox; there is no actual data available and Fox has not said how this number was obtained. The reference on the page is just a link to a news article that quotes said anonymous Fox executive. Frankly it looks like something some marketing executive just made-up. It doesn't seem right to have it represented next to gallup poll numbers. But removing the quote has a significant impact on the section. Any thoughts on whether or not it should be removed? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is probably OK because it says that Fox stated that 20% figure. So I think it is accurate to say that they stated it. Bubba73 (talk), 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I agree with Bubba73. The writing makes it clear that the figure is pretty much the sole opinion of Fox news, so I dont' see it as being particularly problematic.
V = I * R (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I see a problem leaving it at "Fox said so". Even if we had universal agreement with the implicit view that Fox is generally unreliable, there is still the possibility that Fox did (or could) do a proper survey, and then the result might be legitimate. I think it would be better to say that Fox's claims here are suspect (and not as reliable as the Gallup numbers) because they are unsubstantiated, not simply because they are from Fox. This formulation also changes the nature of any complaint of "Wikipedia bias" from "what does Wikipedia have against Fox" to "what does have Wikipedia have against unsubstantiated claims", which goes direct to established policy. - J. Johnson (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Web forum being cited as a source

There's a reference in the "Predominant hoax claims" section that is an archive of a series of vBulleting forums. It's currently reference #17. I've marked it as being potentially unreliable, so if anyone can find a more reliable citation to use it would be appreciated. Thanks!
V = I * R (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to have gone downhill

This is the lede from the last time I edited the article, in February:

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced various theories which tend, to varying degrees, to include suggestions that the Apollo astronauts did not land on the Moon, that NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landings did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples, and that the deception continues to this day.
There is abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and these conspiracy theories have been generally discounted. Nevertheless many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.[1] A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landings were genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided.

This is the lede today:

Various Moon landing conspiracy theories, often described as the Moon landing hoaxes by proponents, are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Project and the associated Moon landings were falsified by NASA and members of other involved organizations. Since the conclusion of the Apollo program, a number of related accounts espousing a belief that the landings were faked in some fashion have been advanced by various groups and individuals. Some of the more notable of these various claims include allegations that the Apollo astronauts did not set foot on the Moon; that NASA and others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landings did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples; and that the deception continues to this day are common to most of the conspiracy theories.
There has been significant effort put forth to provide third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. Despite this, a 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.
On 16 July 2009 NASA announced that a three-year search for pre-scan conversion tapes of the Apollo 11 moonwalk had failed to locate the tapes, and that they were most likely erased and re-used. Most recently, a set of still images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission was published by NASA on 17 July 2009, which show the lunar landers, science experiments and some astronaut footprints.

Note how a clear statement of fact in the lead has been watered down. Once it said:

There is abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and these conspiracy theories have been generally discounted.

Now the equivalent statement only says:

There has been significant effort put forth to provide third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.

This gives a false impression by firstly failing to state that the available evidence overwhelmingly discredits this nonsense, and secondly by failing to state that the crackpot theories aren't taken seriously. And this is after we've obtained photographs of the landing sites, so even more thoroughly discrediting the nonsense. --TS 02:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the "there is ample [evidence]" wording, and removed the weasel phrase "Despite this" from the presentation of the GALLUP findings. In a recent poll, fully 6% of Americans thought Hawaii was not a state, while 4% weren't sure, so the poll results don't show much and we shouldn't suggest that they're bad news for NASA. --TS 03:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably revert this (indirectly) later on. See below.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiation Exposure Numbers Aren't Adding Up

Rather than start an edit war, I decided to move this here. The radiation numbers listed under the section about why the radiation levels would not have been dangerous simply aren't adding up. I did remove one claim that said they were exposed to the amount of radiation of a single chest x-ray because the numbers don't support it. The source cited claimed that he remembered the astronauts on the Apollo missions had been exposed to about 2 rem of radiation. This is the equivalent to 20 mSv. That's the equivalent of about 900 chest x-rays, NOT one chest x-ray as the article claimed before I edited it. And this is also full body exposure, not just exposure to the chest. This is more radiation than the average survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing was exposed to. Is this enough radiation to kill you outright? No. Is it enough radiation to even make you feel sick? No. Is it enough radiation to increase your risk of cancer later in life? Probably. Do we need to allow for the possibility that Jack Swigert's premature death from bone cancer at the age of 51 was the result of a radiation induced cancer from his time on Apollo 13? Yes. If the LNT (linear no threshold model) is what we go by (and this is the model most accepted currently), then we have to allow this. Based on some recent studies, we could estimate his increased risk of dying from cancer (assuming a 20 mSv dose) to be around 1 in 500.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, did you include the radiation of the multiple solar flares, which occurred each and every moon mission, to your calculations? Solar flare data available on NASA's website.

I have not verified the source to see exactly what it says, but as I recall all the Apollo astronauts were exposed to less than 2 rem. A maybe a better comparison than a chest X-ray would be the annual full body exposure limit of 5 rem allowed for workers in the United States? Solar flares would be included, since the data is based on the dosimeters the astronauts carried. Jminthorne (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to allow for the possibility that Jack Swigert's cancer was caused by radiation damage during the Apollo mission? Yes. Is it significant? No. One data point is not statistically significant, even if we take every astronaut that went to the moon (15 in all), this is probably still not a large enough sample to give reliable data, short of every astonaut getting cancer, which is not the case. The dosemeter data is the most reliable data if the source can be verified.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is significant. You have no idea what caused one particular cancer. Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We just have to assume the space suits did their job. The astronauts were not wandering around the moon's surface in their pyjamas. Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak criticism section

I think the section regarding criticizing the hoax accusations is generally weak. OK, so 400,000 people supposedly worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. I mean, seriously, it's possible that you can keep large numbers of people ignorant or have their minds brainwashed and wired. It's also possible that the people underwent a rigorous screening process before working on the project and those that seemed to be a major threat to the motives were ousted. And of these men who returned to recount their experiences, they could have been paid very handsomely or coerced into secret if they wanted their lives spared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently performed some editing of the criticism section, so I should probably address this. Primarily, this page should describe the fact that the belief that the moon landings were a hoax exists. Along with that, since the rebuttals of that thinking are obviously widespread and notable, that people do criticize the thinking should also be mentioned. Extensive details about either the theories themselves, (beyond describing them, which is essential to understanding the topic) should be discouraged. Wikipedia is not here to advocate one side of the issue or another, it's not supposed to be a soapbox for anyone, and it's coverage in all areas should strive to maintain neutrality. If you want to either espouse the belief that the moon landings didn't happen, or try to debunk that belief, Wikipedia really isn't the place to do that.
V = I * R (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should show the emphasis of mainstream sources, not attempt to give equal "balance" to both sides of an argument. If 80% of valid sources (for example) easily disprove the hoax perspective, then wikipedia should reflect this emphasis. It would POV to give the impression that the hoax position was considered valid by 50% of sources. Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

second paragraph needs to be rewritten

Regarding the paragraph

"There is ample third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided."

It is poorly written.

Gallup poll sentence was at a incorrect place. It provides a sense of how general public perceives the moon landing, it does NOT support/refute moon landing hoax. It needs to be moved to somewhere else. (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good example

The current lead offers a good example of what I've been criticizing here, recently. The last "paragraph" (which should really be a part of the second paragraph, but that's a different issue) currently says:

Most recently, a set of still images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission was published by NASA on July 17, 2009, which show the lunar landers, science experiments and some astronaut footprints.

current diff

That's all factually correct of course, but why is it in this article, let alone in the lead? Does the release of LRO photos actually relate to the conspiracy theories in some manner? NASA and the scientific community in general certainly have used them to sort of tongue-in-cheek poke fun at the conspiratorial folks, but I don't see how that's anything more than tangentially relevant to the actual "theories" themselves.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, have at it! The LRO photos are a good rebuttal to hoax theories and should get a mention somewhere in the article but I agree it's probably not right for the lead. Jminthorne (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
For years hoax believers were using the (then) fact that the landing sites weren't visible from Earth-based telescopes, the Hubble telescope, or space probes as evidence that the landings didn't happen. Now we have those photos, so it directly relates to the hoax claims. Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, but, the attitude behind that is exactly what I'm criticizing Bubba. There is a section explaining the belief that "I can't see it in my telescope, so I don't believe it" (paraphrased, obviously) silliness exists, so a brief mention of LRO (along with SELENE as well, by the way) would be appropriate there. I understand the desire to put it in the lead, since it definitely say "hah! see?" but... that's the whole problem with it being there.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, maybe it doesn't need to be in the lead, but it definitely needs to be in the "attempts to view the landing site" section. Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've "moved" it down to the section. Everything actually appears to already be there, so really I just deleted it, but I did retail the reference. One thing which I just noticed though is that the section that explains the underlying belief (Moon landing conspiracy theories#Large telescopes and the Moon hoax) is separate from the "Criticism of" portion, so that should be edited back together when someone get's a chance to do so.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11 tapes

I've removed the following sentence from the lede:

On July 16, 2009 NASA announced that a three-year search for pre-scan conversion tapes of the Apollo 11 moonwalk had failed to locate the tapes, and that they were most likely erased and re-used.

The reference given was:

"Houston, We Erased The Apollo 11 Tapes". NPR. July 16, 2009. Retrieved August 14, 2009.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help); Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)

Successful moon landings were made by Apollo missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Quite what relation the loss of original tapes of one single mission has to these conspiracy theories has not been explained. It looks on the face of it like an attempt to insinuate somebody's poorly thought-out original research into the article. It certainly makes no sense in the lede unless a reliable source explains how the conspiracy theorists have integrated this news into their theories (assuming they have). --TS 03:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it shouldn't be in the lede. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought about doing this myself, earlier. There's a whole other article about the tapes, and it's really only tangentially related.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What about this article from Reuters: "Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there no imagery of the moon taken from earth or space showing the landing debris?

You'd think that the hoax theories could be disproved once and for all with a number of independent telescopic photos showing human debris on the surface of the moon. Has nobody ever done this? Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) just did this. There are a couple of the photos in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
In my mind, this points out the fact that the article needs an organizational makeover. Things are in all sorts of sections, and I'm not sure what the current organization actually is. I'm not as well versed on the history of this page as some of you are, but I suspect that the current layout is semi-random, based on differing people's ad-hoc attempts to add, update, or remove information through time.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, even after taking the LRO photos out of the lead (which I agreed with), they are still discussed in two places. It should be in one place. Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Three places, actually. I've combined all of that into a subsection within the "Critical examination of hoax accusations" section.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The thumbnail of the lunar landing sites simply does not fit on the page. The thumbnail from the orbiter was pushing into the next section creating a large gap, since the same picture is available on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter page which is linked in this section I have removed the photo. Feel free to put it back if a way can be found to make it fit better.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are most of these people?

And, more importantly, why do I care about them? There's name dropping going on all over the place in this article, and it's made even more evident by linking to them. Most of the proponents have articles on Wikipedia (for what would seem to me to be obvious advocacy reasons), but it's easy enough to see that most of the legitimate scientific community does not, once names start being linked. This is the main reason why I generally always link names in articles. If they show up as a red link, why don't they have an article yet? If they shouldn't have an article, why are we then mentioning them?
V = I * R (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance "Dr. David Williams (NASA archivist at Goddard Space Flight Center)" is probably never going to have an article, but he does figure in the episode, so his name should be mentioned. Bubba73 (talk), 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of missing the point. He was "mentioned in the episode", so someone obviously considers him a notable expert. Why shouldn't he have aven a stub here on Wikipedia? Maybe he isn't so notable? Maybe the entire reason that he's being mentioned just isn't important... See where this can go?
V = I * R (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What he said regarding the missing tapes is notable. I don't have any indication that he is personally notable enough to have his own article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK... Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute what you're saying, I'm simply trying to point out a potential structural issue here. Looking at your example in context, it's probably not the best example of a problematic name drop. On the other hand, there are plenty of sentences like: "In 2004, Martin Hendry and Ken Skeldon of Glasgow University were awarded a grant by the UK based Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in order to investigate 'Moon Hoax' proposals." Pretend that it's 2109 for a second, and you're reading this article. Why should you care about what these two redlinked people said or did 105 years ago? for that matter, why even care today...
V = I * R (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like it's a case of WP:NNC--a lack of notability for a separate article does not necessarily preclude something from mention in the article. The names' inclusions seem to be part of the author's citation style, so excluding them would ultimately detract from the article (assuming the information mentioned is relevant in the first place). However, it should also be noted that WP:NLIST requires WP:N to be met for lists of people (such as the Individuals featured in the controversy section). Looking through that section, there are at least some mild notability issues that should be dealt with. MildlyMadContribs 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
To reply to Ohm, yes I think it is important to list the people who said it, even if they never have their own article. For one thing, it helps with referencing it. Secondly, the news is full of names that will not be known in 100 years - people who will never have an encyclopedia article about them. I think the names should be there. I think if there is a reasonable chance that a person will eventually have an article them link them, otherwise don't link their name. Bubba73 (talk), 14:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the names are specified to avoid WP:Weasel? You can't say "Some conspiracy theorists say...". Instead, you're supposed to name the proponents. At least that's my understanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not saying that the names should be removed. I also think that they should be linked, which is why I've been linking them, and I don't think the fact that individuals are redlinks is necessarily an issue (for which I can especially cite WP:REDDEAL). What I'm trying to get at here is what Mildly started to touch on above. Collectively, I think that the number of redlinks suggests that there may be a notability issue to some of the materiel on this page, and I simply want to encourage those of you who have actively developed the content of this page for a long time, to comb through the material in it and ask yourselves: "is this required? Is it relevant?"
We all know that this page has been contentious for most of it's existence, so the fact that a bunch of marginal information, on either side of the issue, has crept into the article should hardly be surprising. That shouldn't be considered an indightment of the efforts that have been expended here, it's simply an acknowledgement of the fact that ongoing content maintenance is needed.
V = I * R (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
All of the redlinks except 2 or 3 (which are to organizations) are to people who probably will never have their own article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTE are two different things. Someone might be important enough to be mentioned in an article but not important enough to have their own article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that in fact this should be a common occurence. Jminthorne (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone is mentioned in an article in Wikipedia, and their mention is indeed worthy of inclusion in the article, shouldn't they at least have a stub article? Even if it only says "so and so held such position at some place", and (hopefully) included a reference, that's still important information. There's nothing inherently bad about stubs.
V = I * R (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. I just read part of WP:NOTE and I don't think such a person would qualify as notable. Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For instance, if one of these stubs came up for AfD, it probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


←:I should probably admit up front (if even to just myself) that I have serious and significant issues with the notability guideline, and we're sort of running into one here. Outside of the notability issue though, I do agree that mentioning people who are only narrowly notable in order to support a specific point that is being presented in an article is (usually) appropriate (IAW WP:WEIGHT, as mentioned above). I'm simply trying to point out that, in my view at least, if a specific person, place, or thing is important enough to specifically mention in the body of an article, then that name should be linked regardless of whether or not an actual article exists. That (redlinks) can cause questions to be raised though, which are often appropriate to ask. In this specific case, based on the preponderance of unlinked or redlinked names, and the controversial history of the article, along with it's overall size, I think that it highlights the fact that some editorial content work needs to be done in order to summarize and generally shorten large portions of the article.
V = I * R (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the parallel with paper encyclopedias. If the name of another article appears in an article they make that other title all caps and a different font. But there are plenty of names in paper encyclopedia articles for people who do not have their own articles. Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The counter point to that it obviously WP:NOTPAPER, though. We have HTML, and more importantly there is no size limit (well, that's not quite true, but still...). Just because paper encyclopedias are technologically limited, doesn't me that we have to "fight fairly" against their style limitations...
V = I * R (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
But that policy says ...there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover... However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done ... . I don't think it is reasonable to have a stub for everyone mentioned in an article. The stub would basically say no more than this article would say. Do we really care when and were they were born and what grade school they went to? Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have with what you're saying, :Ohms law, is that I would hate to see someone waste their time and effort creating an article that is only going to be deleted later. Personally, I would be upset if I spent time researching and writing an article only to be deleted later because it wasn't notable, and I would feel bad for someone else who wastes their time on article that's going to be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What NOTPAPER (or any policy/guideline, for that matter) exactly says is really secondary to the idea which it is trying to communicate. That's really part of a wider discussion that is occurring elsewhere though, so I don't really want to dwell on it. To more specifically address the question here, I would say that it depends on each specific person\link\potential article. Obviously the standard biography related issues apply, so that encyclopedia articles about people shouldn't be resume's (CSV's, I guess, for the Europeans) for example. However, even an article with a single line that "so and so is/was a scientist with a XYZ (degree)" can be very informative in the correct circumstances. I don't think that Wikipedia should become a directory of trillions of people certainly, but where appropriate (for example, authors who's works are cited in many articles. Scientists who's work and opinion is considered important) the articles should probably be created even if their just a "super-stub". The easiest way to determine need is to link all instances (with disambiguation, where needed), and then to check up on "what links here" occasionally.
Anyway, more directly related to this article, I think that the ideas behind WP:COATRACK might best express what I'm attempting to get across by starting this discussion (ie.: "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing."). The whole article doesn't have a coat racking issue obviously, but the general structure of a large part of this article does concern me. A large portion of the content in this article is presented in a "point, counter point" style, and I think that is a huge structural problem. Exposing the name dropping throughout is merely one way to highlight the issue. In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think that it's a huge mistake to event attempt to "debunk what they think" on any article. Believe me, I completely understand the urge to do so but, aside from the neutrality issues inherent in such things, trying to directly battle them just gives those views credence that they usually don't deserve. Mentioning and summarizing notable third party works that address whatever the issue is (Moon landings, in this case), is one thing. Directly addressing the issue itself in any Wikipedia article, from either side of whatever the debate is, is just wrong and should be stamped out based on an alphabet soup of (mostly core) policy, the most important of which are WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Anyway... I'm kind of ranting by now. Sorry about the wall of text.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you just want to state that person X is a scientist with Y degree I think that could be handled with a footnote better than a stub. But that is just my opinion - I will not stand in your way if you want to create the bio stubs.
Do you have a different idea of what Name-dropping is, because the people without artices are not very important people. Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
...that's kind of why I brought the subject up! Red Slash - Smily.png I could have couched the phrase with "attempted", but I try to avoid using passive voice where I can.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Just my $0.02, I think the number of redlinks is a bit excessive and it detracts from the article. I also agree that most of the redlinked people do not merit their own article and I do not think we should create a bunch of hoax believer stubs. We might be able to remove some of the name dropping if their web page or self-published book is referenced (as a primary reference of course). There is no weasel-ness to "another theory is that..." with a reference to that theory. Jminthorne (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but in my opinion the problem isn't caused by the fact that the names are being linked, it's caused by the fact that so many relatively obscure (or maybe, only notable within the narrow field this article covers?) are being included here. I don't think that we should create a bunch of hoax believer stubs either, but that actually gets to another part of the problem... notice the names that are blue. The vast majority of them are proponents of some sort of belief that the Moon landings didn't occur. If that doesn't start setting off alarm bells, I don't know what would.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Article creation

Let me just state that what I am about to say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I did Google searches on all of the red links in the article and attempted to filter through all the non-reliable sources. These are the number of hits (of potentially reliable sources) I found for each search term:

"Bernard Foing"                    - 89 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Linda Degh"                       - 30 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Martin Hendry"                    - 18 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Public Opinion Fund"              - 18 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"James Longuski"                   - 10 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Ken Skeldon"                      -  3 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Misha Kreslavsky"                 -  2 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Kharkov Astronomical Observatory" -  2 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Yuri Shkuratov"                   -  1 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Vince Calder"                     -  0 hits (of potentially reliable sources)
"Andrew Johnson"                   - too common a name
"Alex Blackwell"                   - too common a name
"Leonard David"                    - too common a name

Perhaps as a test case, we can create an article on one of the higher ranked search terms (such as Bernard Foing) and see if it passes WP:NOTE. I've been wanting to start an article of my own for some time, but haven't because of WP:NOTE concerns. I'd be willing to assist in the effort. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Personally, I don't like creating articles, as I much prefer editing. I don't really know why that is, but... *shrug*. I'm neck deep into a couple of other issues/projects as well right now, regardless. However, if whatever article you do create does end up being AfD'ed (which wouldn't surprise me at all, no matter who it's on) please feel free to ping me on my talk page, and I'll at least come and add a defense to the AfD. Actually... you might want to preemptively AfD it yourself. I don't know what the "rules" on that don't of thing are, but it could help.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I started an article on Bernard Foing. It's just a stub for now, but on the talk page, I've added a bunch of links that can be used as sources. If anyone wants to help write the article, please come join me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The article on Bernard Foing is coming along, and I'll probably nominate it for deletion in a few days. If it is deleted, it won't be the end of the world. I can post the content at Lunarpedia, Marspedia or Wikademia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a possible Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point to me. It isn't very disruptive, but it sounds like trying to make a point to start an article and nominate it for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 05:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
good point (pun intended :)). I don't seen anyone reasonably being able to assert that Foing should be deleted, regardless. His article at least isn't even manrginal. I'm a bit surprised that he didn't have one already.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think that's a WP:POINT since I don't actually have a point (i.e. I'm not trying to prove anything). However, I can ask at the help desk (or somewhere) whether nominating your own article for deletion to see if it passes WP:NOTE is a valid use of the system. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTE, "for cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days." So it looks like nominating the article for deletion is a valid part of the process. I'd like a few more days to give other editors opportunities to work on the article and perhaps settle a couple of the minor points mention in Bernard Foing's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is, people will see that you're the major contributor to the article and also the nominator, and it will turn into a debate about process rather then a debate about actually keeping the article or not. Silence actually applies here as well.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, even a debate about process can be useful since I've never been a party to AfD before. If it survives AfD, I'd consider nominating it to GA status since I haven't been involved in that either. I'd like to learn and become a better editor. Another example that I'm involved with is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. For several months, several editors have questioned its notability but no one's been willing to take the plunge and nominate it for deletion. At first glance, the article appears to be reliably sourced, but if you actually examine the cites one by one, most do not even mention this organization. So, if I nominate Bernard Foing for nomination, it will help me with future articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that you shouldn't nominate if for deletion unless you think it should be deleted. I would wait; if anyone objects to the article's existence then they can nominate it. The policy you quoted doesn't perfectly apply to this situation since you are the main contributor. There are lots on non- or barely- notable articles you haven't started that you could nominate if you wanted to have the experience. Just my opinion though, obviously... BTW, shouldn't we be having this discussion on Talk:Bernard Foing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminthorne (talkcontribs) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You could always bring them up for discussion at WT:DEL. If you do that then I'm al but positive that someone will comply and nominate either or both articles for you, as well.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Individuals allegedly involved in the hoax

I removed the "individuals allegedly involved in the hoax". The section is woefully incomplete and it isn't clear why some people are included and others aren't. There are also several citation problems. The section us unclear, doesn't contribute to the overall integrity of the article as a whole and I can't see a way that it can be rewritten so it is more relevent. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to this, but for a page like this simply removing the whole section in one go is probably too much, too soon.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking over the content there, but I don't see any real reference issues right away. The one cite needed tag seems tendentious. The dead link has been long enough to remove it and the content it supports ('NASA Scam', whatever that was). Other then that... it's probably a good target to work into the existing content about the actual theories.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, let's go ahead and dump the section. It seems like a good cut since we are struggling with page length anyways. Jminthorne (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh... I was going to work some of it (likely all of it) in with the existing material. Quite a bit of the page length issues can be addressed by reducing the redundancy that is caused by disorganization. Combining the LRO content yesterday, for example, saved a couple hundred bites...
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the information was interresting but the section is basically clutter, I think the article flows better without it. Besides just about everybody under the sun has been accused of being involved in one of these hoaxes, why are we mentioning these few people? There is already a section about specific hoax claims, any relevent hoax theories should go in there. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's just... we can work bits of it into other areas. The von Braun point, for example, was basically a duplicate of other content. One little bit was useful though, so I pulled that out and added it to the existing content, and then I deleted that point. I had planned on doing that with all of the bullet points about people, in both sections.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dutch fake moonrock

I've removed a link to this BBC report which was just added to the end of the article. It doesn't seem to be related to the hoax theories, though no doubt some conspiracy theorist is even now adding it to his "evidence" and we may see it trotted out in some book or newspaper article sooner or later. --TS 03:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this: "no doubt some conspiracy theorist is even now adding it to his "evidence"" is a big part of what I was getting at above. Wikipedia is not the place to be worrying about such things. Write a book yourself, or go slam the authors on some forum... while I can agree with the idiocy in truly believing that the Moon landings were fake, this is not the place to talk about it.
Aside form that though, I do fully support your actual edit here. Such linking violates the spirit, if not the letter of, WP:EL regardless of anything else.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's advocacy to describe this as a conspiracy theory that flies in the face of all the evidence. I'm open to persuasion, but I think this is one of those cases where, as with the flat-earthers, one calls a spade a spade. I'm a long term Wikipedian and well aware of the application of Neutral point of view, particularly to pseudoscience. --TS 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not advocacy to mention the volumes of third party, verifiable, and reliable materiel which directly contradicts the various silly conspiracy/hoax theories and beliefs out there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battle ground at all though, and that this page has existed as a battle ground over this issue for so long is the primary cause of all of the problems which keep cropping up here. There's plenty of materiel we can cite without directly saying "this is wrong".
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohms, I must dissent -- this is exactly the place to talk about it. Listing the Moon landing deniers' arguments without at least the skeleton of the widely accepted and mainstream refutations would be giving undue weight and implied validity to what are fringe beliefs far outside the mainstream of scientific and historical knowledge. Presenting widely accepted and well referenced mainstream science and history, with the overwhelmingly massive weight of verifiable, standard claims, is not advocacy of personal views and beliefs (which is what WP:ADVOCACY is about) -- instead, it's required by the fundamental principle of neutral point of view.
The fact that the arguments exist is verifiable, and the details must be presented, but to not list the refutations is to implicitly state that the refutations do not exist. Trimming the refutations to a less detailed level, with links to increased detail, would be a good thing, but some articles are long because they need to be -- and this is one of those articles. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to impose, but could you please refactor your comment so as to avoid "ref" tags that require a references section to be placed at the bottom of the page? That format is very unsuitable for a discussion page. --TS 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that -- it's done. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Any content that does provide undue weight should be removed, not counter-pointed. As much as I myself wish to give in, I will fight the idea that descriptions of fringe theories need counter points wherever I run across it, and the thing is that I have the five pillars on my side. I'm not really looking to "win" anything, but this sort of content warfare is endemic on several articles (not surprisingly, most of the pseudoscience content), and is damaging to the encyclopedia. It actually goes beyond the role that Wikipedia plays, anyway. Can't you guys see that you're actively encouraging the participation of these conspiracy nuts on Wikipedia? If they know that they can fight over their point of view on Wikipedia, their obviously going to do so! Besides, whether it's Flat earthers or Apollo nuts, if I'm looking up the article here I'm doing so in order to try to understand what the crazies are thinking, not to see a bunch of reasons why they are wrong. We all already know their wrong! You're not going to convince anyone to change their minds through a Wikipedia article (or, for that matter, by any other means... except possibly medication).
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "you guys"? Is that related to your belief that I am engaged in abusing Wikipedia as some kind of battleground? As for the way in which fringe and pseudoscience is to be presented, this is clearly described in the section cited by User:ArglebargleIV. Presenting the majority view in articles about minority views should be done with care, I agree, but you seem to be suggesting above that the minority view alone should be presented, and that isn't what we do at Wikipedia.
Don't mistake the acts of balancing our coverage with engaging in a battle. The majority view would always prevail in any such battle, of course, but balancing articles for POV is normal Wikipedia editing and has nothing to do with fighting people or trying to convince them. That isn't what any of us are here for. --TS 06:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"you guys" is in reference to those editors who have a desire to add counter points to all of the quackery out there. Yes, I think that you're battle grounding. There's no way to really be nice about this, so I'm just coming out and saying it, but you are hurting Wikiepdia. You can cite guidelines if you like, but that doesn't really change anything. If it's not already clear to the reader that A) this is a fringe theory and B) that there are reputable third party sources which directly refute the quacks, then we've failed as editors. Providing our own opinions which refute fringe theories is just a bad idea, regardless of the fact that a citation to a source can be made. This is about presentation more then anything else.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I don't know that I agree that adding "counter-points" is the correct way to balance the article. We should certainly cover the main debunking efforts, which are often of more interest than the theory itself, but posing the thing as a point/counter-point debate style probably isn't the best way, if only because it isn't really a debate.
I strongly agree that we shouldn't be inserting our opinions into the article. I don't know why you think that's what I'm proposing to do.
I think you may have misread something I said above about conspiracy theorists being about to write up the bogus moon rock as "evidence". What I was referring to was the absence (as yet) of a reliable source to attribute such theories to. Once somebody has done so and the result appears in a reliable source then we should add that to the article--I thought it was obvious that I meant that.
And could you tone down the rhetoric a few notches, please? I think you've gotten completely the wrong idea here. I'm no more interested in making this article into a battleground than you are, and for the same reason: "If it's not already clear to the reader that A) this is a fringe theory and B) that there are reputable third party sources which directly refute the quacks, then we've failed as editors." Absolutely. --TS 08:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that I have the wrong idea... I'll just set this aside for now (again!) until I can get back to it. I feel kind of bad because I'm leaving this unfinished, in my mind, but I'm currently juggling a few more urgent balls in the air so it's entirely possible that there's some transference going on here. You might be interested in going back in the history and looking at the article about, oh, 3 weeks ago? Or even further. It's probably a bit more clear what I'm really talking about, since the whole article was basically nothing but a list of points, first from the proponent perspective, then counters from the science perspective, at that time.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the BBC a moon rock was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1969. When he died in 1988 the rock was handed over to the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum. In those intervening eighteen years a lot of things could have happened, remember that Willem Drees wasn't an active Prime Minister. His heirs could also have messed up his collection. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fake Moon Rock Received by the Dutch

This article does not explain the fake moon rock received by the Dutch government from NASA during a goodwill tour to the Netherlands by Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, Jr.

Pls. explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so it's not our place to "explain it." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but... At one level this kind of personal query is what might most properly be handled on the person's talk page (if this person was a registered WP user :-). But there is a deeper question here: the implicit expectation that the article should "explain" this "fake moon rock". I believe the psychological syllogism runs some thing like: moon landing => (various intermediate stages omitted) => "moon" rock in museum — and when that final conclusion is shown to be false the credibility of all the intermediate stages back to the original premise ("moon landing") is questioned.
The proper explanation here is that the false conclusion does not invalidate the initial premise. There are plenty of intermediate steps where the original moon rock could have been diverted, and these are a lot more likely than the moon landing being a hoax. The article does not – and indeed, should not – "explain" this because it really is so exceedingly remote as to be effectively irrelevant.
"But". That the forgoing is not "obvious" to many people is why (I believe) we have so many conspiracy theories, and why this article is, to some people, controversial and unbalanced. And why some of the discussion further up is needful. In particular: if truth really matters, how far should we go to ensure it is understood? - J. Johnson (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, someone stole it and replaced it with a fake. AFAIK, they're investigating it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is a replacement of a stolen original. The evidence shows that it is a fake original. You are only guessing and creating a conspiracy. Without evidence to prove otherwise, the authenticity of the first Apollo mission is still doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I must have been mistaken. I thought you were requesting information, but it seems you already know the answer, and were really trolling for an argument. That quite undermines any basis for having a rational discussion with you - J. Johnson (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Did I claim that there was evidence of a stolen original? That's why I said "probably" and that they were investigating to see what happens. It only takes one person to steal something so no conspiracy required. Hell, it could have been a housekeeper mistaking it for a regular rock on now it's in someone's back yard for all we know. Your last sentense is patent nonsense (even more than you realize, the first Apollo mission didn't even go to the Moon) and thus there is no need to address it. Your question has been answered, not that this is a talk forum anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence either way about whether it is the original rock or not. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    The people who question the authenticity of the Apollo missions are going to remain regardless of any details of the story. Again, we're only here to report on what reliable sources are saying about this. We can and should report what is directly relevant on both sides of the issue, but this page should neither advocate for or against any particular outlook. Neutrality is really hard, especially on issues such as this where you just 'know what is right. That is not and cannot be an excuse to abandon neutrality, however.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The answers and editors here clearly show a bias against conspiracy theorists, and it indicates that Wikipedia is not neutral. Even the low-resolution LRO photos of the Apollo 11 landing site does not show evidence that the object in the photo is really from Apollo 11. NASA also favored low-resolution television footage of the Apollo 11 mission that is now digitally edited, and they erased their originals: Wikipedia's editors removed this story from the article. How can Wikipedia's readers and donors believe in Wikipedia if it is not neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a separate article covering the tapes at: Apollo 11 missing tapes. More importantly, the inclusion of all sorts of advocacy is decidedly not neutral. Being (apparently) an advocate yourself, I can understand being frustrated about this, but this is being neutral. You should also take this opportunity to skim through WP:FRINGE.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is not neutral is an unbalanced report that does not mention both sides of the story and censors material that is not favorable to biased editors. Wikipedia is obviously a tabloid encyclopedia not worthy of any serious consideration. More donors will soon realize this and withdraw funding for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK... thanks for your contributions.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any point in going over the nature of "neutrality" and "balance" yet again; some people don't want to know. In answer to the question I raised above, I am minded of a biographical anecdote about Sun Tzu. In its essence, he said that it is the duty of leaders to communicate clearly. But if the troops will not obey: off with their heads! Okay, I know that wouldn't be nice. But it be a lot more satisfying. And raise the quality of discourse. - J. Johnson (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This has some interesting details. First is that rocks were given out to heads of state, but they were from later missions, not Apollo 11. (My take: Apollo 11 rocks were pretty special, and I don't think they were given away willie-nillie just a few months later.) Secondly, the one that had the rock had not been the head-of-state for 11 years (me: so it is unlikely that he would have been given a Moon rock). Bubba73 (talk), 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just re-added a bit covering all of this. I reverted teh first addition and attempted to direct here, primarily because it was written in an ad hominem way. The user seems to have rewritten it and added it back in now, and I'm a bit less concerned with the neutrality now. So, should it stay? I'm leaning towards no, but not strongly.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article not a newspaper. I say leave it out until it clearly has been incorporated into a moon landing hoax theory notable enough to be reported by a reliable source; until then it's irrelevant to this article. Jminthorne (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, leave it out for now. If it is established that NASA gave them a fake rock then it would probably be appropriate. But it hasn't been established that they gave them this rock, and I gave two reasons why it is unlikely. Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I guess I'll go and take it out myself.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a This is a conspiracy theory article for God sake !!! and this is an evidence as US officials has not commented on it, keep it there, do not remove it!! until NASA has some thing to say. I have placed it again ... so pls do not remove it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etativel (talkcontribs) 03:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, we don't have any reliable source saying that the fake rock is connected to this article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's use a little bit of common sense here. Why would NASA have given them a rock they claimed was from the Moon but was obviously not? A rock that any geologist could have immediately identified as not being from the Moon. If NASA faked the Moon landing then they wouldn't have given anyone any rocks. Bubba73 (talk), 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
read the news "US officials had no explanation" ... mistakes are made ... may be US was not as smart in 69 as it is now :) ... its dutch finding and no one is saying from NASA any thing on it...until they do ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etativel (talkcontribs) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So NASA doesn't know how they got the fake rock. Bubba73 (talk), 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder, this would need a WP:RS not only about the news story, but that it has been incorporated into a notable conspiracy theory. Jminthorne (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The existence of a fake moon rock wouldn't by itself prove that the moon landing was a hoax. But it would put the validity of certain explanations in question, so as such would be relevant here. Do we have any better references than a newspaper article about this? By the way, IMO a bias against conspiracy theories is perfectly normal, since if one doesn't have at least some resistance to conspiracy theory, before long one doesn't know what to believe. -- (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Come now, you all are missing the simplest, sublimely obvious explanation: the existence of a fake moon rock proves just that: the moon is fake. This definitely disproves those absurd claims so insiduously made over the years by the green-cheese propagandists.
I should say alleged existence, as we really have no proof that this rock ever existed. Or even that the Dutch exist, let alone have a museum. As far as that goes, hey, what proof do we have that NASA exists?  :-}    J. Johnson (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proponents and proposals - Jarrah White

I just reverted an edit by that added Jarrah White to the list of hoax proponents. The addition was too ad hominem to stand as written, but it raises the question - is he notable enough to be added to the article? I know we're more at the point where we would like to shorten it. Jminthorne (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to whithold judgement on the addition of "Jarrah White" to the proponents section, but it was reverted already anyway. Still, I copy edited what what attempted to be added, so here it is:

  • Jarrah White, a South Sydney, Australia, based YouTube user who claims to be the Grandson of Bill Kaysing<ref>{{[ Cite web| url=][][ | accessdate=]{{[ #dateformat:1 September 2009]}}| title=Bill Kaysing The Service Engineer| first=Jarrah| last=White| publisher=[[[ YouTube]]]}}{{[ RS?]}}</ref>. White claims that he will apologies to the Apollo Astronauts on behalf of Kaysing, should the proposed conspiracy be disproved. White strenuously defends his position, and has produced numerous videos presenting spurious evidence to support the theory of a hoax. White also supports the Ralph Rene position regarding "Gaddy's Pi". <ref>{{[ Cite web| url=][][ | accessdate=]{{[ #dateformat:1 September 2009]}}| title=Squaring the Circle with Gaddy's Pi | first=Jarrah| last=White| publisher=[[[ YouTube]]]}}{{[ RS?]}}</ref>

Without third party coverage of any of this, I don't see it as being particularly important to add myself.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there must by third-party coverage of this, anybody can get on youtube and say whatever they want, it's the same as citing a blog post, unless there is some special reason to think it is relevent it probably doesn't need to be added. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody CAN get on youtube, but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject as Mr. White. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the effort is notable and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

His YouTube account here shows 640 subscribers which is a fair number. Does that count as verification of notability? Man with two legs (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really, no. There's a guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. Independent, third party coverage is what's really important.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube references and unreferenced sentences

I restored deletions from two edits and added a fact tag to the previously deleted unreferenced material. I can add a source for it later tonight. As for the youtube portion, is it a reasonable solution to reference a different source and keep the youtube link as a convenience reference? Jminthorne (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
maybe. What are you referencing, and is it a legal upload to Youtube? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the second fact tag since the clavius reference covered most of that information already. I did modify the paragraph some to match the data in the clavius reference. I also removed the "moon is 10 times higher than the belts" since it seemed marginally relevant enough that I didn't want to spend the time finding a reference. Jminthorne (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I just reverted another round of the YouTube link deletions. The deleting user appears to be incorrect about YouTube links not being allowed, according to WP:YOUTUBE. I also removed a dead YouTube link. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance uggests to me that none of these YouTube videos can be used as reliable sources. Th1rt3en might be mistaking the difference between reliable sources and external links. I'm suprised they're in the article to begin with. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos are not acceptable as sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Many of the YouTube clips show exactly what the claims are. Many of them are excerpts from the videos of hoax proponents. Bubba73 (talk), 03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but YouTube videos can be altered. Because of this, in general, YouTube videos are not allowed as reliable sources. Let me try to dig up the policy/guideline that covers this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, see [2].
YouTube references are fine, as long as they're used as primary sources.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ransay book

I've ordered the Ramsay book, so I should be able to provide the requested page number from it soon. Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can read French we might be able to get the other book's needed page off of Google Books. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Predominate Hoax Claim

This is the second time I point this out. This section states, "The most predominant idea is that the entire human landing program was a Complete hoax from start to finish." What does entire mean in this sentence? The Saturn 5 rockets were faked? I have yet to meet any Hoax Believer who thinks that. Rewrite the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First, please place your new posts at the bottom of the page. That's how we keep things in chronological order, so people can read straight down. Putting it at the top doesn't get it more attention.
Second, your personal experiences do not dictate the article. I have run into people who claim the Saturn 5 was a boondoggle that couldn't have lifted its payload to orbit. So, which of our experiences takes over? By Wikipedia standards, neither. We look at the sources and, the majority of sources do indicate the entire program was a planned conspiracy, right down to the rocket construction. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was one around here that thought that the Saturn V was faked. And he cited a Russian that claimed that in print. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New section to address the persistence of denial?

My view is that this article is first rate, and does a necessarily thorough examination of the topic. So it seems fit to consider: why so much controversy? And why is so much of the discussion so repetitive (e.g., re "balance" and "neutrality"), and has to keep returning to the subject matter?

The article provides a thorough and, for most people, reasonable debunking of the claims of the deniers. Yet the denial persists. It seems to me that this has become part of the topic, and warrants a section about the persistence of the deniers despite all reasonable evidence and argument, perhaps even about why this is so. (Which is beyond my skill to write.) - J. Johnson (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that subject is a bit beyond the scope of this article. For more information, read up on denialism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed about it being beyond the scope of the article. As to why there's "persistence of denial," it's because skepticism can be scientifically interesting.-- (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
scientific skepticism is skeptical of things that have no evidence. There is no scientific skepticism of the landings. Bubba73 (talk), 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
philosophical skepticism, meanwhile, is questioning why anything we say is true really is true. Which I think can still be scientifically interesting. -- (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It still seems to me that the general tone of the article (why not to believe these theories) is incomplete without addressing why people believe these theories (anyway). And I don't mean the absurd claims the deniers trot out, but why they go against all evidence and sense. But, sure, perhaps this is too "meta" of a treatment of the topic. Perhaps another article is needed, but the denialism article is only a start, and the conspiracy theories article doesn't really get into the psychological nitty-gritty. Sigh. - J. Johnson (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the solution is to fix/expand the denialism article. There should be a link to that article in Moon landing conspiracy theories somewhere if there isn't already. Jminthorne (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That might work. The denialism article could use this topic as a case study. - J. Johnson (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that this article needs a section about why people believe the conspiracies. A 'why' section is beyond the scope of this article. Besides I don't see how anyone is going to be able to write a npov section addressing "why" and citations are going to be hard to come by. Linking to the denialism article is more than sufficient. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Voiceofreason01. The proposed section would be on psychology, which is a quite separate subject from the subject of this article, and it does not. One might prefer to add such material to denialism, or even to write a separate article about it, but it would not be possible to do either properly unless someone can find substantial coverage of the question by psychologists; maybe such coverage exists, but if so it must be found before anything else can be done. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I've got a possible explanation. Suppose you've grown up using a computer, but never having studied rocket science. Then from your naive perspective, media special effects is more believable than actually flying to the moon. So what we're probably seeing is the effect of a young generation of scientists who are asking, "yes, I know it's true, but why should we believe it?"-- (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't address the fact that these denialists have been around since the 1970's. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right to note that there's always some loon out there that will believe anything. But if there was some way to measure the amount of denialism, and if it is somehow noticeably stronger today than in the past, it would account for that.-- (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Encounter of Different Angles of Shadows of the Omnidirectional Light-Source Kind

Quoted from main page, section Photographs and films

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.
This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing"

Use unidirectional light sources to simulate the real conditions. Unidirectional light sources far enough from the subjects would cast (nearly) parallel shadows, as would be expected in real life. By using an omnidirectional light-source close enough to the subjects the MythBusters only (faithfully) reproduced the conditions under which NASA shot the fake photos. That is, ironically, the MythBusters' efforts only confirmed that the whole thing was a hoax.

Uwe (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources which say that the MythBusters' efforts confirmed that it was a hoax? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
... isn't the Sun an omnidirectional light source? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Watch the episode, or read the WP article on it. They did exactly what the OP wants them to do - they placed a spotlight far enough away that the light was effectively unidirectional (as is sunlight at large distances - like on the moon), and took photos of shadows cast on flat topography - they were parallel, as one would expect them to be. Then, by only changing the terrain, they were able to produce photographs that appeared to exhibit non-parallel shadows, thus proving that this supposed "evidence" is completely invalid. Mildly MadTC 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, only changing the terrain... Are you talking about absorption by the moon surface and/or reflection from it? The characteristics of such phenomena on the moon are such that the incident light ist bent away from its original direction, more so for some objects and less so for some others? that would explain the inconsistent shadowing angles!!! Are you saying that?
Here on earth the bending phenomenon is known as refraction, which however would require the light to pass thru different media of diferent refractive indices. The bending would occur at the boundary surfaces, to put it most simply. Is there anything to suggest that the moon-based objects were enclosed in/surrounded by such media? Well, apparently the MythBusters did do a brilliant job in figuring out the refractive indices for them, from their earth-based studio! My respect! Or, seriously, do you mean to say that there is a new set of physical laws, different from the laws known on earth, that applies for the moon? Uwe (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You're making a straightforward matter waaaay over complicated. 'Changing terrain' is only a matter of giving the ground an uneven surface which slopes in different directions and angles, in a way that may not be obvious on two dimensional photographs. This has the immediate effect of changing the angle of shadows falling on different ground. Simple. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like the Myth Busters experiment go see Phil Plait, his site has a good explanation and some good links. Otherwise please be aware that this discussion page is not a forum. Also please keep in mind wp:civil. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedians. It's not about liking someone/something, or disliking that same someone/something. It's all about science. Thanks for the discussions and the weblinks. I know this is not a forum, so I'll rest the case here. Just one message for Escape Orbit. Is this guy Escape Orbit talking about optical illusion (Optische Täuschung)? I am not into it, and I won't buy his theory. All the best & good luck, guys. Uwe (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a "theory", it's basic projective geometry, which you can demonstrate for yourself with only a little trouble. As an example, light shining through a grid (such as partially opened window blinds) will project grid-like pattern on a flat surface – and non-parallel if the surface is tilted. Project it on a curved surface (such as a large ball) and view it at some angle way from the direction of projection, and the bands of light and shadow will be curved. The phenomena cited can be simply and adequately explained by surface geometry, there is no need to up-end the MASSIVE evidence against the alleged hoax. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is inappropriately biased!

This article is supposedly about the various theories surrounding the Apollo moon landing hoaxes, yet the article seems to be focused entirely on "debunking" those theories, which is surely a separate subject, if not an entirely inappropriate task for an encyclopedia . A proper encyclopedia has no place "debunking" anything. Present the information in a neutral manner, let the reader decide what to make of it. Leave the mythbusting to the Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard, tiresome "unbalanced/biased/POV" complaint. Is there anyway to put a standard retort at the top of the talk page so that it persists there even after the archiving moves everything else? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The talk pages for our articles on Intelligent design[3] and the 9/11 attacks[4] both have FAQs at the top of the page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That is neat, but also beyond my skills as an editor; is anyone interrested in taking on adding the FAQ as a project? If so what specific issues do we address? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
FAQ is a good idea. Talk:Homeopathy also has an excellent FAQ that could be used as a model for the one here. Mildly MadTC 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, for the record I do believe that the moon landings happened, but I came here to read an article about the conpsiracy theory regarding faked moon landings. The idea that the single most famous conspiracy theory short of the assassination of JFK is not in and of itself a noteworthy article and shouldn't be given undue weight is something I find unusual. I simply do not see the need for a point by point rebuttal of these claims, surely if this is a page on the subject then the subject should have prominence. This has nothing to do with POV, and everything to do with letting people read the content of this article. Outerstyx (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that a bizarre notion. One of the most striking facts about these conspiracy ideas is that they are totally without scientific basis, and not to indicate that fact would be to give a distorted, and indeed biased, view of the subject. To report the (in some cases very plausible) arguments in favour of the conspiracy view and not explain why those arguments are mistaken would amount to encouraging readers to believe in them, which would be biased. I am bewildered by the fact that anyone can think that because an article is about a particular subject it follows that it should report the subject principally from that subject's point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
hiya. I agree entirelly that to put up the thoeries and not post the counter arguments would be wrong. The counter arguments are as vital to an understanding of the subject as the arguments themselves. My concern was that when looking for information about what these theories are I had to wade through significant quantities of counter arguments affecting the readability of the articles subject. Outerstyx (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, then any quotes from news organizations such as ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX should be rebutted with the Supreme Court's decision that news organizations are NOT legally required to tell the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia's policies clearly state that large news organizations are reliable. However, if you would like to recommend that major news organizations not be considered reliable sources, please do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mildly MadTC 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, a lot of emotion over a conspiracy theory. I believe the moon landings occurred, but I also feel this article is written by people with an agenda: They want to make it clear to everyone, without question, that the moon landings took place. I see this as being almost as dangerous as the opposite agenda of "proving" they were faked. And I'm dismayed by the dismissive tactics, saying that allegations of POV are "standard" and "tiresome." Really. Even the whole FAQ is a bit over-the-top. And the problem is that the people who have control over this page are way too biased to understand any of this. (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that none of the pro-conspiracy arguments stand up to scrutiny. If it's bias, it's a bias towards science over speculation. And considering the science has been on the side that the moon landings occurred for 40 years now, hearing the same points repeated is tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The issue isn't the scientific validity of the claims. The issue is the claims themselves, they exist, they're real, even if they're total BS. It's like saying, "there's no evidence or scientific rationale for the ressurection of Jesus Christ, or the creation of the gods of Mt. Olympus, so let's delete those articles, or make it clear they can't possibly happen." You're missing the key point. The article isn't meant to document what could have possible happened, it's the to document the existance of the theories, not their validity. (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"The article isn't meant to document what could have possible happened, it's the to document the existance of the theories, not their validity." Agree 100%. Explain the theories clearly first, then debunk, or a separate debunking page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE, which is the Wikipedia policy on articles such as this one. Among other things, it states:
  • Mythology and religion are not the same as conspiracy theories. "Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis."
  • The article must not give the impression that the conspiracy theories are correct. "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories."
  • The article should contain information on the mainstream view. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Mildly MadTC 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reread the whole article and other than it being really long it seemed to me to be generally well written. And in accordance with wikipedia policy, particularly WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I challenge anybody to find a more fair (and complete) treatment of moon landing hoaxes. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of good ones out there, but Uncyclopedia's makes for a particularly entertaining read :-P Mildly MadTC 19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page FAQ

I've created Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/FAQ. See Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ for the syntax of making the FAQ page. Including {{FAQ}} on this page will then include the FAQ content. Subsection below for discussion of potential questions. Mildly MadTC 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Questions for inclusion

  • Is this article biased? (No, as per WP:NPOV and WP:RS)
  • Should the article debunk the conspiracy theories? (Yes, as per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE)
  • Is the term "conspiracy theory" a POV? (No)
  • Should information from YouTube be included in the article? (No, as per WP:RS)
  • Should the article Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories be created? (No, as per WP:POVFORK)
  • Should proof that the Moon Landings never happened be included? (No)
Two points, both related to the same topic, the last one above. I don't see the "Should proof..." included in the FAQ above, and am not sure myself if such "proof", if it exists, should not be included in the article, if such "proof" is a significant part of the conspiracy theory. However, I frankly know little or nothing about this subject, so will bow to those who know better in any event. The only "proof" I see clearly mentioned are in Archive 14, about how the rockets were insufficient to carry the payload, and Archive 12, referring to YouTube, which is mentioned elsewhere in the FAQ. Personally, I could see, maybe, mentioning the rocket point, if it can be reliably sourced. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a work in progress, and I added the "proof" question now :-) You're exactly right, there are no reliable sources that give real evidence of the TRUTHTM, which is why it shouldn't be included in the article. Mildly MadTC 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Two additional points I think should be covered: 1) "balance", and 2) the nature of what constitutes acceptable proof. E.g., "proofs" are entirely constructions, based on both evidence and the interpretation of same. There is, properly speaking, no "proof" that (e.g.) the rockets were insufficient, but only evidence which might be argued supports a proof. (Likewise regarding the landings, except for the massive evidence in support.) I am not familiar enough with WP policies to know if this has been touched on already, so would welcome any references. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection

Should we request for this page to be semi-protected? This page is vandalized daily by anonymous editors and there are almost no constructive edits by unregistered users. It's disruptive and persistant. This page is has way more than 5% of posts as vandalism cited wp:ROUGH as typical. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a month, and we can review it again then or shortly thereafter. Furschlugginer slow wifi makes it take too bloody long for anything to happen, but it's there, or at least should be by now. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The statistics in that article are very interesting. About 5% of edits are vandalism, so that level is seen as acceptable. Wow, not to me. And 97% of the vandalism is from anons. Cut out anons and that gets it down to 0.15%. Or instead of 1 in 20, it gets it down to 1 in 600. That would really cut down on the workload of vandalism patrolers. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have never understood why anonymous edits are tolerated in the first place. But when I look for current discussion on this (and vandalism in general) it appears that most of the discussion is non-current. Has there been some of waning of interest about this? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but it is still a very bad problem and hurts Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 02:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the reason for allowing anonymous edits is to make Wikipedia as free and open as possible. From a more pragmatic standpoint I'm not sure forcing people to create a username would stop that much vandalism; There are some very persistant vandals that have usernames that have caused a lot of damage. Edits by anonymous users tend to draw more attention and are more quickly reverted if vandalism occurs and it is generally much easier to have an anonymous user blocked for vandalism than a logged-in user. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And by an odd coincidence I just finished explaining to a user that "free" does not mean "anything you think you can get away with". I think that one of the lessons WP is pointing towards is that completely "free" – as in all conductor and no dieletric (insulation, including air) – tends towards the lowest common denominator. Which in the short run means garbage. WP has standards and expectations (i.e., dielectrics), and "free" is necessarily constrained. As to the alleged pragmatic aspects: getting a WP account is a bit more constraint than just coming through another anonymous IP address, and getting multiple accounts is a prima facie violation. So I think it would be more pragmatic to force misbehaving users into real accounts. There is also the sock puppetry aspect: in a current case the user has a WP account, but he's been connecting without logging-in in an attempt to conceal his identity. Perception of anonymity encourages bad behavior, so I think that perception of non-anonymity (even if it is imperfect) would greatly reduce incivility and vandalism. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
According to a study, 97% of vandalism is by IP users. Requiring an account in order to edit has some benefits: (1) it takes more effort for the potential vandal (2) Accounts can be blocked (3) if the vandal has a static IP address you can prevent them from opening other accounts, and (4) a lot of the trouble comes from shared IP accounts - especially schools. Requiring accounts to edit will block the vandals while not interfering with the good editors. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
One reason for vandalism is that they can do it with so little investment of time. If they had to sign up for an account and have the email verified there would be very little vandalism. And if with the first vandalism that account was blocked and account creation from that IP address was blocked there would then be very little repeat vandalism. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly puzzled by opening paragraph

Various Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo Project and the associated Moon landings were falsifications staged by NASA and members of other involved organizations. Since the conclusion of the Apollo program, a number of related accounts espousing a belief that the landings were faked in some fashion have been advanced by various groups and individuals.

I'm puzzled by what the word "related" means here. Does this part mean that the accounts are related to the conspiracy theories (but somehow distinct, in a way that's not made clear), or does it mean that the accounts are the conspiracy theories and are related to one another. Could someone perhaps tweak the wording to make this clearer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It probably needs to be worded better. MY interpretation is that the conspiracy theories are related because most of them share some common elements - no stars in the photographs, waving flags, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Marcus Allen is referenced in one of the passages.

Marcus Allen, a Moon hoax proponent, pointed out in the story that no images of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had taken place.

This passage references Marcus Allen, ex-football player, and not Marcus Allen, publisher and moon hoax proponent.

Rjgriggs (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This article also uses the wrong Jack White. I'm pretty sure the lead singer of The White Stripes isn't someone who trys to debunk the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I was unable to find an article on the photographer, so I couldn't fix it. The only Jack White photographer on the wiki didn't seem to have anything to do with debunking conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Doesn't appear to be an article on the Jack White referred to. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

LRO has imaged the Apollo 17 site!

Not that it will ever convince conspiracy believers, but the Apollo 17 landing site has been imaged by the LRO. It's blurry, but detailed enough you can even see the struts for the lander! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great! But some people might say that they can't tell that that is a flag. They will say that they can't see individual footprints. And if you could see them they would say that they are the wrong size. And if you measured them and they matched the astronauts shoe sizes, they would say that a machine could have put them there or NASA faked the photos. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that many people remain and will remain not entirely convinced that the landings really happened in spite of the attempts at debunking this theory. We just have to read the comments in many websites and yotube videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why try to debunk the hoax theories when "the truth" is on your side? It all be settled when LRO gives us those hi-res photos....anyday now ;>) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this image, then? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Hoax Proponents

I have a couple of problems with the Russian hoax proponents (Popov and Pokrovsky) being included in the article –

1. the only sources provided are in Russian, so we cannot verify what they actually claim or what evidence they provide to support those claims.

2. refutations to their outlandish claims (eg. that the Saturn V was a camouflaged Saturn 1B !!) are not provided, and together with the (apparent) technical backgrounds of these guys, their claims take on an air of believability.

Personally, I would like to completely remove any mention of these wackos from the article; at the very least, can we provide proper refutations to their claims? This is already well done elsewhere in the article for most of the other claims, it’s an omission not to do it to these claims as well. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We had much discussion over these several months ago, check the talk or talk archives. I don't know what to say, it was a very trying discussion for me. For instance, most of the discussuion was about the issue of the speed of the Saturn V. I debunked that on the discussion page, but that would be original research. I know they are problematic, so I'd like others to give an opinion. Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I say remove them, that they haven't been discussed elsewhere or even debunked seems to show a lack of notability. Verbal chat 11:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone provide the proper citation for the CNN Poll

The Public Opinion section makes reference to a 1995 Poll 'which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[7] The citation provided is Plait 2002, p. 156, however there is no citation provided in Phil's book.

The 1999 Poll has the results posted on the Gallup website which is fine however there is no validation for the results of the 1995 CNN/TIME poll. The last lines of the write up for that poll reference that the results are in line with the 1995 CNN poll conducted by Yankelovich partners however they have no reference for that.

I have no issue with referencing Phil's book however the book doesn't provide adequate citation, it is a circular reference taken from the results of the 1999 poll which offers no ultimate reference. Yankelovich has no results for this 1995 poll.

Either a proper citation should be provided or we should remove 'which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[7]

Broooose (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ionizing radiation and heat

Ionizing radiation and heat

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

  • ..................
  • The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[103] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[104]

Actually, weren't most of the astronauts pilots? And aren't pilots exposed to more radiation than normal due to flying at high altitude for long periods of time? In fact, the FAA issued an advisory that pregnant stewardesses limit their flying time, due to increased radiation exposure at commercial passenger jet cruising altitiudes. So the cataract "evidence" is questionable, if not invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The second point above is confusing.

Ref 103 is Irene Schneider on a radio show.

Ref 104 is NASA in text.

"However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit." is I don't know !

Your thoughts please ? thisisace (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Did you perhaps have a question of some sort?
My thought at the moment is that it is really wet outside, and I'm glad I have a roof. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC).
The question is how the sentence
Only twenty-seven (formerly twenty-four?) astronauts left Earth orbit.
is consistent with the sentence
Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.
Were Schneider's numbers wrong? Also, notice the claim
At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.
Were some of those high-radiation missions in earth orbit? I second thisisace's criticism. This section is mighty confusing and the numbers at least appear inconsistent. If they are indeed consistent, at least some effort should be made to show why. Phiwum (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The numbers seem wrong to me, but I'm not sure how she is counting. I don't think missions other than the Lunar missions went through the high-radiation area, but I'm not sure.
Van Allen radiation belt says that the radiation starts above 200-1000 km. It must vary, meaning that probably some other spaceflights were in high-radiation areas. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, Gemini 11 reached 1370km, so it should probably be considered a 'high-radiation mission'. However, as the crew consisted of two Apollo astronauts (Conrad and Gordon) this mission may be disregarded. I expect by 'high-radiation mission', Schneider also means by flight duration. Thus she's probably including the 7 'non-Apollo' Skylab astronauts (Kerwin, Weitz, Garriott, Lousma, Carr, Gibson, Pogue); possibly also 7 from Apollos 7 and 9 and ASTP (11.5, 10, and 9 days; Schirra, Eisele, Cunningham, McDivitt, Schweickart, Brand, Slayton). Catiline63 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1999 Gallup Poll referenced in main introduction and repeated in Public Opinion section

The sentence: "A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.[2][3]" should be removed from the introduction as that topic is adequately covered by the 'Public Opinion' section.

The exact same poll result is repeated just two paragraphs down. If we are trying to present a balanced review of the material it seems only fair that we provide equal measure of each sides of the arguments and avoid restating already presented material.

If we want to keep the 1999 poll results in the beginning of the article then we will have to move the more recent 2009 Engineering & Technology magazine results that show 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broooose (talkcontribs) 13:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Broooose (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with your argument that we should give equal prominence to "both sides". There is no serious doubt that men landed no the moon, and this article correctly treats the hoax theory as a conspiracy theory with little plausibility, easily debunked by anyone.

However the cultural phenomenon has attained a status similar to that of little green men in the sixties. Many people now believe the moon landings were faked. We should not fail to note this. --Tasty monster 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The first mention of the 1999 CNN poll is in the lead section, which is to summarize the article. Later there is a section about poll results, which includes more of them. So I think it is OK for it to be mentioned in both places. The first one establishes that a significant number of people believe it. As far as the source for the poll being Plaitt's book, that is OK because it is a Secondary source. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I have a better idea about mentioning the poll in the lead. I'll make the change. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't care what side of the fence people land on with this issue but our goal is to make sure our facts are as accurate as possible. Even Yankelovich has no records of a poll in 1995 so the secondary source is citing a source that doesn't exist. I see misuse of polls in every area of our lives and just want to point out a glaring one with this. Broooose (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it would be best to list the range of polls in the lead and give the details in the body. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic Work

The Academic work section of the article contains a short list of sic "scientists which have debunked the Moon Hoax proposals on television or on web pages." The inclusion of these scientists seems to be arbitrary and there are no sources to show that they are notable per WP:VERIFY.

1. James Scotti - I found his website debunking the 2001 Fox special about the Moon Landing but very little else. There are some links about his art, but nothing else moon related and without some third-party sources showing his site to be notable this doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion.

2. Phil Plait - Phil is notable. We're good here.

3.Harald Lesch - I did not find anything for him about moon landing stuff, his article on wikipedia, which is not sourced, doesn't mention anything about interest in Apollo or the moon landing. Primary sources from him are mostly in German.

4.Jay Windley - no good sources to back this up either. He was on the mythbusters moon hoax episode and apparently a moon hoax documentary in 2003. He also has a website, but again, there are no secondary sources showing notability. It might be worth adding him to the section about the mythbusters but basically we'd just be adding a redlink.

When we include weakly sourced pieces of information we weaken the article as a whole. We often exclude information from hoax believers because of poor references, but this reguirement goes both ways, all information in wikipedia should be supported by reliable third-party sources, this is policy. When we allow weak sources into an article just because we like what they say, we damage the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. Besides all that this list contributes very little to the article, we can include the websites in the "see also" section but this doesn't belong in the body of the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we've got Phil Plait, okay. We've all heard of him, and his career in popularising rational skepticism and the scientific approach came directly from his response to Apollo hoax theories. We can agree on that.
What puzzles me is, for instance, you say of Jay Windley, "no good sources to back this up" and in the next sentence you say he was on the MythBusters moon hoax episode. James V. Scotti, by the way has his own Wikipedia biography, as does Harald Lesch. What's weak about this? ---TS 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
James Scotti's wikipedia article barley mentions his interrest in Apollo and doesn't refer to him as a debunker and Harald Lesch' article doesn't mention any interest in the moon landing or Apollo at all. As for Jay Windley, does being in 10 minutes of a television show make him a notable debunker? The problem is that the list seems to be thrown in as an afterthought, it's awkward to read and doesn't contribute to the article, and there must be references showing these people's opinions on the moon landings or hoaxes are notable. The only one I was able to find good sources for was Phil, with Jay Windley being a distant 2nd. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is briefly mentioned in Voodoo Histories: the role of Conspiracy Theory in Modern History by David Aaronovitch, but there isn't much there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That's right, some of these are people are independently famous as astronomers--they are people whose opinions on matters astronomical are reckoned to mean something. If the section is poorly written then let's rewrite it. In particular I think the title "Academic work" is incorrect, because these are obviously not peer reviewed papers or anything like that. Perhaps something like "Work by astronomers" is better.
As for Jay Windley, also known as Clavius, he's recommended by no less than the AAAS, on the website of its journal, Science, here. " A strength," they say, "is Windley's meticulous analysis of photos and video."
Much of Lesch's biography details his long career as a populariser of science which has included extensive television appearances. --TS 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must take exception to the statement that Windley is "recommended by no less than the AAAS". More exactly, the implicit recommendation, in the "Netwatch" column, was only to visit his web page ( This in no way constitutes scientific approval of his work. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think one could certainly make too much of the it, but "Windley's meticulous analysis of photos and video" is approval and it is a recommendation. The point is that this isn't a random website but one that has been looked at by the AAAS and recommended. He isn't just a bloke who had his ten minutes of fame on MythBusters. --TS 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In no way has Windley's website "been looked at by the AAAS and recommended." At the very most, a columnist – not the AAAS! – at Science recommended visiting the site. The stamp of scientific authority applies only to the "Reports" and such which are subjected to peer review, etc. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
"Academic work" is definitely the wrong title for that section. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're probably all agreed on Plait. An article on this subject that doesn't mention his work would be as useless as one that omitted Sibrel or the Fox documentary. There are weaker cases for all the others, though I think I'd want good reasons to omit all mention of websites and the like maintained for this purpose by specialists in space travel or astronomy who are eminent enough to have their own biographies for their work in those fields. Windley (aka Clavius) is a more borderline case.

How we would write about these chaps in the context of the hoax meme is another matter, and one I've not made my mind up about. --TS 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What about "Notable Debunkers" as a better name? Is that npov enough? Then we could add the list back in with links to each persons work. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Better. I support that change. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No. The scientific credentials of these chaps is pivotal, not the mere fact of debunking. These chaps approach the hoax accusations from the position of scientific skepticism. Perhaps "Websites maintained by scientists". --TS 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That one is OK with me too. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Why restrict it to websites? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Laser Reflectors On The Moon

During the Apollo missions, a number of laser reflectors were left behind on the lunar surface. See for more on that. My question is: Why is there no mention of these laser reflectors in this article? Surely these reflectors prove that humans put them on moon. Unless you make the preposterous assumption that the reflectors appeared by magic or by alien intervention, how else can their existence be explained? Of course, pseudoscience always starts with a conclusion and then try to mold the evidence to fit that conclusion, so I'm sure someone out there has a nice tin-fol-hat-wearing explanation as to how and why there are laser reflectors on the moon. I'd love to hear one. So, here's my challange:

Lasers: They don't bounce off rocks, yet they do bounce off the moon if you know where to aim. Explain that and still call yourself a moon-landing denier. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

retroreflectors are briefly mentioned in the article. There is also a section in Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Surely these reflectors prove that humans put them on moon." Damn this is awesome!!! NASA just announced "finding" on the moon, the Russian retro-reflector mounted on top of a ROBOTIC probe. The one that's been there some 40+ years.

"They don't bounce off rocks" Really? So the laser LRO uses to check its height above the moon, the one that bounces off moon rocks, doesn't really exist? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mythbusters: The episode leads people to believe that it is not possible to bounce a laser off the moon without a retro-reflector. And yet, it was done by American scientists before Apollo. The Moon Hoax Theory page shows just how wrong a wiki can become. NPOV my asteroid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

There is an attitude problem here. (Yours.) You don't understand something, you think you see a conflict, so immediately you cop a scornful attitude, start going dramatic, and in general don't contribute anything towards improving the article. May I suggest an alternate response? Consider adopting a scientific attitude. Which is to study and try to understand what doesn't make sense to you, rather than scorn it.
E.g., in the matter of "bouncing" a laser beam off of the lunar surface there is an immense difference in lighting up a spot on the lunar surface from 50 km away (the altitude of the LRO), and from earth, which is – what? 230 million miles? – away. Even though the laser beam is almost perfectly parallel (thus avoiding inverse-square law effects), the lunar surface is not much of a mirror, and what light is reflected is no longer coherent – inverse-square now applies. Even what a mirrored corner reflector returns is hard enough to detect, over something like 230 million miles. So the success of the LRO in "bouncing" a laser beam off of the lunar surface is hardly applicable in trying to do it from earth. Do you now understand that? And more importantly, do you see that bombastic rhetoric is not helpful? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Even with the retroreflector only one photon in 100,000,000,000,000,000 gets received back. The 1962 experiment used a very long pulse of the laser - 0.001 second. In that length of time light travels over 186 miles, so pulses that long obviously can't be used for measuring the distance to centimeter accuracy. So it would be easy to tell whether or not the laser his hitting a retroreflector. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, its time to understand those conspiracist will not accept anything that disproves their theory, even if it is the only logical inference to be made. Even if you bring them to the moon and let them look at all the evidences, they would rather immediately blind themselves and thinks that they did not and cannot see the evidences rather than accepting the truth.(well, or maybe they will claim the evidences were faked after the 1969 events since you can bring him/her to the moon, depending on the level of conspiracy they believed in) They will continue to ignore everything else and keep on repeating things that is not logical. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, mostly.  But regardless of what they might believe I would at least break them of the habit of making idiotic statements. It's sort of like you don't really have to believe in electrons as long as you connect the wires correctly. And I confess to having a hope that social pressure might quell some of the idiocy. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Mr. Johnson, I have been reading this page for more than just a few months. It is quite clear that you are not interested in questioning scientific facts about the Apollo missions. Using the reasonable person standard, this article should show clearly what the main points of the hoax theories are, then have a section for debunking. This article attempts to debunk/discredit in the first section. For instance, "Some hoax theorists maintain the entire program was faked." Really?? I don't know of any except the very, very fringe. The ones who also believe alien bases are there. But that is just another method you and your compatriots use to marginalize what I feel are quite interesting scientific questions. And the most interesting thing, I was not a conspiracy theorist to start. But the way this page has been guarded by you, with its absurd claim to NPOV, has caused me to ask, "What are they afraid of. It's a silly theory, can't they let it stand on its own for people to read without spin?" I especially like this. "I would at least break them of the habit of making idiotic statements." Idiotic to whom? The people that said the Lusitania was carrying war material were also called idiots at one time. Perhaps you should take a lesson from history. That history may be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Guys, its time to understand those conspiracist will not accept anything that disproves their theory, even if it is the only logical inference to be made." "And I confess to having a hope that social pressure might quell some of the idiocy." And yet neither of you will address the real question. Why are you here?? The title of this page is Moon Hoax Theory. This is a place for people who believe that there is something "not quite right" about the Apollo missions to explain themselves. And yet, here YOU are. Controlling the page. Let it be. Its a silly theory, let it stand on its own. But you haven't been able to do that for how long now???? The content and tone of Mr. Johnson's last comment in this section smack of censorship. Thank you Mr. Johnson for making your motivation clear to all. But that's not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"This is a place for people who believe that there is something "not quite right" about the Apollo missions to explain themselves." No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. The talk page of an article is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the topic. See the banner at the top of this page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So just what "main point" of which hoax theory variant do you (anonymous voice from feel has not been addressed in the article? And just what are the "quite interesting scientific questions" you would have addressed? At the start of this section you were scornful regarding the retro-reflectors, but I do not see where you raised any actual questions. Likewise with your complaint about POV – is there a particular point, or is it just a general feeling that you somehow "grokked"?
You said that my comments "smack of censorship". Sorry, no, it's what we call standards. It is the basis by which Wikipedia (and any encyclopedia) tries to rise above random drivel. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Individuals allegedly involved in the hoax

This section doesn't seem to fit the article well. First, only two individuals are mentioned, which suggests inclusion is rather haphazard (surely, just about every Apollo astronaut must be in on the hoax?). Secondly, the persons involved in the hoax must depend on the details of the particular theory. Surely, not every conspiracy theory mentions Kubrick, right? Yet, this section gives no indication otherwise.

It seems to me that this information could be contained elsewhere in the article, rather than in its own section. If we do so, then the incompleteness of the list is unimportant (there would be no list and hence no implicit assumption of completeness) and we would not be pretending that this list applies to every theory.

Reactions? Phiwum (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestion. I think at one time there were maybe 8 or 10 people listed. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick and the French documentary, Dark Side of the Moon

I was appalled to see that this article makes no mention of the French documentary, "Dark Side of the Moon", which suggests that Stanley Kubrick was involved in filming a fake moon landing, that NASA lent him an extremely valuable camera to film one of his movies and that he was guarded by the CIA or similar agency for a long time afterwards. This is the most sensible conspiracy theory that I've heard, since it says that the moon landing really did occur, but the video was filmed at a set because transmission of a real video wasn't possible. (Huey45 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Err, you do realise that "Dark Side of the Moon" is a spoof, right? It's a mockumentary, and is not meant to be taken seriously. None of the 'claims' made in the film are worth noting in this article becuase they are made up. Here's one clue for you - check the names of the people in the film, eg. Dave Bowman and Jack Torrence. These are the names of characters from Kubrick films. Logicman1966 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that there already is a whole paragraph dedicated to the supposed Kubrick connection: Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Alleged_non-NASA_involvement --Syzygy (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And here about the Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary). --Syzygy (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

moon rock paragraph

"President Nixon gave 135 nations of the world, all 50 states and the U.S. territories each an Apollo 11 Moon rock and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock." I don't believe that there were enough Apollo 11 rocks for that, unless each one got a tiny fragment of a rock. Even the Apollo 17 goodwill rocks given out were fragments of one rock, see Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?),

Apollo 11 alone brought some 20 kg of moon rock home. If, say, 1 kg of those was set aside to be distributed among some 200 recipients for goodwill, each of them would receive about 5 g. That's not exactly a landslide, but a small pebble. What's wrong with that? --Syzygy (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I understand, which may be wrong, is that was not done with any Apollo 11 rocks. It was done with one rock from Apollo 17. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't the USSR try to do it?

I've reverted this edit which says it's significant that the USSR didn't try to take a man to the moon. Well they did have significant successes in unmanned exploration (Luna 9 (1966) and during the Apollo era the robotic systems of the Lunokhod programme (1970, 1973).) A plan to send a man to the moon was reportedly being considered by Sergey Korolyov at the time of his death in 1966, but it's clear that the USSR's space program never had the kind of industrial resources that NASA could command at the time of the Apollo program. --TS 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They were working on it, see Soviet Moonshot. But they didn't have a crash program like the US did. I think they were expecting to land about 1974. Also, their equivalent rocket, the N1, had four catastrophic failures in four attempts. (In contrast, there were 32 launches of the US Saturn - all successful.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The Apollo 6 launch vehicle had some problems, but of course it made it to orbit. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
They weren't all perfect. Some engines shut down prematurely. But the N1:
  1. exploded at 69 seconds
  2. exploded ~30 seconds
  3. exploded 51 seconds
  4. disintegrated at 40 km.

Other factors are that the USSR had no experience with some essential things that the US did in Gemini. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 06:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A fostering of conspiracy theories concerning the Moon landings?

Could an argument be made that there is a fostering of conspiracy theories concerning the Apollo Moon Landings by those so willing to disprove them?

I came to Wikipedia some time ago with the specific intention of learning about the conspiracy theories concerning the Apollo Moon Landings. First I read the page concerning the Apollo 11 mission only to find no mention at all about conspiracy theories. At the bottom of the article there was a link to “Moon landing conspiracy theories”. It is not easy to find.

What surprised me while reading the “Moon landing conspiracy theories” article was the obvious bias in favour of the non-hoax perspective. This bias in itself arouses suspicion because if the Moon Landing really happened, then there should be no fear among those that believe in dealing with the conspiracy theories and objectively and dispassionately contesting them.

Within the rather poorly written introduction to the article there is the statement: “There is abundant third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.” The inclusion of statement reads as an attempt to discredit the different theories before they have been properly explained. Is the sole objective of the article to disprove the different conspiracy theories?

The Origins and history section begins with: “The first book dedicated to the subject, Bill Kaysing's self-published We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was released in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ceased.” Should not some of the stronger accusations within the book be noted before jumping to a fantasy sci-fi movie that involves a fake mission to Mars?

Is the Linda Degh quote referencing a Hollywood adventure movie really applicable to an article about Moon landing conspiracy theories?

I suggest that the article begin with a brief explanation of the subject and then a list of the various conspiracy theories beginning with the most favoured. Then each theory can be explained in further detail culminating in evidence that attempts to contradict or disprove each assertion. As it stands the article is very disordered.

My argument is basically the tone of the article is fostering a suspicion of a hoax by its very tone in trying to disprove it. Nmollo (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead to the article summarises the content, that is why it mentions rebuttals before 'properly explaining' the hoax claims. Unfortunately, by their very nature, it is impossible to properly 'explain' the hoax claims, as they are a never-ending regressive rabbit's warren of nit-picking and erroneous analysis. Indeed, many of the hoax theories are contradictory, making them difficult to summarise cohesively. I also don't know any way of establishing which one is 'most favoured'.
Overall, I think this article is remarkably neutral on a subject that attracts almost universal criticism among those who have studied the Apollo landings and features so many contradictions. Any non-hoax bias, if there is one, is easily explained by the fact that the opinion of reputable experts in the field, and the public in general, is that there was no hoax. There is really no problem with an encyclopaedia reflecting that. However, please feel free to add anything that you think requires greater explanation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your statement regarding "the obvious bias in favour of the non-hoax perspective" shows a profound misunderstanding of the proper "balance" or weight to give fringe theories. You might read WP:WEIGHT, and especially WP:VALID, which states that we need not (and even should not) "give equal validity" to minority views. This is not "bias", this is factual (and fair and balanced) recognition that fringe theories are "fringe" for good reasons. (And not because of some conspiracy by "the government".) This article is not trying to disprove these theories, it simply presents the evidence that a reasonable person would need to evaluate the claims. To NOT include such evidence would be an incomplete and censorial bias.
And you should read the FAQ at the top of this page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From its own sources the article states: "A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[11] In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.[13] so roughly 1/4 of every segment of the worlds population polled do not believe or are unsure of the facts and evidence presented for this space program. That is not a fringe element. I've found that if you mention the moon landings in any size group there will always be more than one that will say they think or have heard that it was a hoax. This subject deserves serious attention, if for no other reason than to educate the public awareness of the indisputable evidence and end the uncertainty if that's truly possible. I read the FAQ, and I'm not impressed, it just seems like an attempt to end the discussion/debates before they start...This article IS slanted, you can tell because it doesn't clearly present any of the conspiracy theories, while it thoroughly debunks them or mostly announces that they have been debunked by various debunkers. The result: a person coming to learn about the theories themselves doesn't learn much more than generalisations about them at all only their rebuttals by so called experts and qualification for members of the very government organizations and their proponents that are under suspicion. It makes little attempt to go into detail about some of the notorious photographic theories such as the extra astronaut in the visors, no shadow from the flag, weerd objects in the horizon, etc which is one area I thought would be covered in detail since it is easy to present the evidence for that on wikipedia. There is no mention of some of the other theories growing in popularity besides the obvious "they didn't land on the moon" theories.Such theories that suggest the actual cover up was that men had already been to the moon and beyond, and that NASA was a mock version of a much more advanced space maybe that one might fall into the fringe category. What about the supposed video footage and geological analysis of ancient ET structures and supposed landscape correlations with the layout of the great pyramid complex in Egypt(I'm not talking about the one supposedly found on mars.) This article I expect will probably grow as more interest shifts in its direction. Especially with more and more NASA personnel supposedly coming forward to reveal other "secrets." I think if more time were spent exploring the theories, and less trying to assure the reader that every theory has been debunked, we would have a respectable article on the conspiracy theories themselves. Is it really the mandate of the WP to debunk them while only half-heartdly presenting them? Why have we ignored ignored the wildest most interesting conspiracy theories? Just because they've been debunked? It doesn't help the skeptics cause to gloss over everything. Still its not a poorly organized article, just very obviously slanted at the moment. (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the content of the article, you may want to read WP:FRINGE in addition to the FAQ (which is intended just as you said, to prevent starting these debates that occur over and over. Wikipedia is not a forum.):
  • "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth."
  • "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."
  • "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."
Keep in mind that the fact that 1/4 of people believe the conspiracy theories may make them notable, but that does not mean they are not fringe theories; that distinction is made by relevant academic sources. As for the other conspiracy theories you mentioned, if you can find some reliable sources (i.e. not internet forums) that talk about them, feel free to add it to the article. This article and its sub-articles are in fact one of the most thorough accounts of the conspiracy theories on the internet; the section on the photograph in fact grew so large on this page that it was determined we needed to move it to its own article: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. Mildly MadTC 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


How is the presence of these so-called retroreflectors definitive proof that MEN landed on the moon as this article claims outright? They could easily be deployed by a robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which "robot" do you suggest "easily" planted these reflectors (there are 3 of them), then? Catiline63 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this Page at All Necessary?

There aren't any groups, that I have found, which give this view to being an agreed view/ there are no pages that address the rumour that was floating around after 9/11, as to the idea all Jewish people were warned to go out of the world trade centers before the 747's crashed. Is there really justice, then, for a Wiki-article, which is egregious in the fact it significantly bolsters a pre-existing iconoclast lunatical "theory"? I thought wikipedia was about things and places that occured. WHY INCLUDE THIS ARTICLE IN THAT?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There are articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yet those are ones which have had reliable third-party articles written on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talkcontribs) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are articles about fictional books, fictional TV shows, fictional movies, and even fictional characters. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC) A lot of us here would rather that these conspiracy theories don't exist ;-) However, the very fact that there exists such a large amount of media (books, films, documentaries, news articles, etc.) about the moon landing conspiracy theories--whether or not they are sympathetic to them--makes this article fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There is an important distinction to be made between correctness and notability. This article's purpose is to document what the conspiracy theories are, but in accordance with WP:V, it must (and does) also state why they are incorrect.
For more specific policy, you may be interested in reading WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Thanks for your concern! Mildly MadTC 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Cymbelmineer, WP reports about the existance of a conspiracy theory, not about the existance of a conspiracy. (Pretty much like WP will summarise the various religions, but will not try to prove or disprove the existance of God.) So, as long as there are enough people concerned with a conspiracy theory, it has its place in WP, IMHO. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are entire books dedicated to debunking the moon landing conspiracy theories, so I'd say there's plenty of third-party source for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The same books that state there were no solar flares during the moon missions? Which are wrong of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The factual validity of any particular statement made by any referenced source is not the topic of the debate here. Wikipedia is not a forum. The books establish an existing, published basis for the conspiracies beyond that of a tiny sub-culture. i kan reed (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing data

Is there a list somewhere about what was lost form the Apollo Project ? Has anyone been made responsible or any inquiry about the loss and cost to the taxpayers ? -- (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I think the "loss" of the Saturn rockets, their parts being burned up in the atmosphere, was planned into the project from the beginning. ;-) There is no point in keeping the construction designs over an extended period of time, when there is little chance of more Saturn V's being built, and when in all probability the majority of required parts wouldn't be available anymore. To assess the financial loss resulting from the erasure of some tape or the decay of an old space suit is difficult, to say the least. --Syzygy (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been claims that the difficulty today of returning to the moon is due in part to the missing data. Replicating the machines would take only a couple of years, if we consider adjusting for technology evolution, in 3 years man could once more walk the moon surface. -- (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a bogus claim. For one thing, what is the point in replicating technology that is nearly 50 years old? Secondly, many of the parts that were used then have not been available for decades. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on what is missing. Today we still use technologies dating from +2000 BC everywhere, so the statement that 50 year old tech is useless is not a valid argument, we all understand that technologies are sequential evolutionary steps and that an update would be useful. But it seems strange to me that the "Back to the moon" proposals time-frames are so long, even considering the lower resources available to the projects. The evolution in technology, methodology, even demographics (today we have also more of the required qualified manpower), a geopolitical stabler world, ability to distribute the project across borders and even share costs. Updating the designs and fabrication wouldn't take long, even if it was a exact duplication of 50 year old tech... -- (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is intended for discussion of improvements to the article, not the subject. Feel free to take this convo to a user talk page. Jesstalk|edits 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No point in posting this Jess, since the article is clearly biased AGAINST any reasonable explanation of moon hoax theories, as has been clear to many people over time. To want to quote the rules in the discussion page while ignoring the bias in the main article is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a reminder (I'm guilty of violating it too.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mann_jess, the topic we are discussing is covered in the article (as indicated in the thread) and in fact relates to it. To sum it up, it falls in the statement that "if we did already got there, why does it take so long and costs so much to return there?" -- (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a discussion about improving the article, however. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No references for the rebuttals

Hi. I was reading through the second part of the article and I noticed that in the point-for-point claim and rebuttal, quite a few of the rebuttals have no references. As WP collaborator, my concern - besides that there should be reliable references - is that it could appera as if the defence is being argued by 'us', the authors. I refer specifically to the following sections:

  1. 3.6 Photographs and films
  2. 3.7 Ionizing radiation and heat
  3. 3.8 Transmissions
  4. 3.9 Mechanical issues

Regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like some of the rebuttals are referenced and some aren't. Likewise, some of the claims are referenced and some aren't. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is no need for the claims to be referenced - these are general perceptions, folk legends, conspiracy theories, etc, etc, which is the whole point why there are rebuttals. You don't a reference when claiming that the earth is flat - you need a reference for the rebuttal, which provides the factual/ verified/ expert analysis etc. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
we should have some source showing the claims to be notable per wp:fringe and wp:FLAT. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can make this clearer: If popular convention claims that the earth is round, that is just that - popular convention - you can't attribute it to anyone. However, when someone comes along and proves that it is not, then for certain we know who that person is and can then attribute the counter-claim/ proof to that person. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FLAT: If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.
WP:FLAT#Gaming: They will add [citation needed] tags repeatedly to well-known material, or material that is fully referenced on wikilinked articles that discuss that point in more detail.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this, I'm new to Wikipedia. 5.3 bullet 6 states: "6. Footprints in the Moon dust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture." This section should also state that there is no atmosphere on the moon, hence no wind to erode the footprints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a claim of the hoax believers. The explanation that it is not unexpected is in the text in italiacs below it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Theory vs hypothesis

I just reverted changing references to the individual conspiracy claims from "theory" to "hypothesis". While hypothesis is technically more accurate for these claims, the pattern so far in this article has been to use the layman's definition of theory, which is much more broad and generally includes claims without evidence. Any thoughts as to which word is better here? VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think calling them "hypothesis" exercises a scientific rigour in naming them that exceeds that of the actual content. The layman's "theory" is perfectly ok. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Caution advised! The popular ("layman's"?) concept of "theory" (and theoretical) meaning something unproven is egregiously erroneous, and should (say I) be resisted on all occasions. (E.g., Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Theory of quantum mechanics are as proven as anything be — outside of mathematics — yet they are still only theories.) A theory is, in simplest terms, an explanation, and (subtly different from what VQuakr suggests) independent of evidence, or even of "truth". A hypothesis is a testable assertion, usually but not necessarily derived from a theory. This is not merely "scientific rigour", but essential to any understanding, at any level, of what is going on. (And, sorry, have to rush elsewhere.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your observation that the popular definition of theory is different than the one used in scientific circles. While I understand that you are not alone in your opinion that the weakening of the term should be resisted, I respectfully disagree on the grounds that the popular definition ship has already sailed. I would imagine that this conversation has been had Ad nauseam at multiple locations throughout Wikipedia's history; can anyone cite a related discussion that established a precept with something close to a consensus? VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  My main concern here is that, popular misconceptions be what they may, we not let that redefine the scientific concept. My concern has been raised by several instances of this lately (e.g., at the theory of Continental Drift, and I think one of the climate change articles). Perhaps not a big deal, just one of those small tendencies to drift.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It may be more than just a popular misconception; definitions at both Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster include the less formal definition of a theory as an unproven conjecture or hypothesis. Probably it is good practice to use the word consistently within an article, and since the article is about conspiracy theories, I think the popular definition is favored here. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  Dictionaries generally are descriptive (rather than instructive), describing how words are used generally, so quoting a dictionary in support of popular usage is circular.
  Please note that my concern here is not that "theory" will be taken in the popular sense; my concern is about these attempts to substitute "hypothesis". My argument here would be that technically the use of "hypothesis" would be less accurate. Also, "hypothesis" is less familiar popularly, being more of a technical loan word, and less suitable than even "theory" mis-defined. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Technology section off topic?

The technology section is not off-topic. One of the specific clams of the hoax proponents is that the US didn't have the technology to make the landing. They argue that the USSR was ahead of the US in the space race, yet they didn't make a manned Moon landing. One of the specific claims of the hoax proponents is that the USSR had much more time in space than the US. That was true at first, but the US passed the USSR years before the landing. Hoax proponents also point to the "firsts" that were achieved by the USSR instead of the US. The USSR did have many "firsts" in the early years, but some of these had no bearing on a potential Moon landing. I think it is important to show that the US did surpass the USSR in space technology, surpassed them by a big margin in experience in space, and in the years leading up to the landing achieved "firsts" that directly relate to the Moon landing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is meant to put forward the conspiracists claims and then examin them. When the "off-topic" tag was added, it was nothing more than a short timeline of the space race. It didn't say what the conspiracists were claiming. However, I see User:Mildly Mad has begun to fix that. ~Asarlaí 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wrote what I thought the article was trying to say; I'm not sure whether it's accurate. It could still really use a good source or two. Mildly MadTC 16:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It might be "important to show" but then a show here must be accompanied with at least half-worthy references. And just downplaying isn't going to score one. For the reference, you might have forgotten e.g. our Venera 7 landing. --Gvy (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
That was after the first manned Moon landing. The hoax conspiracy claim is that the US didn't have the technology to make the Moon landing in 1969. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaysing's book says that the US didn't have the technology to do it, but he doesn't compare the US to the USSR. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just in case, an article (in Russian) questioning the nozzle construction of Apollo lunar modules (a part of series including e.g. photos of "lost" BP-1227 being returned to the US). It's unclear which "computer program" is used for calculations therein but at least the initial numbers (both factual and estimated) as well as calculated ones might come interesting for someone who was partial to the US Moon affairs -- if such folks still hit such pages, of course. :) --Gvy (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


I think the appendix, by which I mean everything below "see also", needs some attention. We hav five subhedings: notes, footnotes, references, further reading, and external links. To forgo confusion and to make things clearer, I think it would be wize to use this layout:

  • notes
  • citations (renamed from "footnotes")
  • further reading (a merger of "references" and "further reading")
  • external links

We need to add more books to "further reading" and more websites to "external links". Some books ar mentiond in the main body but arn't mentiond here. The list of books and websites should be split into three sections: pro-conspiracy, anti-conspiracy, and neutral.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I see only one problem. "References" are supposed to be used in the body of the article whereas "Further reading" items are not. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Currently, the inline citations ar under the heding "footnotes". I think we should change that heding to "citations", just to avoid confusion. Meanwhile, the "references" section is merely a list of books, which should really be under "further reading". ~Asarlaí 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, "references" and "further reading" are different. "References" lists works cited in the article, i.e. a source of the information. "Further reading" lists works that contain additional information about the topic but are not cited in the article. see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) (in particular WP:FNNR and WP:FURTHER). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you meant now. Personally, I'd prefer to use only inline citations so that each statement is linkd to a particular source. ~Asarlaí 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You are correct it could do with tidying. But serious consideration should be given to pruning these sections, not adding to them. Wikipedia is not a web links directory, so there should only be links to relevant web resources that contain high quality material that cannot be included on the article. There is no need for pro/anti external link sections if they're to websites that just repeat what the article has already said, but neither well or neutrally. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should only include weblinks that hav high-quality material or weblinks that ar important in som other way. My worry was that ther wasn't a balance between pro/anti/neutral. Which links do you think we should remove? ~Asarlaí 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hours of flight, US vs. USSR

I went to List of human spaceflights, 1961–1970 and looked up each individual flight. I rounded the flight times to the nearest half hour, and my figures are pretty close to what the article says. (I have the details in a text file and spreadsheet.)

Before Apollo 7 (start of the Apollo landing)

Country    Manned spacecraft hours   person hours
USSR                460                 535
US                 1021                1990

Before Apollo 11 (before the first landing)

Country    Manned spacecraft hours   person hours
USSR                700                 846
US                 1864                4220 

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does that have to do with this article? i kan reed (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There is the conspirationist claim that the USSR had logged many more spaceflight hours than the US, hence they should have been in the technological lead and the first on the moon. But the numbers show that this was no longer true when the very successful Gemini program started while the russian program stalled after Komarov's and Korolev's deaths. --Syzygy (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the video showing fakery by the Apollo 11 crew

The piece which is likely to raise the most suspicion is the video clearly showing the Apollo 11 crew cutting a piece of paper, putting it on the window facing the earth while in low orbit, then going to the farthest side of the capsule to video the Earth which, from this angle, and with the piece of paper applied on the window, now looked as if they were farther away. When the video is showed to Aldrin, the latter goes on making threats against divulging the video. There is no "science" behind the fakery, it is all video evidence, absolutely unrefutable, and this is what this article is not referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a cite that discusses it? Of course, it's not "unrefutable" and we would also need to be discuss what actually was happening is that they were trying to fashion a shade to block out the sun's glare, while still making it possible to see out the window during the video shoot they were preparing. Somehow that sounds more likely than a multi-billion dollar hoax depending on last-minute craft skills with paper and scissors. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this was in the article at one time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mars dealy

The television programs showed by NASA for the landing of mars rovers showed how much original research had gone into landing and efforts to prevent damage by inflatable balloons and super high quality cloth on parachute etc.If the moon landings had been genuine than these technologies would have been already available.Moreover the power of computers on those days would be equal to a scientific calculator today which is totally inadequate for a moon landing. Deepak India — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well, parachutes would not work on the Moon - it has no atmosphere. Bouncing with the balloons would not have been desirable for a manned landing. They did it with the technology they had at the time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC)That's not especially relevant.
  1. There are no reliable sources discussing this point(and if there are we can include them)
  2. Turns out rocket scientists had a kind of computer in their head called a brain. It's kind of more powerful than even modern computers.
  3. There's a host of problems with this argument. The mars landers had 2 major issues to deal with that the moon landing didn't. One of those is that the ammount of kinetic energy required to reach the moon was signifcantly less than mars. This means approach velocities were much (order of magnitude) lower, giving the human pilots on board the ability to decelerate to a safe landing. The second was that the ammount of fuel they could take with them was much greater, so they actually could perform a safe landing. The Mars missions also included 2 factors that made the approach they took better as well. One was that mars had a moderately dense atmosphere meaning a parachute was a viable landing mechanism(and much lighter than fuel and thrusters for landing). The second was there were no people on board, meaning a tumbling, bouncing, high g-force landing was safe, allowing them to do it.
If you're the only person who believes this reason for the moon landings being fake, there's no reason to include it in the article, and you should read up on your astronomy and physics. i kan reed (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Columbus' voyage across the Atlantic must have been fake - he had no GPS! :-) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the bulk of the calculations were done by mainframe computers on Earth, and many of them could be done in advance. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin's punch

The article presently asserts that Aldrin was charged with assault, but that the judge ruled that Aldrin was "within his rights" and "threw the case out of court." The source cited in fact indicates that the LA county DA refused to file charges. Clearly somebody's breathless imagination is getting the better of him. Truthiness hurts (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that he was charged. It says "Sibrel tried to press charges against Aldrin but the case was thrown out of court when the judge ruled that Aldrin was within his rights given Sibrel's invasive and aggressive behavior." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you want to be the judge who approves a warrant for the arrest for a national hero for punching a villiage idiot? i kan reed (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick Tale

The whole "Stanley Kubrick Shot The Moon Hoax" tale was a gag, based on a posting to a UseNet humor group in 1995. The text can be found at:

It's full of sly humor, such as saying the film was "shot on location" but Kubrick did not supervise personally "because of his well-know fear of flying." No doubt conspiracy theorists cry "cover-up" but I've known about the posting since before they got excited about the Kubrick story.

Somebody might want to fix that section. I will not touch Wikipedia articles myself. I don't need that kind of hassle. MrG (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence about that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

NASA Guidelines regarding future moonlandings

Shouldn't the recent NASA guidelines regarding future moon landings be mentioned?

I mean aside from the Apollo 11 and 17 (if I'm not mistaking) sites, all others can be approached by other spacecrafts, therefore conclusively proving all the insane conspiracy theories false. In fact, even the above mentioned exceptional sites can be approached as close as a few hundred meters, which can happen in the next few years thanks to the Google X Prize.

In my view, this indicates that NASA has nothing to hide; it only tries to protect the historically significant sites.

Rinceart (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinceart (talkcontribs) 14:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You can look at websites documenting all the missions to the Moon, with scientific scrutiny, instead of wishywashy conspiracy theories. If a conspiracy existed, NASA wouldn't have put them up, documenting all the steps and the the cost of all that stuff. Also, a lot of independent observers, like the "nasty commies" in the Soviet Union observed very closely the progress of their enemy. It's not about photographs or anything like that, it's about the radio transmissions. Sorry to say, but they concluded that the radio transmissions from the Moon could not have come from anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a link to some video about the guidelines. I don't see it affects the topic of this article directly. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

I'd like to add an informations concerning the crater under the LEM. According to Eugene Cernan in the movie "Did we go?", the main engine of the lem has been shot down three meters above the surface of the moon. So this is part of the reason why there is no crater under the LEM.

You can see the entire explanation on the following link at 6min (

Stefan400 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That fact is already referenced several times in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, issues about the supposed crater are referenced. To expand on that, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Checking the book How Apollo Flew to the Moon, on Apollo 11, they started the process of shutting down the engine when the probe contacted the surface "contact light") but did not completely get the engine shut down until they were already on the surface of the Moon. It said that 4-6 inches of loose material was blown away, but below that was harder material. (And a crater in the hard material would not be expected.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Conspiracy theorist link

There is no citation for this claim and numerous sources that state otherwise. Why is it included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective process for which hoax-claims to display?

I have seen much more compelling evidence, in abundance, that the Moon Landings were a hoax. Not that this statement carries any weight, but it does bring up a real issue, I believe. This is a complicated subject with many facets and many claims. What is the policy for selecting which hoax claims to portray? Is it only the most popular claims? If so, it seems like this article is more of a critique on conspiracy pop-culture than any kind of rational, scientific, cohesive demonstration of how the moon landings could not have been faked. The article even ends with a comment about retro-reflectors as evidence for a manned moon landing, when they could have been deposited by an unmanned probe or lander. So how is it evidence? The article seems like an overall shallow presentation of this debate. (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have this "more compelling" evidence, why don't you insert it yourself, together with the links/evidence etc? The lasar reflectors are evidence that NASA at least put SOMETHING on the Moon in the locations of the landing sites. Yes, the USSR put French supplied ones on the Moon as part of their robotic programme, but this is hardly evidence of a hoax. Let's look at other things. Is there any evidence that Piccard and Walsh dived to the bottom of the sea? No one else has ever been to anything like that depth since then, and only one ROV has been down there in the 50 years since. Is there sufficient evidence that Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay reached the Summit of Mount Everest? Is there "proof" that Amundsen actually got to the South Pole? We're told he did, but have you ever been there to see the "evidence" yourself much less prove it isn't planted? Is there any independent evidence to show that Yuri Gagarin actually orbited the earth in 1961? Hoax theories tend to be based either upon the assumption that a manned Moon landing is impossible, or from trying to find "inconsistencies" in things like pictures, or other second hand evidence. Why is that alright, but pointing out "inconsistencies" or fallacies in the supposed "inconsistencies" (like no stars in the photographs) illegitimate? If you have better evidence for believing the landings were faked, then add it to the article, but be prepared for the fact that others may rebut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Edit request in the Public Opinion section footnotes

Footnote #14 refers to

which is 404.

What appears to be the correct link is found at:

Loren Pechtel (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the update! Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Requesting that section referencing Bart Sibrel's encounter with Buzz Aldrin be updated to provide more accurate quote for Sibrel.

Current text: Sibrel confronted Aldrin with his theories[35] while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thief". Suggested text: Sibrel confronted Aldrin with his theories[35] while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thwff...{punch}" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this change is merited. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. But there is a certain satisfaction to be had in mentioning the punch more than once. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, include info about Jarrah White - Australian filmmaker, publishing his movies on personal YouTube channel. Frequently invited to an interview on the independent radio stations. Currently considered to be the most active proponent of the Moon hoax theory. After the suicide of Ralph Rene obtained the rights to his book NASA Mooned America. (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have newspaper or magazine reports about him, I doubt he satisfies WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. Newspaper Sydney Morning Herald. Security, we have a problem
Paranoia Magazine Interview with Joan d’Arc
Radio The Vinny Eastwood Show September 13 2011 with Jarrah White.
Whispers Radio. Nov. 12, 2008 Jarrah White
UFONAUT RADIO The NASA Deception What Happened On The Moon? The NASA Deception: What Happened On The Moon? Hoax, Lies and Videotape – Jarrah White
Binnall Of America. Jarrah White 2h,25min
Truth News Australia radio. The Great Apollo Moon Swindle (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So, aside from a single article in the Sydney Morning Herald (which is the epitome of a trivial mention), all that exists are blogs and some interviews on independent radio? Yeah, I'd say he doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Another editor has removed two of the Categories (Conspiracy Theory & Pseudoscience) as being redundant. Rather than getting in an edit war, I was looking for some other perspectives on the matter. That being said,I am quite confident that the other editor's statement that these are redundant is objectively false.

"Moon landing conspiracy theories" is a subset of "conspiracy theory". It would be like arguing that we shouldn't include the category "Mammal" for the Dogs page because we already list "Canine". As for pseudoscience, there is no redundancy here. Not all conspiracy theories involve pseudoscience, and not all pseudoscience falls within a conspiracy theory. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you're both half-right. Category:Pseudoscience doesn't belong here, since the conspiracy theories themselves are not a form of what has been considered pseudoscience. Category:Conspiracy theories, however, is perfect for this article -- this is an article about several related conspiracy theories, and the category is tailor-made for that. The category system is an important part of Wikipedia's navigation system, and articles in the right place is a part of that. It possibly would be redundant if the category system was merely a descriptive system (much like a well-chosen set of adjectives), but since the categories provide classification, this article belongs there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I can buy that.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


This page is not even close to being objective.

This should be a factual page about what the theories are. There should be a section for debunking and all evidence to debunking should be there. I am sure that you moderators are certain that these theories are not true, however that should have little to do with this page.

This page is littered with biased opinions in every paragraph.

Please rewrite the article in a nuetral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osiris27 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Short version: No.
Longer version: this is exactly what Wikipedia does not do. Neutrality does not mean "free air time for both sides." It means we discuss the subject from the perspective of fact as understood by the scientific mainstream, and only talk about notable conspiracy theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Language Choice

I think that, technically, conspiracists are people who are involved in a conspiracy. To term the conspiracy theorists "conspiracists" seems...intentionally misleading. Can they be called conspiracy theorists, instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

According to, a conspiracist is "a person who believes in or supports a conspiracy theory." JoelWhy?(talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gravity, neutral point

I am moving this here from User talk:Uktorah so we will have a record of it if it comes up again. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Relative to your contributions to the Moon Hoax article, I think the issue you are seeing comes from the distinction between neutral point and sphere of influence. The neutral point, as you accurately describe, is the point between 2 bodies where the attractive forces (governed by inverse-square laws) are equal. I haven't done the math, but I believe this is the 9/10s figure you cite. However, this is only part of the story; this assumes that the bodies are not moving relative to each other--in reality, these forces are acting in a rotating reference frame, so some really weird/counterintuitive stuff starts to happen (like Lagrangian points)--you also need to take in to account the centripetal forces experienced by the third body (the Apollo capsule) in its orbit of the larger body (the earth) to get the full picture. This is where the sphere of influence comes in to play--this is where the influence of the smaller body is larger than the sum of both the gravitation from the larger body and the centripetal forces caused by orbiting the larger body. If you use this method, it turns out the Moon's sphere of influence is about 41,000 miles--exactly what NASA said it was! Mildly MadTC 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think his misunderstanding is different. Reading through it, he thinks that surface gravity is the fundamental thing. It is not. Gravitational attraction is governed by Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is a function of the mass of the bodies and the distance between them. The surface gravity of the Moon is in accord with the law of gravitation. He is assuming that the distance to the neutral point should be proportional to the ratio of the surface gravity of the Moon and Earth, which is not true. If you consider the Earth and Moon fixed, you need to calculate a point where the gravitational attraction of the Earth in one direction is the same as that of the Moon in the other direction, using the law of gravitation. In the actual Earth-Moon rotating system, it is a little more complicated. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, I think he just left out a few steps. Here's his reasoning (and his error) better explained: The actual neutral point of the static Earth-Moon system is indeed 9/10 of the way from the center of the moon, or about 23,900 miles from the center of the moon. The NASA source he is citing states the point where the Moon's gravity "takes over"--mistakenly interpreted as "neutral point", but actually means "sphere of influence"--says it is around 40,000 miles. If you take the static neutral point as 40,000 miles and reverse the derivation, you get that the mass of the Moon is actually 1/25 that of earth (instead of the actual 1/81), which, radius of the moon staying the same, would increase the 1/6g surface gravity by a factor of 4 to 2/3g, as stated in his proposed edit. Note: I did some rounding on my calculations to make the numbers work out: 23,900/40,000 = 1/2, and 25/81 = 1/4. Mildly MadTC 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, maybe that is it. The Earth's effect on the surface gravity of the Moon is negligible. He concludes that the neutral point being where it is means that the Moon's surface gravity should be 4x what is actually is. But the surface gravity depends only on the mass of the body and the distance from it, or equivalently, its radius and average density. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There also may be issues in distance from the surface instead of distance from the center, and maybe some distances are in statute miles and others are in nautical miles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And vice versa, the neutral point or sphere of influence doesn't affect the surface gravity. If the surface gravity of the Moon was much more than 1/6 that of Earth, the Lunar Module would not have been able to land and would not have been able to get back off. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This is all true; surface gravity and sphere of influence have nothing (directly) to do with each other, except that they are both dependent on the mass of the Moon. But, as the proposed conspiracy goes, there is a contradiction between NASA's statement of the distance of the "neutral point" (which can be used to derive the mass of the moon) and the amount of surface gravity stated by NASA and shown in the footage of the landings (which can also be used to derive the mass of the moon). Therefore, OMG CONSPIRACY!!! As I stated above (albeit somewhat indirectly), if you correctly interpret the 40,000 miles figure as the "sphere of influence" instead of "static neutral point", this contradiction disappears. Mildly MadTC 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is extremely relevant, from here:

Note 2) The Equigravisphere, or "sphere of influence", is the boundary where the spacecraft trajectory is considered to transition from earth-centered to moon-centered, which NASA defines as being 40,000 statute miles (64,374 kilometers) from the center of the Moon. This arbitrary definition is not to be confused with the commonly held definition of the equigravisphere being all points in space where Earth and lunar gravity are equal, the so-called "neutral point."

You are exactly right. And the 40,000 mile thing is an arbitrary definition. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also important is understanding why it is arbitrary: switching trajectories from Earth centered and perturbed by the moon to Moon centered and perturbed by the Earth is a smooth transition. Changing the altitude of the coordinate change does not introduce much error. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And other possible factors are that the Moon is moving and the spacecraft orbit is curved. At the point when the Earth and Moon are literally pulling on it equally, the spacecraft is not directly between the Earth and Moon, and the Moon is not yet at the point where the spacecraft will reach it (and the distance from the spacecraft to the Moon plus the distance from it to Earth is larger than the distance from the Earth to the Moon). So there is never a time when the Earth is pulling it one way and the Moon is pulling on it with the same force in exactly opposite direction. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor that added the material about the neutral point cited von Braun's History of Space Travel. I got a copy of that book and I can't find anything about the neutral point in it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mythbusters - reliable source

This article relies heavily on evidence provided by the Mythbusters television series. Has it been determined that Mythbusters is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards? Rather than raise a lively debate on whether or not they are reliable, may I suggest, in order to keep this article encyclopaedic without passing judgement on reliable source or not, rephrasing every instance of Mythbusters debunking from "This was proven to be untrue by Mythbusters" (a statement of authority) to something such as "The popular television series 'Mythbusters' attempted to replicate this scenario in a controlled environment but found no evidence to support the conspiracy theory." (statement of evidence). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterproof-breathable (talkcontribs) 05:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am OK with the rewording. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, but can we find an alternate wording that is not so awkward? VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Didn't realize Mythbusters refs had taken over the page. Agree with essential wording/tone of your replacement sentence, but agree with the above that it should probably be tweaked. Ckruschke (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

What constitutes an "orbit"

Was Apollo 13 in orbit around the moon? I didn't want to start a revert war, so I'll take the discussion here.

MerriamWebsters defines an orbit as --

a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an
electron about an atomic nucleus); also : one complete revolution of a body describing such a path[5]

So I would say a fly-by (as made by Apollo 13) does not constitute an orbit. --Syzygy (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Weren't they performing (what would be technically described as) a slingshot effect?Docob5 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the difficulty in specifically calling Apollo 13's journey an "orbit", but think a "flew by" or "flew round" are worse descriptions for all the Apollo missions as a whole, which is what is needed. Really, whether Apollo 13 did a complete orbit or not is inconsequential detail that doesn't really matter in this context. What's important is the number of people involved (who otherwise would have to have been in on the conspiracy). Readers understand orbits, Apollo 13 did most of an orbit, all the others did orbits. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How about leaving the word "orbit" in but putting an informative footnote explaining the technicality of Apollo 13? I don't think it needs to be explained in the body of the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
But it was simply NOT an orbit. No need to leave it in. No point in leaving it in. Don't mislead people. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
But the alternative of saying that they all few around the Moon is not appealing to me. I won't oppose it, though. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Call it a fly-by? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Traveled near the surface of the moon? I agree that most people would not consider A13 an orbit since they never slowed to below escape velocity. VQuakr (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I would favour Bubba73's suggestion. A footnote. It shouldn't clutter or confuse things on the main paragraph, as it's a tangent that's not that important. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with calling it what it was: a Fly-by or a slingshow or a roundtrip or whatever. Also, I can't find the text that is in dispute so I can't fix it. There seems to be no case of the article calling Apollo 13's path an "orbit" so I don't know what you are discussing, really. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Apollo 8 and 10 were in orbit, while 13 only performed a fly-by. It's here, I gave it a shot in trying to clairfy. --Syzygy (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)