Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Linda Degh

Why are the comments of some random folklorist necessary within the scope of this article?87.162.78.7 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR section

Isn't it a bit strange that the dogs launched into space are listed by name here, however Uri Gagarin's name is omitted? (oh, and sorry about forgetting to put the other post at the bottom!) 87.162.78.7 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So fix it already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprecise claims without quoting or source

Affirmations like this one:

No one has proposed a complete narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated, but instead believers focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions.

on the article have no reaosn to be, quote nobody, and cite nop source. I believe they shopuld be removed, because there is no way to prove them in a "metodic" way. ¿Has anyone read all the books and can tell it? Is there a way to know if anyone has proposed a "complete hoax explanation" or not? iut going to reverse the article to the first version i see without afirmation like that or ones of the same type, obviously putted there by someone who irrationally believe the moon landings were real and want others to think the same by liying to them in discrete ways like that, without them to notice they are being taken by fools. --190.49.177.96 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't go reverting back to a year or two ago, just put a fact tag on it if you question it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I wpuld do it but the semi-protected page won't let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.177.96 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to get an account. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And a useless idea also, because edit to semiprotected pages are also forbidden for "new" accounts.--190.49.177.96 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New accounts only have to be "autoconfirmed", which means that they are at least 4 days old and have made 10 edits. Bubba73 (talk), 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To address the original issue: it's a pretty simple declaration to disprove. If there is a comprehensive hoax theory, provide a citation. Otherwise, the fact that none exists is pretty good proof that the statement is correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

that's really unscientific. That "nobody has proven it yet" doesn't mean that for omission it doesn't exist. On the same basis I could say "nobody has providen proof that it DOESN'T exist therefore we must assume it exist".

See? Both make no sense.

Besides, wikipedia policies clarely state that UNCORFIMED, UNQUOTED affirmation with no reliable source or no source at all, as well as "original research", MUST be unpresent from all articles and MUST be deleted if encountered. "there is no comnplete theory" as one of those arguments, as well as many in this unbalanced article that seems to be made and run by people that try to brainwash the reader with their POV and opinion. Clarely wikipedia has a NEUTRALITY policy, and no Point of View is whatsoever supported, except for the NEUTRAL point of view. And the NEUTRAL point of view states that the article shoudn't be on favor or against the theory, while on the present the version is obviusly AGAINST it, presenting ionstead of veryfiable facts, a lot of unsupported OPINIONS of the people that watch the article and CENSOR the other opinions and data that contradict theirs.

This is honestly possibly the wors wikipedia article EVER, and even thought there have been LOTS and MAJOR complains about it, the same people over and over again irrationally insist on keeping it exacltly like it is now, only because it supports what THEY think. Even they had it PROTECTED it so it would be hard to edit, and they (YOU) havent got vene the decency to put a simple "neutrality issues" or "point or view", or "unsupported statemets" tag at the beggining.

It is my personal opinion it should be ENTYRELY rewrote.

And how comes all the hoax evidences have opinion counterstatements, very often without reference, and I saw in the history there have been some responses to those "counterstatements", but all those editions are deleted, reversed and supressed with no arguments or comments whatsoever?

It is simply disgusting. --190.49.179.69 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is my personal opinion it should be ENTYRELY [sic] rewrote [sic]." And it sounds like you are completely qualified to do it. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say he's iminently qualifried. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are evidently stupid (no offense), instead of criticising me (or uncleverly mocking me) for my typing and spelling skills (what do I care? microsoft word can fix it, and I am not even from a englishspeaking country -my ip proves it-), why don't you answer my arguments or at leat DO SOMETHING to actually IMPROVE the article and stop making it say what YOU people think (or what you want others to think for that matter), and start making it what it REALLY SHOULD BE.

Wikipedia is a place for human knowdlege, not personal opinion. This article is a hell of a píece of personal opinion, and it current version is agains most wikipedia policyes, including POV, Neutrality, unverified claims, original research, citing references, etc, etc, etc.

The one that spells the best hasn't got for any reason to be the one that is right.

Fight with arguments (if you can) and not with senseless, meningless disqualyfications --190.49.179.69 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the most evenly balanced on this subject that I've ever seen. Perhaps you could take your own advice, and propose some specific improvements rather than making a blanket condemnation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You only says it's evenly balanced because you mostly wrote it and erased anything that anyone with a different opinion or poiin of view had wrotten. That it matchs your opinion has nothing toi do with balance. And I have proposed MANY specific improvements, like: add a neutrality and POV tag at the beggining, remove all unsupported claims without reference, and mainly STOP REVERTING ALL THE EDITS that don't come from "clavius.org" advocates or similar. What you think is not the only truth. From my experience, most moon hoaxist are mainly rational excepticists and NOT paranoid maniacs.--190.49.179.69 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't personally write very much of it, and I say it's evenhanded because it neither calls NASA liars nor the hoaxsters loonies, which most of the sites do - and it goes out of its way to present lots of questions that the hoaxsters raise. But labeling the article won't fix anything. So let's start somewhere. You've argued against the statement that there is no comprehensive theory. But there isn't one. None that any of the contributors to the article have found, anyway. Maybe you know of one? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that even though I think the hoaxsters are generally ignorant about the details of the 1960s man-in-space programs, we've taken great strides in the article to resist calling them ignoramuses, in addition to fighting efforts to twist the wording around one way or another. If you can find a more dispassionate article on the subject, let me know, since I'd like to read it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You do say it's evenhanded because it has rersponses to all of the "hoax claims" listed, even if those answers are riddiculus and unsupported, and some of them are planly idiotic as this one:

"8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

       * The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera."

Its stupid. Imagine that on the sabe basis (which means, no basis at all), I can state the following:

"* The "C"-shaped objects are most likely FOOTPRINTS FROM ALIEN LIFEFORMS! OMG!"

Well, there is the same factual accuracy on both statements. None of them provides any source and both are plausible explanations.

What I mean isn't that the theory from the aliens lifeforms is included (help me God that never happen), but that the unsuported thesis from the "printing imperfections" is removed at least until there is a reliable source saying it that can be posted into the article. And the same with all things like that. If not, why can't anyone make edits sayings things such as "NASA photoshopped the stars on the pictures", "The fact that all the four soviet rockets designed to go to the moon exploded further proves the extreme difficulty of the mission and the impossibily of doing it at the time" without their edits being reversed?

Besides, that I, or you, or anyone hasn't ever read a "total moon hoax explanation" doesn't mean one doesn't exist. If science worked like that, on the Extraterrestrial_life page it should say "it's ovius that alien lifeforms don´t exist because we never found definitive proof of one, therefore there aren't any.", which obviusly is not true and is a example of bad_logic. Unkonwn doen't mean unexistant. If there is no proof that a "complete" hoax theory DOESN'T exist, or the contary, we should't assume it exists or not. Not assuming anything we haven't previously proven is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Therefore the affirmation stating that there isn't any shpuld be removed until evidence if found to consolidate it or refute it.

And labeling the article SHOULD and MUST be done, until the issues on it are fixed. It gives a clear warning to the readers that the article doesn't fulfill all that wikipedia is supposed to be and represent, and encourages people to improve it so that it can be. That is the reasons labels were created, used and supported by wikipedia. If they were useless, they they woudn't have been implemented. Wikipedia directives are complete pragmatics.

In addition, if you think not calling hoax proponants ignorants is the greatest proof that the article is "evenly balanced", then an article that disproves, refutes and disqualifies sistematically every anti-moon-hoax claim (and I assure you it can be easily done) BUT never calls the landing believers "arrogant deuchebags", would be evenly balanced as well. Which if of course laughtable and riddiculous.--190.49.179.69 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse my personal comments with the article content. If I told you what I really think of them, you would get very angry. Maybe the article could read that so far no known comprehensive theory has been published? And if someone can contradict that, fine. There is no reason for a POV banner. That's been tried before, typically by the hoaxsters who hate the fact that there's a reasonable answer to everything they bring up. They want the claims left unchallenged, to give the false impression that there aren't reasonable answers, and to thus help this article spread their ignorant views to the gullible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll address just one item, to illustrate. You cite

The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera It is a verified fact that the "C" is not on the original film. The weasel-wording (i.e. "most likely") was probably put in there to appease POV pushers. Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that answer is uncited. However, to be equally fair, neither is the question. It's odd the IP address didn't ask for a citation about the question. Must have slipped his mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was in there at one time, at least. Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are in there again, and I'm sure at least one of them was in there earlier. Bubba73 (talk), 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are in Examination of Apollo moon photos, and have been there for a while. When that article was split out of this one, the references must have been inadvertently deleted here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

strings astronauts

Buzz Aldrin, antenna on backpack

Alan Bean, antenna on backpack

in some videos on the "moon" you can see lights going ubove the astronauts heads, as if there was a string of some sort. in another video an astrounaut was able to sundenly (I am a bad speller and my microsoft word is not working) job up from an almost sitting postion, like he was pulled up. look it up, I can not find it but still, it is somewhere on youtube. can someone find that and add it to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are probably seeing the radio antenna that was sticking up from their suit. For instance, in these two photos, see the antenna sticking out of the backpack. Click on them to enlarge. Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I found (almost certainly) the same thing on you-tube. The "strings" looked to me like an internal reflection in the lens in one case and an antenna in another. The bit about the man being lifted looked to me like the result of the other astronaut giving him a man-sized heave in 1/6 gravity: because his mass remained as on Earth, once he had started moving gravity did not slow him down as quickly as it would on earth which gave him that thrown-up-in-the-"air", puppet-on-a-string look. Man with two legs (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Charlie Duke quote

There have been only six lunar landings, so why would a fully accredited Apollo astronaut say there had been nine? A Google search of the full statement shows up only this Wiki article and the Wiki article on Duke himself. A wider Google search shows only repeated quotes in chatrooms and on blogs, non of which is Wiki allowable. I am going to rent "In the shadow of the moon" and watch for myself, unless someone already has a copy and can beat me to it. My feeling is that this statement should be completely removed unless someone can come up with a properly verified reference for it21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of it, and transcriped the quote from Duke. Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a short way into chapter 16, the closing credits. Bubba73 (talk), 05:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Corroborating sources :

• This from The Guardian
• This from The Space Review
• This from I.Sci, Imperial College's science magazine
• This from canada.com (canada.com is published by Canwest, owner of a huge swathe of Canada's media)

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question seems to be, "If we faked going to the Moon, why did we fake it nine times?" and there were, in fact, nine Apollo flights that went to the moon. There were only six landings though, as implied in the first sentence of the Imperial College article, where it mentions 12 men have walked on the moon. The other three only circled the moon and came back, two purposely and one unplanned. See List of Apollo missions. The manned flights start with Apollo 7, which orbited the earth. Apollo 8 orbited the moon. Apollo 9 tested the lunar module, but in earth orbit. 10 tested the lunar module, in lunar orbit. 11 and 12 landed. 13 was to land, but had to abort that part of the mission. 14-15-16-17 landed. So that's 2 earth orbits, 3 lunar orbits without landings, and 6 lunar orbits with landings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, that makes sense. But my next question is why are none of those correct inline references quoted in the article? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a good and preferred source for the quote, then post it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Charlie Duke is a direct word-for-word quote from the DVD cited (In the Shadow of the Moon). It is right near the end. He said "we went" nine times, not that we "landed" nine times. Undoubtedly he is counting six landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) plus three that circled the Moon but didn't land (Apollo 8, 10, and 13). I don't think that claims that these missions were fake too are as common, but even some people thought that Apollo 8 was fake. Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - I didn't put the link to the DVD as an inline reference because it had its own article that the sentence could link to. So that is why it is written the way it is, it could be made an inline reference it editors think that would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added some links as references to the quote. At the time, I didn't know of these references, I only had the actual DVD. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, how about ... maybe he just got confused? Seems like you're looking for conspiracies everywhere, Bubba. Go with Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is the most likely. He muddled his numbers, make a mistake, messed up. He's only human. We all do it. 86.147.161.132 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the confusion was on the part of the reader. We did, in fact, go to the moon 9 times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that he meant what he said. He said that we "went" to the Moon nine times, not that we "landed" nine times. Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - that is nine times that we went to the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bond film reference

I added the Bond film reference because, while I imagine it's included in the popular culture spin-off article, the fact it predated 1974 when the hoax theory came into vogue, I feel makes it notable enough to mention alongside the early Apollo 8 reference. 23skidoo (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with it is the conclusion that it had anything to do with the evolution of the hoax theory. If it does, that needs to be sourced and not just assumed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up: MythBusters episode tonight

Just so folks know, tonight's episode of MythBusters will be on the moon hoax. Expect a lot of edits to this page, both from fans of the show and from anons trying to push the hoax itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! From Mythbusters: Announced by "This Week at NASA" on NASA TV on February 8, 2008. "The Marshall Space Flight Center hosted the Mythbusters television show. The Mythbusters chose Marshall as one of several NASA locations for an episode to debunk the notion that NASA never landed on the moon. The cast conducted tests involving a feather, a weight, a lunar soil boot print, and a flag in a vacuum. A team of Marshall scientists helped with the tests." But Marshall is a NASA institution, so you expect them to defend NASA. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stars in images

Enlargement of cropped version of the above photo; a few stars are visible.

There are two images that purport to show stars. Those don't look like stars to me partly just because they just don't look right and partly because they don't look like any portion of the sky I recognise (especially the close pair). Also, I would not expect to see any stars at all and certainly not that number of bright ones in a small patch of sky. They look to me like blemishes.

Is there any reliable citation to show they are stars? If not, then these images should be removed before the looneys start claiming they are proof of fakery. Man with two legs (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that added that. I found a reference somewhere, but I should have included it. I'll try to find it again. If they are stars, it would be hard to recognize the area of sky because all of the dimmer ones are not visible. Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is this blog, but that is not a suitable reference. Bubba73 (talk), 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning here an experiment (which many people would be able to duplicate) and why I do not expect to see any stars at all:

One very sunny day, I took a photo of my garden fence with lighting conditions that in my opinion approximated to those of the famous "man on the moon" photo of Buzz Aldrin. That night, the bright star Vega passed almost directly over my house. I photographed it with these results:

• using the same settings, it did not come out at all
• with 10x the exposure, it did come out
• with 100x the exposure, it came out brightly
• with 1000x the exposure, it came out and so did other stars of 4th magnitude

I also took photos of the ground and the blue sky to show that light scattered by the sky was much less than light scattered by the ground.

Since I was using a digital camera (Nikon D70) rather than a film camera, this is not a perfect experiment but it illustrates why I would expect to see no stars at all in the photos taken on the moon: the exposure would be too short by a factor of ten to one-hundred.

Man with two legs (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your mistake is trying to apply logic and reason and science. Where the moon hoaxsters are concerned, those factors don't enter into the discussion. They'll just say you're a NASA stooge if not an actual NASA employee (like me - ha!) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Last night I changed the captions to say that they may be stars. One difference is film latitude. The color photos were taken on positive transparency film (i.e. slides) and the B&W ones were taken on negative film. The color film used has more latitude for underexposure than negative film, but I don't know how the latitude of digital cameras compares. I'm not sure about the photo, so we may have to delete it. On one hand, one of the dots is blue, as a star can be. On the other hand, these would have to be some of the brightest stars, and there are not to very bright stars as close together as two of them in the photo, as far as I know. Bubba73 (talk), 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue raised by the hoaxsters is that "there are no stars". The answer by NASA supporters is "yes there are some stars". Logic tells you that stars are pretty faint and that you wouldn't expect to see many at the exposure level needed to photograph the earth or moon against the black sky. A more rigorous approach would be for someone (not us, as it would be OR) to determine what stars could be anticipated or expected to show up, based on information about which ones are the brightest stars and which direction the camera was aimed. That would be a lot of work, but it's possible someone has looked into that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

similar photo

I remembered that there was another photo taken just before. Go to the full resolution version and enlarge it. I see some similar things in that photo, but in my quick look at it, they don't seem to be in the same place, i.e. not stars. Bubba73 (talk), 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work, and the article is now slightly better. Wikipedia actually working! Man with two legs (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters

On the popular science show Mythbusters hosts Adam and Jamie completely disproved this theroy by doing a variety of tests on all the parts of the consperency. You can learn about each one here. In the end, they shined a laser up at a retroreflector up on the moon and got a signal back, proving that there was a man made item on the moon. Tsnerf (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The show did not "officially" disprove anything. It's worth mentioning this test in the article somewhere. But as Bubba73 points out, the conspiracists will say the test was faked by NASA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A section of the article MythBusters (season 7) has it. I plan to incorporate some of that into this article, but I haven't done it yet. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An IP address posted a highly-POV / baiting statement that essentially says everything about the flights has been proven true. I reverted it and someone else reverted back. This spells trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there's one thing that the Mythbusters episode fails to mention. The Earth's gravity (6 times greater than the Moon's) will also cause the flag to wave less here on Earth. So not only does the lack of air resistance result in a flag waving more on the Moon, the lesser gravity also will result in the flag waving more on the Moon. Mythbuster's test was in Earth's gravity. Had they tested it in Moon's gravity, it would have waved even more than it does. But I guess this qualifies as OR. Thought I'd mention it anyway. Maybe someone has a reliable cite in which to source this. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag Waving

I don't at all believe that NASA faked the moon landings but this video is weird. Watch it all the way through. The flag begins at complete stop. At about 37 seconds into the video, an astronaut walks by. The flag begins to wave as if the astronaut's movement created a breeze. At first I thought that the astronauts bouncing on the ground caused the flag to move. But earlier in the video, an astronaut walks away from the flag and the flag doesn't move. Maybe the astronaut shoulder brushed against the flag? But he looks like he's too far away to make contact. Maybe when the astronaut starts moving, he kicks a rock which hits the flag pole? Or it's caused by static electricity or a gas emission from space suit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWajUJ_NnHs

Does anyone have a definitive answer? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a definitive answer a few months ago and failed. He might have brushed against the flag, but to me it appears that he did not. The usual answer is that static electricity between the astronaut caused it. They cite that the flag moved a little before the astronaut got to it (it seems to move away from him before he gets there). Some water vapor evaporated from the space suit, and I asked the experts if that could have done it, and they didn't think so. At any rate, it is caused by the astronaut somehow and not wind. Bubba73 (talk), 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Annon's posts

Annon - your posts are still in the "history" section. I didn't do it, but you might want to leave them there. Another important principle of wikipedia is to be civil and assume good faith, but in your first ever post here you call almost everyone on earth "Irrational" and accuse us of being liars. You really can't expect for a reasonable discussion to start that way. Perhaps you'd like to start again with a more civil tone? Algr (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He copied a section that already exists here, and then added a bunch of broken-English rants that seemed to add nothing to the discussion, so I zapped it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Armstrong's biography

First, let me say that I am familar with both editors and respect their work. The quote in question came from Hansen's biogaraphy of Armstrong, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong. The exact quote is used at Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Evidence of landing (added by me, incidentally). IIRC, the quote was originally added saying "delusional" whereas the actual quote is "misguided".

For the time being, I'm taking a middleground position on whether or not it should be in this article. On one hand it is already in the other article but OTOH it seems like it could be mentioned here, in a mild form. Hope this helps, but I do respect both editors and am unsure which way to go. Bubba73 (talk), 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in the quotation from Armstrong's biography, and yeah, I used your original version on the other article to put in the source note for this one. I do personally think that those espousing this conspiracy theory are "delusional", however I would agree with putting in the word "misguided." --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read the edit history, who is Bugs concerned would be baited by this addition? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The sensitive sorts among the hoax believers, who would take it personally and then slap a banner on the article about it being not neutral. We've taken great pains to avoid that. Let's not give them something to grouse about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I put back JoshuaZ's latest version. It does not contain the word "misguided". I find either that word or "delusional" to be opinions and something akin to personal attacks. That kind of language should be kept out, no matter how authoritative the source. For example, if Neil Armstrong says that, it makes sense, but the hoaxsters would say, "Of course he would say that, as he's in on the conspiracy." So let's keep it factual and not editorial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont really favour catering in that fashion, but frankly if people chose to believe delusions or "misguided theories", I know of some swamp land in Florida that they can buy. I say put it up there and let the defenders of the conspiracy theory ideal pull it down. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well "misguided" is in the quote, "delusional" is not. I think there is no way "delusional" should be used, unless it is a direct quote from someone notable. Bubba73 (talk), 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this from a lot of angles. Frankly, you have a lot more experience with this page then I do. I am going to defer to you. Appreciate the discussion, TLDR. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag waving in space

Can any use be made of the recent footage from the Shenzhou 7 spacewalk, which shows how a flag reacts in space - i.e. that it can be "waved" in a vacuum?. Inless, or course, someone claimes that the Chinese footage is faked ;o) Catiline63 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In the bit I saw, the astronaut is waving the flag. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a problem physically waving a flag in a vacuum, but I would guess it would look a little different, lacking any air to catch it and "ripple" it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in most of the Apollo Moon videos (all except perhaps Apollo 12 because their camera failed after a few minutes), putting up the flag is shown. In each of the cases the flag is moving when the astronauts are planting it in the ground. After they quit moving it, it soon settles down and doesn't move (except for the one thing on Apollo 15 where the astronaut intefered with it somehow.) But the hoaxers only show the video with it moving and then cut the video before it stops moving. On Apollo 11 there is a stretch of more than 30 minute stretch where you can watch the flag the flag not moving one bit. Bubba73 (talk), 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. The "waving flag" nonsense from that infamous 2001-or-so "documentary" that I saw on TV was like the first thing they brought up, which was good in a way, because then I knew immediately that the hoax "theory" was a humbug. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A flag actually waves more in a vacuum because there's no wind resistance. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you're defining "waving". There are two methods to waving a flag. One is holding the flag and moving it around. How it moves depends on the atmosphere, if any. The air causes some of that "rippling" effect. In a vacuum, the flag's motion will be governed strictly by Newton's laws of motion. The other method is positioning it and letting the wind (if any) do all the work. So the lunar flag was "waving" while they were moving it, positioning it and planting it in the ground. Once they placed it and the vibrations of that motion dissipated, that was the end of the "waving", due to the lack of air on the moon. (Bubba73 can correct my 8th grade science principles here, as needed.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for that video I posted above, which remains unexplained. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "waving" in any case, it was simply motion triggered by something else that's of uncertain origin. I have a hunch if someone were to show the video to the astronaut, he might know, although it's hard to remember what you were doing last week, let alone 35 years ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, given that the flag at rest is inert in every known video clip except that one, the evidence indicates it was either jostled in some way or that there was a static charge or something. The typical moonbat would seize on this one clip and say, "See???" while being unable to explain why the flag never moves any other time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, a neutral observer would note that the only time the flag moves on the moon is either when it's being touched or has just recently been touched - so the only reasonable conclusion in that one clip is that it has been contacted in some way that's unclear from the video. If there were many such instances, the moonbats might be onto something. But there aren't, and they ain't. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apollo Deaths

Listing other deaths is a case of original synthesis; A plus B therefore C. A - people involved with Apollo died. B - Other people also died. Therefore by implication C - it is not unusual that Apollo people died. It may be permissible to mention this if a good cite can be found (although a detailed list is probably not needed), but it is not possible to make this case on Wikipedia as original research.

Besides, it should be kept in mind that this article is about documenting the theories (unfounded though they may be), it is not about debunking them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit. The deaths are from the Tim Furniss 1985 book (the reference). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That as may be, but does the book perform a comparison of deaths to make any kind of case about the Apollo deaths? It's adding that which makes it original synthesis.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And who says it's not about debunking them? To leave them unanswered would make the article biased. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, any more than the article about Buddhism is biased towards the claims of Buddhism, or the article about Apollo is biased towards the claims of the Apollo program. The purpose of an encyclopaedia article is not to prove the subject wrong (or right), it's to describe it accurately, comprehensively and neutrally to the reader. That may include criticism, but not to the same degree. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your question has come up here many times. The answer is that if you leave those claims standing alone, the casual reader might assume that there is some merit to them. That's what the hoaxsters want, and that's why it has to be shown that the questions have reasonable answers, in order to keep the page balanced. However, if you're equating belief in the hoax claims to belief in Buddha, I can't totally argue with that. Conspiracism often takes on kind of a religious fervor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, to leave out the reasonable explanations would make the page inaccurate, non-comprehensive, and in no way neutral. This page, in fact, is probably the least biased page on this subject that you'll ever find. Most web pages on this subject are either "it's a conspiracy" or "the conspiracists are idiots". This article is cool and calm about the subject - i.e. neutral. If anything, it gives the hoaxsters mere credence than they deserve, as it's a fringe theory. To compare it with Buddhism is offensive, really, because Buddhism is a long-established and widespread religion, not a fringe theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Buddhism is a religion and is not subject to empirical refutation or confirmation. That is not the case with this - either we went to the Moon or we didn't, and the answer can be determined empirically. Bubba73 (talk), 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comparing or equating anything with Buddhism. I am comparing the treatment of the subject. As I said; the purpose of this article is to document, not prove. Part of this will involve the criticisms of the theory, but it is not an obligation to give the criticisms equal coverage. The article quite clearly states in the lead section what the authoritative evaluation of the theories is. And the point is; refuting the theories with information sources that do not in themselves address the subject is both original research and straying from the point of the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing on two different topics. The question of the specific issue of Russian deaths is debatable, but if an author has pointed it out, then it's fair game. On the more general topic, it is perfectly fair to point out reasonable refutations of points that are part of a fringe theory, in order to not mislead the reader into thinking that there is no explanation, i.e. in order to not play into the hands of the hoaxsters. The article is fair and balanced as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I should point out that the article does not "prove" that there was no moon hoax. It offers reasonable explanations and leaves it up to the reader to decide - something you would be hard pressed to find on any other website on this topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

An you are arguing with yourself! I never said it wasn't balanced. I said that adding these other deaths was original synthesis and getting away from the purpose of the article, which is not debunking. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "purpose" of the article is to provide information about the alleged Apollo hoax theories, and that may include information that ends up debunking them. 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Very possibly.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The hoaxsters claim there is something unusual or abnormal about the deaths of Apollo figures. That is a statement with no facts supporting it, yet there it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get it right - if a guy got published a book stating that Neil Armstrong never landed on the Moon because he's only got one leg. Then no matter how many sources proving that Neil has both his legs is worthless unless they clearly states that "Neil Armstrong had two legs and therefore was able to land on the Moon". So all kinds of ridiculous statements like 'the Moon is made of green cheese', 'vacuum is unpenetrable' or 'the Earth is flat' should have a head start and be inserted in Wikipedia as the truth until other books profess the exact combinations like "astronauts landed on the Moon because it's not made of green cheese" or "they flew to the Moon because vacuum is penetrable". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia policy precisely for this; WP:FRINGE. Otherwise, yes, you are correct. Part of what makes the theory notable, and therefore valid for inclusion, is that others have addressed it critically. If it is so outlandish to be ignored by everyone, then it is unlikely be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. So your "one-legged Armstrong" theory is unlikely to trouble us. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too sure about that. Remember, Neil said he took ONE small step. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the arguments of the hoax believers is that they think the large number of deaths among astronauts is suspicious. (Interestingly, a large number of NASA employees and contractors must have been on the hoax too, and I haven't heard anything about an unusually large death rate among them.) So I think it is entirely appropriate to put the number of deaths of astronauts in perspective. It is a very dangerous job. Having said that, I think the article could just give statistics on it without the need to list every one. There could even be an article about astronaut deaths, if there isn't one already. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Escape Orbit, if others haven't addressed a hoax theory critically it is unlikely to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. So if nobody have published anything critical regarding the claim that NASA murdered astronauts - then the [Deaths of key Apollo personnel] section isn't notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. So we can delete the section and wait for the critical books before we reinsert it? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical appraisal isn't the only measure of notability. If enough people believe something, and it's written about, then it's notable. Whether it's true, whether it's ever been challenged, or whether it has the slightest shred of evidence to support it, is not the primary concern. Wikipedia's job is to cite the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's what this article does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters continued

A user has challenged the reliability of the Mythbusters tests. Let's get some discussion here on this subject. He might have a point, he might not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I highly regard the Mythbusters, I would not dare call their results "scientific proof", without a form of peer review. So I support the changes the user made. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters is a great programme, but hardly the ultimate authority on anything. It's just TV. So I'd agree, it doesn't 'prove' anything it just offers it's own assessment.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There were three changed paragraphs. I agree with the changes in the first two, but the third paragraph is troublesome. The editor removed the phrase "A number of myths were tested" for no evident reason and used bad English in writing that the myths "were stated as 'Busted', supporting the Apollo lunar landings would be genuine."

By the way, the text currently reads that two of the myths were "proved to be Busted", which makes no particular sense to me either. Proved to be false? Okay. Proved to be "Busted"? No idea what that means. Phiwum (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The MythBusters use the scientific method and their trials are transparent. Others can repeat their work - however they do make mistakes but then the myths are being retested at later programmes. But the Apollo episode was too dependent of NASA IMHO. They used NASA's vacuum chamber and their Vomit Comet plus they were supplied with some 'magical' dry sand to make footprints. Anyone believing that NASA murdered astronauts wouldn't hesitate in thinking "Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman were forced to bust the myths in order to loan the facilities" - there's no such thing as a free meal. The cash strapped Russians might let them use their facilities cheaply, but that would still be too expensive for the Discovery Channel. Their preliminary photo and moonwalking mythbusting were independent and easily reproducible so they are OK. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How would NASA's vacuum chamber be any different from any other? Also, the Mythbusters did not use NASA's Vomit Comet, they used one by a company in Florida called Zero Gravity Corporation. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than saying that the Mythbusters "proved ..." it could be reworded that they "demonstrated" or "showed", etc. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And remove any reference to "BUSTED". It may be the word used on the show, but it's not an encyclopaedic term and not necessarily clear to the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Demonstrated" seems good. "Busted" is a bit too cutesie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MythBusters are always masking brands and company names and the Vomit Comet's owner was disguised too. Since this is a delicate subject the strange blurring of the 'Zero Gravity Corporation' on the aircraft is just adding ammunition to the hoax believers. Since that Vomit Comet is independent of NASA I'll include it in the independent mythbusting.

NASA's vacuum chamber is psychological different from non-NASA vacuum chambers because it's controlled by the same 'evil' people who did the alleged Moon hoax. Again if you believe that NASA murdered Apollo astronauts you would also believe that they would 'force' the young MythBusters to bust the hoax myths as payment for using their vacuum chamber. They should have used a private Ajax Vacuum Chamber Ltd and they should have grinded their own angular sand grains. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I played back that part of the Mythbusters episode, and the markings on the plane are clearly visible, and they are the same as Image:Zero_Gravity_Corporation_1.jpg, which is the Zero Gravity Corporation plane. In addition, they say they went to Florida for it, and Z.G.C. was based in Florida until they moved. Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right Bubba73, it was my mistake - sorry. I mixed an innocent airliner with the Z.G.C. Forget what I wrote about the Vomit Comet. Z.G.C. is independent and a good choice for mythbusting. But the vacuum chamber is still a NASA facility ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see peer-reviewed research that shows that a flag behaves differently in a NASA vacuum chamber compared to someone else's vacuum chamber because of "psychological reasons".  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with this edit as we seem to have agreement. Removing 'Busted' as unencyclopaedic and not necessarily understood by all readers, and changing 'proved' to more neutral 'demonstrated'. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But that would be original research according to your own 'logic'. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How would it be original research? What original information or analysis am I adding? I am rephrasing the sentence be more neutral and less colloquial. The term 'busted' is not universally understood, the word 'proved' is too strong a word. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If "busted" is what Mythbusters called it, then it could be retained as the word "busted" in quotes so that it's clear that's what the source is saying, not wikipedians. Then a brief explanation of what they mean when they say "busted", which is obviously a colloquialism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You could, but I think that would be overly verbose when it could be just phrased clearer to begin with. There is no obligation to use the same word the TV show uses, as long as we are accurately reflecting the conclusion. So I am not attempting to "translate" 'Busted', I am avoiding word entirely while attempting to keep the meaning. Does anyone think my wording is not accurate? Is there any special nuance in the word 'Busted' that I am missing? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Busted" implies "refuted", or "demonstrated to the contrary". So it depends how you're wording it in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

Escape Orbit's translation of MythBusters' classification IS original research. 'Busted' means destroyed, broked, shattered, ruined, spoiled etc. according to a dictionary. His home-made interpretation that 'proved' is too strong a word and "was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated" is correct is extremely original research. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Editorial considerations such as these are not research, original or otherwise. It is plumb ridiculous to claim that the phrase "proved to be Busted" is fine and dandy and any alteration (including replacing "proved" with "demonstrated") is OR. Do tell me: what privileges this phrase over any other? Admittedly, the word "busted" is used on the program, so I see a partial (unconvincing) argument there, but "proved"? Nothing. No argument that this term and no other is appropriate. As far as "busted" is concerned, of course, there is an equally good argument for replacing it: the meaning is ambiguous and colloquial, likely to cause confusion for a non-native speaker (perhaps for any non-American speaker?).

In sum, and with due respect, the criticism that Escape_Orbit's edits constitute original research is poppycock, pure and simple. Phiwum (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for a bit too abrasive tone, Necessary. Phiwum (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is standard for things to be reworded, either to avoid plagerism (sp?) or copyright violations. I think "busted" should be avoided as non-encyclopedic. On the other hand, "proven" may be too strong, so I favor "demonstrated", etc. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[Indent] Normally I would agree with Phiwum and Bubba73 that we could use common sense but according to Escape Orbit that is OR. It may be permissible to replace 'Busted' if a good cite can be found, but it is not possible to do it ourselves without doing original research on Wikipedia. The cite should involve MythBusters and Apollo Hoax; i.e. NOT A plus B gets C - so if source A explain that 'Busted' in MythBusters means 'demonstrated' and source B states that the Apollo myths were 'Busted' then the logic implication 'the Apollo myths were demonstrated' is OR; still according to Escape Orbit. To replace 'Busted' with either 'proved' or 'demonstrated' is a choice; increasing it or diminishing it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read original research's definition. I am not combining two sources, I am suitably phrasing one source. I am not adding anything original other than a choice of wording. If you don't like the choice of words then I am happy to have you suggest something better. As has been generally agreed here, the original wording overstated MythBuster's authority and methodology and also used a colloquial word that might confuse readers. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not combining two sources - you're are not even using any source! No matter what I would suggest that would be (like your suggestion) common sense and OR! I'm afraid the meaningless word 'Busted' has to remain until a source containing a 'translation' in relation to the Apollo myths can be digged up. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also read policy on disrupting in order to make a point. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If "busted" is to be used then I think it should be in quotes with a footnote explaining how it is used by the Mythbusters. Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Busted" is actually the slang variant of "burst". Maybe that would sound better. Or maybe NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that this issue has not been raised at Mythbusters. There, they give a clear description of what "Busted" means with no citation at all. Certainly, I am not suggesting that this is a good thing or should settle the issue on this page. Simply making an observation. Phiwum (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting bogged down here. This article is not about Mythbusters, and it is not about the word 'Busted'. If there's a possibility of the word causing confusion (and I think there is) it should just be avoided. What's important is that the article reports the outcome of their experiments accurately. I believe it does this presently. Whether this is a 100% inclusive dictionary definition of the colloquial 'Busted' is really not the point. Nor is there any need for diverting the article into explanations of what a word means.

The question is; is what is written now an accurate summary of the TV show's conclusions? Unless any editor believes it is not, or can suggest a clearer wording, then there is no reason to change the article or to re-introduce a word that may be misunderstood by some readers. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The blurb in the main article says, "An episode of MythBusters in August 2008 was dedicated to NASA and each myth was related to the moon landings, such as the pictures and video footage. A few members of the MythBusters crew were allowed into a NASA training facility to test some of the myths. All of the hoax-related myths tested were demonstrated as false." That seems reasonable. The problem was that the original references were in-your-face "BUSTED!" which was not the proper way to write about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The only problem I could see about this (and I hesitate to bring it up!) is that calling them 'myths' kind of prejudges the outcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at that Mythbusters page, please note that (1) it's the name of the show, so we have to live with it; and (2) some of the so-called "Myths" in their various shows turn out to be possible or even likely to be true. As a parallel, consider Urban Legends sites such as snopes. The term "urban legend" could imply that it's false. But sometimes the "legend" turns out to be true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Singular/plural confusion

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA...

and then:

A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine...

The referenced survey does indeed refer to "the landing", so in that sense the article is accurate. However, the article does not say which landing "the" landing refers to (presumably the first?), and the general flow of the text tends to suggest to the reader that it's intended to refer to all Apollo landings, or Apollo landings in general, with the use of the singular being just an oversight. I feel that this part of the article could be tightened up. 86.152.242.191 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Good point. It is confused. Problem is that some of the hoax claims maintain that first was faked, but others were not. Separating them out may be difficult. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the dilemma of starting with a false premise - it takes the conspiracist down many possible paths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why is the second part of this article sound so biased? Should it be named "Defending statements of Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories" instead?

It's supported to be including both for and against (with doubt in several cases), not list out and bashing every "theories/hoaxes" about moon landing using some particulate sources.

Risingstar3110 (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The "support" for the hoax theories is contained in the questions. The "support" for the conventional history is contained in the responses. It's properly balance as it is. It's not bashing, it's providing reasonable answers to every question. The reader can decided whether the question or the answer has merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not see it that way as when the "questions" were "answered" without any objection following. It make the readers feel as that is the final answers (from wikipedia) for that matter.

I expected the article would be divided the moon-landing-hoaxes and given answers into two sub-heading and let the reader decide which one sound more convincing, rather than "take it or leave" as i can see it now. Risingstar3110 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a rebuttal to one of the answers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For example:The lack of a more than two-second delay in two-way communications at a distance of a 400,000 km (250,000 miles).

• The round trip light travel time of more than two seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity.

As what I read from above, the "answer" have a lots of assumption and should be put into something like this: The lack of a more than two-second delay in two-way communications at a distance of a 400,000 km (250,000 miles)can be explained if the delay has been edited out or if principal motivations for editing the audio in response to time constraints (or in the interest of clarity) was carried out. Still there is no specific official evidences to both fully support or fully denied this case —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risingstar3110 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like more detail is needed in the explanation. Keep in mind that the hoax claims are all coming from assumptions, i.e. the premise that there was a conspiracy. There is no actual evidence of a conspiracy, so this article cuts the hoaxsters a lot more slack than they really deserve. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all the hoaxes come from assumption and little evidences. But the only reason they exist in the first place was because there are lots of unsatisfying answers. How satisfying the answer must be (to fully clear those) depending on individuals, and the only way to ensure that is backing them up with the most obvious evidences and sound as neutral as possible.

Some points in the article were quite bad (e.g if NASA keep all the pictures, the argument of "The "C"-shaped image was from printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera" become invalid because NASA can switch the image anytime)and make me hardly to take the article as neutral, and therefore couldn't take other valid points seriously. I believe I am not the only one Risingstar3110 (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The "C" is not on the original film. I don't know what you mean about the lack of a 2+ second delay, because it is clearly evident in the recordings. And all of the POV statements are countered by facts. For instance, there is a POV that there should be stars in the photos, but the facts of photography prove that they usually are not visible. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The hoax claims exist, not because of unsatisfactory answers, but because of questions raised by people who don't understand the technology. Many of the questions seem to have been asked by people who weren't even paying attention in 9th grade science. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey by that same token people who disaggree with you can claim that your buying this hoax is a direct result of your lack of understanding when it comes to space travel and other matters of scientific interest. There is no evidence that Apollo was a hoax?? What a joke. Almost every other photo or video about Apollo is yet another documentary travesty and glaring evidence in this day and age that the whole thing was fake as a 3 dollar bill. --124.182.231.105 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not a clue what you're talking about. An anthill's worth of the mountain of evidence has been questioned. And every question they've raised has a logical and consistent explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In-craft footage showing clear misleading intent / deception

Just curious why doesn't the article make any reference to the video footage showing Buzz Aldrin creating a fake / misleading video from inside an orbiting space craft? Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw It visually draws question as to whether there was an actual moon landing, or simply we, the US, sent up guys in orbit and faked the rest. Is the video not compelling enough evidence to include in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.37.171 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I get the felling I've seen this one before, but maybe you could explain what you're getting at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This video is old news, not new and long been publicly available. It shows Aldrin preparing for a live broadcast with exterior shots through a window. Not an easy task with the cramp, weightless conditions and massively differing lighting. The film is not "compelling" at all, and the interpretation of what is being shown is as wildly speculative as any. The problem with including it in the article is that videos do not make good cites, Wikipedia prefers print. But if you can gather some decent cites it's perhaps worth including as another example of hoax theories. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Apollo TV camera - there was a color TV camera in the Command Module but the one that was in the Lunar Module (the lander) was black&white (for technical reasons). Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Hubble Space Telescope?

Large telescopes and the Moon hoax

The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.

Attempts to view the landing site

The Hubble Space Telescope can resolve objects as small as 280 feet (86 m) at the distance of the Moon;

--Afopow (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are sources for both of those figures, or maybe the 60m is the theoretical limit for a telescope that size. Either way, it can't see the Lunar Module, which is about 4 meters across. Bubba73 (talk), 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

some telescopes on the earth can take photos with resolution better than 9mm (one third of an inch) using interferometer. for example 6 large ESA telescopes that are far 400 meters and can act as a 400 meter telescope. in the other words, the maximum resolution can be achieved by interferometry instead of using a very large telescope. therefor it's clear that the Apollo moon landing is fake.

Where's you citation for these alleged facts? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

now the telescopes with miliarcsecond resolution are ordinary. this resolution equals to 2 meters on the moon. so by large grand telescopes, we can see the APOLLO landing site on the moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.31.183.240 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please cite your facts. To see a lander (~380 thousand KM away) you'd need resolution < 6 milliarcseconds. You also might explain why expensive equipment should be devoted to taking poor images of things we know are there, know what they look like, and have much better close up pictures of already. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Without a citation, I'm assuming you're either making it up or don't know what you're talking about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says "a few milliseconds of arc". Even three milliseconds of arc corresponds to more than 5 meters at the distance of the Moon. The lander is about 4 meters across, so the whole thing would be in one pixel. You can't tell what something is with a one-pixel photo of it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so technically he's not making it up, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Good enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And even if it was 1 millisecond instead of "a few", that would give you an image of the lander two pixels by two pixels - not good enough to identify the object. Technically? Just because the resolution is such and such doesn't mean that you can take a recognizable picture of something that size. It is basically the pixel size. The period at the end of this sentence is at least two pixels by two pixels. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A1aram, while you may be factually correct about the capabilities of interferometery (I haven't read the cite you provided), this is a classic case of original synthesis. First you suggest fact A (interferometery can do this), then you personally add fact B (it hasn't been done to the Moon) therefore C is implied (it's a fake!). You really need to cite actual discussion of the possible use of interferometery to image objects on the moon. So far I've seen nothing to convince anyone it's at all possible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

From the "Independent evidence..." article, "The Descent Module of the Apollo landers and lunar rovers are planned to be photographed by the 2009 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera." Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)