Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Spoofs

I added a spoof (the Dark side of the moon one), please change the title of it so it is better .

Nevermind, there is a section about it.

Title

One or two of the main "theories" state that the landings did occur, so there is clearly no consensus among the hoaxsters. So, how about this, or something like it, as this article's title? Apollo program alternative theories. Wahkeenah 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, pedantically speaking, I believe the guy who claims the landings did occur but that gravity was four times higher than accepted claims that the video footage of the landing was faked to pretend that gravity wasn't any higher than we thought. BTW, it might be worth pointing out that many (if not most) of these people have had to self-publish, presumably because no publisher would touch it... I believe he's a case in point. Mark Grant 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the Internet (and especially to this page) any yahoo can self-publish... up to a point. Anyway, that title came to me as being neutral and non-inflammatory. "hoax accusations" and "conspiracy theories" and "Apollo shills" and "Bill Kaysing shills" just don't quite cut it. Maybe someone will go for this one, or something like it; or at least maybe everyone will disagree with it, so they'll have some common ground. Wahkeenah 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The next time someone wants to publish a pro-hoax book, I wish they would pay me to be the fact checker. That is a job that certainly doesn't do any work. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the title, Apollo program alternative theories,is an example of false balance as it implies parity between the generally accepted historical record and the conspiracy theories. As far as sources go, I agree with Mark. We should point out the various issues with all of the sources. Since the treatment of evidence seems to be a central argument, I think there should be a blanket statement about the veracity of the sources briefly explaining the POVs of 'both' sides. i.e. NASA faked the evidence vs. the Historiography. See the ::introduction of Holocaust denial for an excellent treatment of a similar problem of evidence. I think this statement should be added to the skanty introduction and the 'Burden of proof' section removed entirely.

Look at Holocaust denial as well as a good way to structure the 'top' of this article to make for a good short introduction to the topic. Then we can trail off into the swamp if you want. 70.160.231.246 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• You've got an excellent point, the article title gives more legitimacy to the "Apollo skeptics" than it deserves, but at least it doesn't contain any "pejorative" words, I don't think. Although there are some comparisons to be made, Holocaust denial is largely confined to neo-Nazis, and there are few (even the Apollo skeptics) who would argue that Holocaust denial is anything other than patently offensive. This is more of an argument about whether the government, which couldn't even hide a third-rate burglary, could somehow pull off faking the space program. As I said, maybe there could be a better title... maybe "Challenges to the official Apollo history", or something hopefully less wordy. "Apollo denial" is very succinct, but I don't think they would buy into it. Wahkeenah 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

the term conspiracy theory is not inherently perjorative. it is simply descriptive in the case of this topic. 70.160.231.246 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To the hoax proponents, it is a hot-button issue. Wahkeenah 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

understood and beside the point. This is not a soapboax or a vanity page. it is widely understood as a conspiracy theory and should be labeled as such 70.160.48.35 11:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically it's beside the point, but in practice it will unleash further edit wars. Read all the junk on this page and you might see what I'm getting at. Wahkeenah 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah's entirely correct, except that the point runs even deeper than the title. The problem here is not going to be solved by clever naming; it'll be solved by getting the editorial framing of the content structured in a way which acknowledges the inevitable onslaught of opinion it will always attract - not always from the most patient or 'housetrained' wikipedians. Hence my 'stuck record' insistence that we consider how other touchy issues are handled elsewhere on the 'pedia, to see how other editors maintain articles which might suffer as this one has.

I'm proposing we should keep this article to an account of the accusations in one dimension only - the fact of their existence, as a cultural phenomenon: That's the only aspect of them that is accepted as common ground between Apollo deniers and Apollo defenders - that they are out there, and have a certain history, key individuals, popular resonances, etc. We can join together to tell that story entirely neutrally. Put the substance of the arguments elsewhere, and make it VERY clear in a top-note to the discussion page that contributors wishing to engage in the specific arguments should do so under the "Examination of the claims ... " article. Adhib 20:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree, and it seems to be the format used in articles about similar hoax claims (e.g. holocaust denial and 9/11 denial). But I think you'll find that any attempt to treat this as a 'social phenomenon' will immediately be rejected by the Apollo-deniers. Mark Grant 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. "social phenomenon" is effectively another way to say "conspiracy theory". Wahkeenah 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, hang on a minute. Let's let them do their own objecting. Many of them may be quite happy for one article to focus on the history of their story, and another to delve into the arguments internal to it. And as far as I can see, there's no other common ground on which to base a neutral article. There is the fact that these notions are 'out there' - this much we all agree on. They have been out there in ways we can report neutrally on. All pro and anti arguments can be catered for in an 'Examination of ...' What could be wrong with that? Adhib 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about we treat the odd case of why so many people still believe NASA as a sociological phenomenon? No? Quite. The point here is that hoax deniers are frightened that actually presenting the evidence on this page will expose the truth. The only person who could object to presenting what accusers say (and the responses by landing believers) is someone afraid of the truth. Carfiend 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one is 'frightened by the evidence' because there isn't any. We're just tired of being expected to debunk the increasingly bizarre claims that are posted here, and particularly when they've already been debunked numerous times on the web. There's no reason whatsoever to have yet another list of 'why the Apollo-deniers are wrong' arguments on this page when there are so many sites devoted to that. Or do you think that the 'holocaust denial' page should have a similar list of rebuttals of holocaust denial 'evidence'? Mark Grant 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

People tend to accept recorded history unless there is proof to the contrary. A better question is, at what point did you decide the historical record was suspect? Was there any one defining moment, like the "waving flag" or some such? Or was it a gradual process? Wahkeenah 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, I think that black and white idea of what kind of person could object (fearful self-deceivers) is unlikely to prove constructive, and very likely to lead to charges that you're not engaging here on the assumption of good faith. To clarify: I'm delighted to have each and every new mental pabulum chewed over by denier of the week exposed for what it is. There's no question of censoring such stuff, and so no relevancy to posing as the voice of free speech. My only concern here is with the credibility - wikipedia recently scored reasonably favourably in a like-for-like comparison with Britannica. What Britannica has and we don't is the luxury of editorial decisions being final. So Britannica doesn't have to handle topics better suited to a medium like Usenet. Here, there's no such thing as final, and the trick is to work out a way to handle the endless flow of new, would-be contributors, in ways which preserve the credibility of the pedia. Adhib 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to endlessly have this conversation? You already conceded defeat on this issue - there is no historical record aside from NASA propoganda. No independent witnesses, no engineering data to back up the models in the museums. There is no historical record. Carfiend 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How about trying to answer the question? You weren't born doubting the historical record, you arrived at that conclusion somehow. I'm just trying to figure out what you're seeing that I'm not seeing, or vice versa. Wahkeenah 21:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I doubt it, there ISN'T ONE. I'm finding it hard to see what evidence for you are seeing. When I see that the only evidence for the landings are some photos of a dubious nature, with none of the backup documentation, high quality video, telemetry etc that you would expect, along with issues with cameras, radiation, etc etc, what other conclusions can you come to? Carfiend 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think there isn't a historical record, you haven't looked very far. You still haven't answered my question, though. Wahkeenah 21:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is it? I think we should have a section in the page of independent evidence for the Apollo landings. It would include all the data, witnesses etc. The good thing is it would not take up much space! I arrived at the conclusion because I was really interested in the landings, they seemed such a phenomenal achievement, on reading more and more, it just seemed more and more fishy. So many inconsistencies, so little real evidence. Carfiend 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The apparent inconsistencies are all explainable, and have been explained on the page. I'd be interested in seeing your point-by-point of which explanations don't hold water. And don't say "because NASA is the source". That's circular reasoning. Explain why the explanations don't make sense to you on their face. Wahkeenah 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty out of the gate. Of course you can't prove that NASA is telling the truth by reference to NASA. I'm not going to get into a point-by-point with you, because I don't think you have a very good grasp of logic, but most of the 'explanations' are a matter of opinion 'the flag is waving because Buzz is shaking it' vs 'Buzz is trying to stop the flag from waving', but since the video is NASA anyway, and we don't have the original hi-res, we can't really know. Carfiend 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hopeless. As I have said many times, the basic premise is that NASA is lying. So anything that apparently contradicts that notion must be rejected. Now, getting back to basics, what do you think the title of the article should be? Do you like my ultra-neutral title idea? Or is too neutral? Wahkeenah 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the title, from the vote above, nobody else seems to either. You don't like it? I'm not sure why. My premise is not that NASA is lying, my premise is to look at the problem from the point of view that we don't know whether NASA is lying, so we have to look at the evidence from a skepitical point of view. When you discount NASA's stuff, there is NO EVIDENCE to speak of. Unless you assume that NASA is telling the truth (the opposite of what you are accusing me of) you can't conclude the landings happened. It's an act of faith. Carfiend 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as everyone (except that one user who had renamed the article for a day or so) is OK with the title, they might as well archive this section also, since it's moot. The primary reason I don't accept the Apollo denial is that all manner of government conspiracies and secrets from that era were exposed, some at the time and some later, and I just don't think the government was smart enough to have pulled off such an elaborate hoax without someone finding out about it. Also, the explanations are consistent with the observations. The burden of proof is on the accusers, and I keep waiting for them to come up with something, but they haven't done it so far. Wahkeenah 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also easy for people who did not live through an era to start questioning the validity of the historical record. That's fine, if there is proof to the contrary. I'm sure the Holocaust deniars (sp?) are convinced that they are right also. The comparison between the two stories is very similar. Those who deny the historical record look at it through a specific lens, with a pre-judgment that the authors of the historical record fabricated it. Obviously, the Holocaust denial is a quantum leap more noxious and offensive than the Apollo denial, but the approach to the subject matter is similar. Wahkeenah 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is a HUGE difference between Holocaust Denial and landing skepticism. Imagine if only one US government agency had produced any eye-witnesses, or evidence for the holocaust. That would be similar. It isn't the case though. There are thousands of independent individuals with first hand testamony and evidence. The two ideas are not remotely similar. Carfiend 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And those who deny the Holocaust would argue that all those "witnesses" are part of the conspiracy. Same thing. Wahkeenah 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in order to believe that you have to believe that almost everyone in the world alive at that time is lying. It's a dozewn orders of magnitude more difficult than some people in one US govt agency. NASA controls all of the data, the US army (or whoever is supposed to have hoaxed WWII) didn't have control. Carfiend 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in the world, just the "Jewish conspiracy", along with the U.S. Army. The Holocaust deniars don't say the camps didn't exist, just that they were mischaracterized and exaggerated. The Holocaust deniars have no problem accepting the idea of a large conspiracy. Wahkeenah 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the hoax proponents suggest a conspiracy simply within one govt agency. Not involving some huge 'Jewish conspiracy' or whatever. The HDs need to constantly draw more people in because everyone is lying. For the moon hoax, it's just some people in NASA. No one else. NASA is so tight with what they release, that you don't need more people. Carfiend 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, hoax proponents do not start from the point of view that NASA is lying - that's something you made up. They start from the point of view that we don't know whether NASA is lying, and look for evidence on either side. Carfiend 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they focus on the alleged inconsistencies and refuse to accept the reasonable and consistent explanations. Wahkeenah 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the devil is in the detail - it all hinges on what you think is 'reasonable'. Carfiend 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They constantly complain that NASA is the only source - which is not true - but I wonder how you could get around that complaint if you could take a time machine back to 1969. Would you require a representive of Mother Jones be on board, for "independent" verification? Wahkeenah 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Who else witnessed anything more than NASA TV and photos? Carfiend 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The flights were tracked from other stations around the world... oh, but they were in on the "conspiracy", weren't they? A worldwide conspiracy. Imagine that. Forgetting that, though, how would you do it if you could go back to 1969? Wahkeenah 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, who witnessed the landings, aside from NASA? What you are talking about is the tracking of some object. It's possible that the tracking is real, but it still doesn't prove human landing. Many hoax theorists accept robot landings, and if you accept that, you can have a robot mission that can be tracked with no people on board. The only evidence of human landing comes from NASA, so we're back with nothing. Carfiend 22:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because NASA lied, ja? The problem is that the conspiracy theories get ever more elaborate, to try to account for the inconsistences in the conspiracy theories themselves, while the NASA account remains consistent. Wahkeenah 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See Occam's Razor. (no, that's not Occam's cell phone. We're talking about a theory.) It's simply much, much easier to accept the landings as truth than to trouble with complicated theories and spend time searching for inconsistencies in NASA's account. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There's som faulty logic here, you can't apply Occam's Razor to human duplicity. You wouldn't use Occam's Razor to solve a murder or a fraud, since the perpetrator my deliberately obfuscate. Carfiend 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to me that NASA's account is more consistent than any give theory. One logical error you make is lumping all the theorists together. Each one is internally consistent, and even if some of them are not, only one has to be. The task is to see which theory (NASA's, or one of the hoax theorists) best fits the data. Given that NASA is the only agency that has ever claimed to get to the moon, you'd think some kind of evidence was in order, right? There are several nations that have tech for soft-landing on other planets, so that's not so difficult, but the one piece that is unique, human landing, there is no independent evidence for. That doesn't strike you as odd? Carfiend 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly. What could we have done? Sent camera crews with the astronauts? Oh wait--if we did, they would be part of the conspiracy too, right? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The theory of the planets revolving about the sun within crystalline spheres was also "consistent", given sufficient tinkering, sub-spheres, etc., but turned out not to be the best fit for the observable facts. The hoax theories also fail on that account, because they have to keep adjusting them to fit the facts, whereas NASA does not, because their story is consistent; and the hard reality is that the hoaxsters have never been able to produce any actual evidence that the flights did not occur; no testimony, no secret film studio, no nothin'. Man being physically on the moon is not a problem. They had plenty of experience with men operating in the vacuum of space, thanks to the space-walks in Gemini, etc., so they had that technology down. In terms of getting there, they skirted the Van Allen belts, so that's not a problem either. Everything is accounted for. The fact that Kaysing might think it's a problem doesn't mean anything, since he couldn't even get his facts right about the rockets. Wahkeenah 00:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So your main argument for it is that NASA's story seems more 'consistent' to you? Carfiend 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My main argument is that hoaxsters have frequently demonstrated that they don't know what they're talking about. If they can't figure out the "waving flag" and the "starless photos", which are as obvious as can be, what possible hope do they have of interpreting more complex issues correctly? Wahkeenah 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

a couple of points:

1. title: not everyone is OK with it. Carfiend reference to the vote is pretty funny given his input on that particular topic. Obviously since te title comes up again and again it is not settled. 'Conspiracy theory' is an accurate descriptor and it is how the moon hoax is viewed my a significant number of folks. It may well be perjorative, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Accuracy is what we should aim for.

Only if you are committed to the article representing only your POV. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. NASA as the sole witness: discounting those parts that took place in space, there were hundreds of other witnesses as should be obivous. just as obvious is that there could be no other direct witnesses to the landings becuase, well they were the first ones there.

?? Discounting the parts of the landing that took place in space?! I'm astonished that you're able to even type that statement. Discounting the parts that are disputed, nothing is disputed. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. NASA as one thing: NASA is not a monolith. It is/was comprised on thousands of people from military personal , to civilian sub contractors, and so on. Many, many bright people sincerely believe that they worked on a real proeject. Either all those people are lying or they were fooled by the conspiracy too, but arguing that only NASA witnessed the events and that NASA is a monolith is erroneous on it's face.

Feel free to elaborate on NASA's structure. Your assumptions about how many people are lying is speculation by Plait - no one claims that. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. No Historical Record: Just becuase you don't accept the historical record, for reasons only you can know, doesn't make it dissapear. Has every last document, photo, and inch of video perserved? No. It would be unreasonable to expect it to be so given the volume of the record, the vast number of people involved and the time passed. Has all the important stuff been preserved, perhaps not, and that a pity but it doesn't prove anything. Stuff gets lost. All human organizations are inherently limited by human fallibility. Any person who has been involved in organizations of any size knows this as a irrefutable truth.

No indepedent record of the landing, virtually nothing left except a photo album. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Treatment as a social phenomena is inherently biased: it is a social phenomena. Even if everything the conspiracy theorists say is true. Even if we never left the planet and the apollo program completly staged. the human elements engaged in this topic make it a social phenomena. That should be one thing everyone can agree on, but pro-hoax zealots refuse to engage in this discussion other that to dismiss it out of hand.

OK, then let's write it as a social commentry on why people still believe NASA after all this evidence has been presented. No? Of course not. We should present the claims, and counter claims, that's the ONLY neutral way to do it. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. General course of debate on the talk pages is non-productive and likely to be cynical manipulations on the part of conspiracy theorists (see Carfiend's host of inflamatory and misleading intrepretations of what has been written here for examples. This editor is obviously not engaging ethically in the topic.) and, in some cases, anti-conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists clearly have no interest in improving wikipeida and no sense of creating a credible treatment of this topic. Articles like this one only serve to validate the claims of wikipedia detractors. This is article is a pyscophrenic sewer of bad writing, bad sources, and bad logic, more suitable to Ripley's Beleive It or Not than a credible and authoratative encyclopedia. This may fall on deaf ears but consider the wikipeida project as a whole instead of this pet project.

Your assumption of bad faith and accusations are disapointing. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Holocause Denial as a template reread some of the arguments for using that article as a basis for improving this one. Heck, go whole hog and actually read the Holocaust denial article. Note how the claims of deniers (minority) get more space than the claims of majority.

In fact, they don't. The Project Apollo pages get huge coverage for NASA's story. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. The facts are in dispute.

Agreed. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Both side are intractable. Neither one will likely convince the other.

I'm not convinced of this. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Evidence of either side is discounted by the other. This ain't changing. They're using different standards of evidence.

Not true. Most reasonable people have the same standard of evidence. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. One side is in a clear minority.

Yes, but the exact numbers are not clear, and that should not mean that the article is a strict democracy. The article makes the minority position of the hoaxers clear. Truth is not a vote. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. The minority side is making the most contentious claim that discounts the historical record.

The claims are certainly contentious, and the article makes that clear. There is no independent 'historical record'. Carfiend 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Numskll 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you bring up this offensive and inacurate claim. It has been responded to before, I can only assume you are trolling. There is no analogy between the two groups or the logic they use. See my response below. Carfiend 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. There is a great deal of similarity as I and others have pointed out. Your POV is not ubiquitous or infallible. I'm sincerely interested in improving the article as part of a general desire to improve wikipeida. I'm sincerely concerned that your treatment of the topic and your misue of the arguments of others is contra-productive and speaks to the notion of this article as a soapbox for conspiracy theorists. My response reflects that and, to quote, "Your assumption of bad faith and accusations are disapointing" Why the blatent double standard? Let's discusss high level improvements. Numskll 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to believe you're not trolling, but it's tough when you keep bringing up the false accusations that moon hoax proponents are in some way like NAZIs, even if the similarities are in their methodologies. It's a smear, and not a good one - the allegation is wrong, see below. There are no similarities between the methodologies, and keeping on banging on that drum is making you look like a troll. Of course the article is not a soapbox, but the article must discuss the theory. Your idea that if we could get the evidence off the page it would be better is pathetic. Carfiend 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article must discuss the theory What theory? I've yet to see a single consistent theory proposed by the Apollo-deniers beyond 'we never landed on the Moon'. I've asked a number of times what the theory is, but I don't remember you ever telling us. Mark Grant 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it clearer than 'it's right there'. The theory is that, rather than going to the moon, NASA faked it. I think you must be using the word in a different way to the rest of us though - in what ways do you think that the accusations are not theories? Carfiend 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this page should conform to the general standard of similar 'we have no evidence, but isn't this suspicious?' denial theories, whatever that may be. Mark Grant 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be convenient for you, you wouldn't be left looking like you had no answers. Carfiend 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you've misread my argument (seemingly as a convenience given your rhetoric that surronds this misreading ) and thrown in the Nazi card to boot. That's offensive. The similarites, as I and others have discussed, are strikingly valid and the wikipedia article, Holocause denial, is a good model for the way asymetrical views can be expressed. That's the similarity. No one is calling conspiracy theorists Nazi sympathizers (though I guess to take page from your book I personally don't have proof you are not so I guess you must be). Reread the arguments. Numskll 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read them. They are rubbish. There are no similarities between the two, and attempts to paint them as similar are academicly dishonest. It's a bad model for this page. Carfiend 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the similarities I've pointed out are evident and the model for the article is a valid one. Your inability to see the value for wikipedia of adopting such a model for this article is disappointing and misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of unbiased information, not a fan site for fringe groups. Numskll 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claims of similarity are based on faulty logic and weak slurs. They are biased, and not constructive. Carfiend 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely invite you to reconsider. I believe the model is valid for reasons I've repeatedly cited. I'm puzzled by your inability to enage in a substantive way given your evident mastery of the material. I invite you to consider that your extreme POV might be the root of your failure. Numskll 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The model is bad because it comes from your assumption that "I disagree with the Holocaust deniers", "I also disagree with the Moon Hoax people". Therfore: "Both of them are lunatics who should be treated as though their ideas are some kind of social pathology. The two groups share nothing in common. One is a racially motivated hate group proposing a massive global conspiracy of Jews, the other is saying that a small group of employees from one US govt agency are lying. Carfiend 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

your characterization of my argument in no way reflects that argument, but you know that. Numskll 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, those were the only coherent elements I could pull out. Please enlighten me. Carfiend 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

for enlightenment: See above. See the similar discussion that was recently archived of use of the wikipedia Holocaust Denial article as a model for this one. Once you've demonstrated a grasp of those points beyond simple pulling out whatever ridiculous out-of-context claim suits your POV, perhaps we can move forward. Given that your misreading of this position has been so extremely biased, your tactics in this discussion page seemingly so disengenious, I doubt that will happen, but let's give it whirl shall we? Numskll 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If by 'forward', you mean 'slanted towards the Numskull Point of View', then no, I doubt I will want to 'give that a whirl'. Your rants about Nazis and how it would be good to treat moon hoax proponents the same way are inarticulate and inacurate. Your claims are simply wrong. Carfiend 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The logic used is similar, even if the motivation is different. For the neo-Nazis, the motivation is to cause controversy, seek publicity, and sell books. For the Apollo hoaxsters... well, maybe their motives are not very different, after all. Wahkeenah 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations about motive are, I presume, baseless? Do you have any evidence concerning their motivation? No, thought not. Carfiend 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to expand your sense of humour. Wahkeenah 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I do. For some reason I don't find neo-Nazis as hilarious as everyone else around here. Carfiend 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallows humor. Wahkeenah 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend wrote, For some reason I don't find neo-Nazis as hilarious as everyone else around here. and Your rants about Nazis and how it would be good to treat moon hoax proponents. ....Please remain civil. No one was comparing anyone to a Nazi and you know it. These kinds of accusations are obnoxious, callous, willfully duplicitous and certainly uncalled for. Please remain civil. Numskll 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

What was Von Braun doing in Antarctica? What's the NASA story on this - I've looked, but can't find any explanation. Carfiend 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• How do you know he was there? I've heard this repeated many times by the hoaxsters. It might be true, but if only Kaysing reported it, and his copycats, then there's no independent verification of it. Wahkeenah 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, he definitely went there: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/13.html : oh, except that's a NASA site, so his trip to Antarctica must have been a hoax! Mark Grant 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ironic, ain't it? The hoaxsters are relying on NASA evidence to demonstrate that Von Braun went to Antarctica, without any apparent independent verification. That's technically known as a paradox. Maybe he went to Antarctica to throw the hoaxsters off, when the rocks were actually being collected at Addis Abbiba. Wahkeenah 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, Wahkeenah, I love your witty sarcasm. I really do. It never fails to get me rolling on the floor laughing. You are insightful, each phrase a delicate epigram, change but one sylable, and the whole delicate joke falls apart. But please, just once, a straight answer? What does NASA say Von Braun was doing in Antarctica? Carfiend 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It says he was exploring. Is there a law against that? Where's your evidence to the contrary? Sarcasm aside (which ain't easy), the hoaxsters have implied something sinister in his trip to the south pole, but they have no actual evidence there was anything sinister about it. They simply decided that was the reason for his trip (i.e. to gather ersatz moon rocks), so it became another false piece in their false puzzle. Wahkeenah 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's at least half-witty. Wahkeenah 00:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

With what aim? Why would a rocket scientist working on a moon program go exploring at the south pole at a time when (presumably) there was a lot of work to do on the moon program? Does that really not interest you? "intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth" is enough of an explanation for NASA to send him there? Carfiend 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the hoaxsters are the ones questioning it, they are the ones who need to prove something sinister. Were ex-Nazis not allowed to either have hobbies or take vacations? I might be interested in it if you had some evidence that he was there for sinister purposes. If you've got it, bring it on. Wahkeenah 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a genuine interest, I'm not debating it with you, since I don't have any evidence about what he did there, I'm just intrigued, since it wasn't a hobby or a vacation, he was there on NASA time. They give no explanation, there's nothing to explain what he did there, or why he went, beyond the fact that he was intrigued. I can't prove he brought back 'moon rock', but it's odd that there is no story about him being there for some other purpose. Carfiend 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of one of the hoaxsters' tricks. They raise a question based on some minimal information, and then expect someone else to do the research. Since this is of concern to you, then you should research the question. Maybe he talks about it in his autobiography, In German Or English, I know How to Count Down. Wahkeenah 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Und I'm learning Chinese," says Verner Von Braun! Actually, I notice it was asked on the Von Braun page a year ago, with no response so far. It seems very few people know what he was doing there... Carfiend 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That was nearly 40 years ago. How much do *you* recall of what you were doing 40 years ago? Anyhow, I don't know why he was there beyond what it says, and unlike Kaysing, I'm not going to seriously speculate on why he was there. But it's the typical conspiracy theorist approach (not you) to jump on something like this as being sinister, without any evidence to that effect. Wahkeenah 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'd been in Antarctica, I think I'd remember why. Carfiend 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if you were dead, as Von Braun is, I think. Wahkeenah 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wonder why I'm so negative on the hoaxsters, it's because I saw that 2001 Fox special. They started with the "waving flag" and the "no stars in the photos" nonsense, and I knew immediately that they were either incredibly ignorant, or liars, or both. I was truly offended by that program. It was a masterpiece of deception directed at anyone who knew nothing about the subject and might go, "Wow, dude, they might be onto something!" Wahkeenah 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not demanding that you research it for me, just enquiring whether you know. It's ok if it's a mystery to you too. Re Fox, mainstream media being in conspiracy against you is a sure sign of a conspiracy theorist! Carfiend 01:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fox is a Ruppert Murdoch property, and as Chicago columnist Mike Royko once observed, "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in Murdoch newspaper." Wahkeenah 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal grudge against the mainstream media aside, we're no closer to getting an explanation to why the chief rocket scientist was awol in the only place where moon rocks are found on earth at a time when he should have been working overtime on the rockets. Unless, of course, the rockets wern't going to the moon, and the only problem was where to get moon rocks... Carfiend 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that he was AWOL, and I don't know that it's been demonstrated that moon rocks can be found only (or even in) Antarctica. That might be true, but if Kaysing is the source, I would be skeptical. Meanwhile, it's a little hard to ask Von Braun, as I think he has gone to his Valhalla. Wahkeenah 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't know he was AWOL, but we don't have any explanation from NASA about why he was there at that crucial time. He's dead, for sure, which is convenient, but you'd think someone would be able to think up a real reason for him being there? Carfiend 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon rocks are not found only in Antartica, but it is easier to find them there. They are meteorites that are blasted off the Moon by large impacts. The current (Aug 2006) issue of Astronomy Magazine has an article about the process. The moon rocks found on the earth all show unmistakable signs of coming from a meteor, in direct contrast to the Apollo moon rocks. Bubba73 (talk), 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See this. Interestingly, the first lunar meteorite recognized as such was in 1982. And more of them have been found in Oman than in Antartica. Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but again, your logic is weak. "Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, minerals, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions." you're using circular logic. We know they come from space, because NASA brought them back from space. 1982? Erm? No, you're wrong on that, it was 1912 iirc. In the 1960s, Antarctica was the place to go. You argue from circular logic - you only know what 'moon rocks' look like because NASA shows you what it claims are moon rocks. Everything you 'know' about moon rocks is based on a religious belief in what NASA feedds you. Carfiend 05:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so go where it's easiest to find them. Rather than supervising the rocket program. Your comment about 'Apollo moon rocks' is flawed because the 'moon rocks' that you are being shown (except you're not being shown them) are the ones that NASA has given you. NASA controls the 'moon rocks', so they can look however NASA wants them to look. Carfiend 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But look - my question is simply "does anyone know why VB was in Antarctica". It's fine to attack me on my motivation for asking, how dare I? Isn't it obvious that NASA must have had a good reason? Why do you think they would tell you? It's ok that no one knows. Carfiend 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If only you had actual evidence that the Apollo programs did not occur, you'd be onto something. Wahkeenah 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I thought everyone knew that von Braun was visiting the secret Nazi launch site in Antarctica to get some tips on travel to the Moon. After all, the Nazis had had a lunar base for years by that time. Mark Grant 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Changing the subject? This thread is about trying to find out what VB was doing there. You continually try to drag the discussion off topic. I can't imagine why. Carfiend 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But the only evidence we have that von Braun was in Antarctica is from NASA. And you claim that NASA lied about something as important as the Moon landings: so why should we believe them on something as minor as von Braun going to Antarctica? Or do NASA only lie when they say something you disagree with? Mark Grant 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A good point, but one that I have an answer for. Much of the evidence for a hoax or cover up comes from inconsistencies in NASA's account. When you have a big lie, sooner or later the details drift out of sync with each other. Von Braun spending time in Antarctica while he should have been in Houston is only one. To be fair, your point is well made. All that the hoax proponents can ever really show without unfettered access to NASA is that NASA is lying. The specific truth will not emerge until a full investigation is allowed. Carfiend 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The hoaxsters have never demonstrated that NASA has lied about the Apollo program, and the assertion that Von Braun "should have been in Houston" is Kaysing's personal opinion. Speaking of which, what were the circumstances of Kaysing's 1963 departure? I have wondered whether he was canned (probably for incompetence), and whether his moon hoax fables were a way of getting revenge? That might give him more credit than he deserves, since the preponderance of evidence merely suggests that he doesn't know what he's talking about, technologically and otherwise. Wahkeenah 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron Miller claims Kaysing left Rocketdyne because of 'personal reasons'... which could be euphemism for anything, but probably nothing good. I'd guess, though, that Rocketdyne would be somewhat embarassed to employ someone who believed that the Apollo program was a hoax. And, as pointed out here on Wikipedia, he was apparently a graduate in English with no technical or scientific training. Hence an idea candidate for writing books about Moon hoaxes. Mark Grant 17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right that it is an assumption that two years before the first human trip to the moon the head of the rocket program should be on the job, but it seems a reasonable one. I'm open to other explanations about how he was prioritizing his time, but I'm not getting any. Your personal attacks on Kaysing are not something I'm interested in, I have no particular interest in defending him. Carfiend 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure that when you find the explanation, you will let us know. :) Wahkeenah 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the hoaxsters have spent plenty of time discussing the alleged "motivations" for NASA to fake the program, it is only fair to examine the "motivations" of those making such allegations. Wahkeenah 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The search for the truth! Carfiend 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So the hoaxsters claim. But do we have any independent verification of that assertion? Wahkeenah 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So back to the point (oh no!) what does NASA say VB was doing in Antarctica? Carfiend 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you pretend to care? We all know that if NASA has some perfectly sane reason for him travelling there, you'll claim they're lying, and we all know that no matter how much we point out that von Braun was a) well known and b) not an expert on geology you'll still claim that he was there on a secret mission looking for 'moon rocks'. So what's the point? Why don't you do some research for once and tell us? Mark Grant 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Typical - when you're out of places to run on facts, speculate over the motives of people who are looking for answers! Gravitor 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or looking to sell books. Wahkeenah 23:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Or steal 30 billion dollars?! Carfiend 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Mr. Lehrer. By the way, although my own grandparents used to complain that this was a waste of money (as Tom Lehrer did), but they never questioned that it happened, and they were much wiser than I in many ways. Wahkeenah 06:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I would love to find a way to get a Tom L ref into this article! Carfiend 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be out of scope, unless he ever said something suggesting that Apollo was a hoax. He was mostly making points about the expenditure, and about Von Braun's WWII role. Listening to that record is a nice window into what was going on politically in 1965. He talked about LBJ practicing "escallatio" on the Vietnamese. If only he knew how much worse it would get. Then there's one song where he mentions Helen Gahagan and... Ronald Reagan??? Little did he know how that would turn out. However, his comments about George Murphy's attitude on immigrant near-slave labor seem surprisingly current, as does his song "Send the Marines". Speaking of out-of-scope, I reckon this entire paragraph is such. Bedtime! :) Wahkeenah 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it's out of scope - but you're right - it's frightening how on target he still sounds. Carfiend 15:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

paper

Is there anyone with access to this who can take a look at it for us? http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/31 Carfiend 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon hoax / holocaust denial parallels

I see these movements as basically identical:

1) Only one source - lack of skeptical review:

Only the Jews and Nasa saw what really happened. Moon rocks, mass graves, and records can all be fakes. (Okay, the bodies were real, but you had thousands of people who could have made the bones of dead Nazis look Jewish and bury them.) The Jews were found by battle weary solders who were willing to believe anything bad about the Nazis, similarly the US public didn't want to disbelieve Nasa during the cold war.

Yeah. Everyone in the world, masses of independent groups, or part of one relatively small US govt agency. The same. Oh, that's right, not the same at all! The second world war happened in Europe. There were many, many independent witnesses. The moon hoax apparently happened in space. No witnesses. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference here is that NASA is the only one to supply all this evidence. During and after the holocaust hundreds of thousands of people saw the carnage. The Germans themselves documented it. There are no similarities. Actually, the German documentaion of the holocaust is much more convincing than NASAs. Much less seems to have been 'lost'. The only way to make it similar is if the US army had 'discovered' concentration camps that no-one else did, not let anyone else see anything except some photos and a bit of video, 'lost' most of the data, but insists that it was real. Then I'd see the parallels, but in the real world? No. Carfiend 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you choose to believe that Nasa has lost most of the moon landing data for six moon landings? Do you have a reference for this? See #5 below. Algr

2) Thousands of people can keep a secret:

The events alleged in both cases would have required the cooperation of thousands of people under difficult conditions. The footage of the moon landings is far more convincing then movies that took hundreds of skilled people to create, and the number of effect shots is hundreds of times greater then what appeared in the 2001 movie. How many people would it take to produce all this footage, and wouldn't they all recognize their work if they were all "fooled"?

As has repeatedly been pointed out, the thousands figure is made up by Plait. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, more absurd speculation. It's not 'convincing', it's blurred and grainy. The original hi res has been conveniently 'lost'. In fact, the video is so bad, that for a book, they faked a composit because you can barely see what's going on on the video. Carfiend 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

3) Absurd placement of trust and suspicion:

Hwang Woo-suk told one lie about stem cells. His career is over. Nothing he ever says again will be accepted by the scientific community, and his whole university has lost respect over it. The works of holocaust and Moon hoax deniers are filled with invented evidence and testimony, misquotations, misrepresentations of fact, painful logical fallacies, and proposals that they know have been discredited. Nevertheless, they demand to be treated as scientific equals, and cry censorship when they aren't. They call for mistrust of Nasa, Allied and even German records without any similar verified history of lying.

Utterly irrelevant hand-waving. Look at a south Korean stem cell researcher! That's the same as the moon hoax! Erm, except it's not. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what's the connection? Woo-suk got called out because his results were subject to peer review. NASA's have not been. I wonder why. Carfiend 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

4) Divergent standards of evidence:

Anyone can put up a web site claiming that Buzz Aldrin was an android or Hitler was secretly a Jewish pawn working to help build Israel, and if the site gets enough hits, Wikipedia will list the accusation. Only responses to these inventions must be held to the rules for the treatment of evidence. Despite claims of censorship and bias, I'm not aware of any hoax accusation that was ever removed from the article. But the comparison of the Moon hoax to Watergate was swiftly pulled, and not answered. Indeed almost every response present has been contested on technical grounds at some point.

The same standards of evidence are used by the hoax proponents. Only NASA wants to be excused from the requirement for independent evidence. They have no independent evidence of the landing. That on it's own is enough to raise serious questions. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. No independent witnesses. No ability to review the telemetry evidence. I think you're on shaky ground here. Carfiend 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

5) Why do it?

Holocaust denial is a way to attack Jews. Apollo denial has the same effect on science. No one contests the Roman Empire or Christopher Columbus's voyages because doing so won't make anyone angry. When Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face, Sibrel reacted like someone who had just achieved his lifelong ambition. His first thought was to excitedly make sure that their had been video coverage. Here on Wikipedia, hoax proponent FGJ flat out admitted that he did not believe what he was saying. This is the central fact of both articles, and belongs in the first paragraph.

Algr 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Crap. What "FGJ" has to do with anything, or why writing from a neutral point of view rather than one's own POV is a crime, I don't know. This is more endless speculation on motives that is a favorite of NASA believers. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

??? It's because there is a hate group against scientists? Please stop trolling. Carfiend 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually there kinda is. Many. Militant creationism, irrational opposition to animal testing to the point of destroying labs and attacking scientists (yes, someone can be rationally opposed to animal testing, but clearly there are group out there who go far beyond this), all kinds of faith healers, etc. It appears to me that there is in fact a large segment of the population which is resentful, and times even hateful, towards science and scientists. (not accusing anyone here of being anti-science, I'm just saying that it's not trolling to recognize that science has many enemies) --Jaysweet 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They're certainly not similar, but neither group seems to be very concerned about the harm they do to those who were directly involved (Engineers, Astronauts, Technicians, the military and their respective families)and, as I've stated repeatedly (after it was brought to my attention on these pages), the the wikipedia article on Holocaust denial does have a structure that we could utilize here to good effect, thus returning this article to a discussion of the topic at hand AND simutaneously making it not such an embarassment to the idea of a user edited encyclopedia at the same time. Let's discuss that possibility Numskll 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. I'm trying to ween myself off this page, but you continually posting this crap that has been endlessly explained to be irrelevant, offensive and wrong is more than I can take. Please stop it. Gravitor 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, the two are essentially identical in terms of credibility and likelihood. For the hoax proponents that disagree, please respond with facts and not emotion when disagreeing with this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you want people to ignore how offensive the idea is? OK. The problem is that they are not similar, as has been addressed above. The holocaust deniers need to have almost everyone in on it, since it happened in Europe. NASA claims the landings happened on the moon, and admits that there were no independent witnesses. Case closed. The two are not related at all. Gravitor 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit premature on the 'case closed', don't you think? There are more parallels than differences between the two structures. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there really aren't. This discussion was already had above, and archived. Numskull is just trolling, as far as I can see, trying to revive a dead discussion. It looks most like an attempt to Google-bomb to me. Carfiend 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, offense and the truth should not be compatible in a fact based conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not an invitation to make the most distasteful acusations you can think of again and again without any evidence. Carfiend 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I find the accusations made by this page distasteful, but unlike you and Gravitor, I continue to WP:AGF. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying. But it is really difficult with the insistance on dragging up this NAZI bullshit all the time. Carfiend 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is calling the hoax proponents nazis, what we're doing is identifying the similarities in structure between the Apollo hoax conspiracy and the No-Holocaust conspiracy. Please understand the difference. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Except there isn't any, so the connection is totally spurious, so why keep bringing it up except to inflame the debate and cause offense? Classic troll tactics. Carfiend 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please formalize your inference. Are you calling me a troll? I just need a yes/no. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting, I need an answer. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Algr started this heading. I posted afterwards. Carfiends explanations of why the Holocaust denial article would not make a good model for revisons to this one are as inflammatory as they are unconvincing and fail to sufficiently engage the topic -- not that Holocaust denial and the Apollo moon hoax conspiracy theories are the same but that the structure of the holocaust denial article may be a useful starting point for thinking about revision. Carfiends methods, invoking the spectre of Neo-Nazis at every turn, of 'argument' are obnoxious and they are ineffective . I'm just trying to improve this article. I'm not really sure what Google bombing is, or how this article relates to it, but I'd ask you to remain civil and cease accusing me of being a troll. Numskll 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not calling anyone a troll, just saying that inflaming the debate by bringing up irrelevant, emotive slurs is a classic troll tactic which we should all avoid. Carfiend 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

innappropriate

Whether the comparison is reasonable or not, it is inappropriate to over-discuss this point UNLESS there is a source external to wikipedia that makes this argument to cite, in which case it can safely be discussed in an NPOV manner. until then lay off the holocaust denial stuff. i kan reed

you fail to see the point of the comparison which is carefully and repeatedly ariculated above. I'd suggest you read the archive more carefully. Lay off the selective reading comprehesion stuff. Numskll 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

On methodology

OK, I can see we won't be allowed to hold the mooted higher level editorial conversation, until the case for having that conversation has been thrashed out. Carfiend tells us that the only basis he can see for any proposed comparison between the two sets of sceptics is entirely in the imagination of Apollo boosters. Then he asserts that "the two groups share nothing in common", and offers us his account of their different beliefs as proof of that. Five scene setters I'd appreciate Carfiend's considered thoughts on:

• What a group believes, and the means by which they arrive at their beliefs, are two distinct, separable issues. OK so far?

Sure. Carfiend 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Myself and others here have not once claimed that Apollo denial and Holocaust denial are in any sense related in terms of their specific, political content, have we? Is there a single example I've missed, somewhere? If there isn't, claiming that we're trying to smear Apollo deniers as 'Nazis' is either tragically misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting our case, isn't it?

For the sake of this excercise, let's assume that's true. Carfiend 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The parallel that is being drawn is purely the methodological one: that species of scepticism which expresses itself in a more-or-less random and potentially infinite series of objections to whichever mainstream story it scrutinises. Such scepticism is essentially impossible to disprove. No matter what the object of scrutiny is, it is always possible to invent another unanswered question, or to find a way to discount the answers already given. This was well known to Greek philosophers - it shouldn't be news here.

I disagree with your characterization. The Apollo sceptics are not random and infinate, they are in response to specific problems with NASA's story, and are limited pretty much by the number of errors in the narative that NASA presents. It would be easy to disprove if NASA had the evidence that it should have, for example, the original telemetry, hi res video, design documentation etc. Carfiend 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, here. Is it your case that the series of empirical errors Holocaust deniers 'discover' in the Holocaust story are of a different sort to those errors Apollo sceptics are interested in, and that's what differentiates their methods? Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This one? The HDs clearly start from the position of a racial hate ideology. Their whole story is built around a much bigger story of massive zionist conspiracy (as far as I can tell). On the other hand, there is no a priori axe to grind with the landing hoax. The theory stems from problems with NASA's 'evidence', such that it is. There is no underlying ideology, no a priori assumption of hoax, no global super-conspiracy (at least, not in the same sense). The two are unrelated except in the sense that all theories share certain superficial resemblances. Carfiend 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have often thought that the Holocaust deniers argued that there was no proof of a program of extermination, while at the same time seeming to approve of the idea of it. That aspect is obviously different from Apollo denial. However, too little attention has been paid to the motives of Kaysing and the other Apollo-skeptic writers. Until someone does such a study (and maybe someone has, I don't know), to say that there "is no underlying ideology" behind the Apollo denial is a questionable and premature assertion. Wahkeenah 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Too funny! Carfiend 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, it is clear to us both that Holocaust deniers have ulterior motives, stated or unstated. I won't go into what I think Apollo deniers' ulterior motives might be, as we would clearly disagree, but you'll want to account for their passion, somehow, if you want to claim they bring no agenda of their own to the material. Be that as it may, in terms of their behaviour - not their alleged beliefs - both sets of sceptics apply what looks to me like an identical method: niggling away at any detail of the story that captures their attention until they find an angle from which to cast doubt on it. When one doubt is proven baseless, they move on to another. Do you refuse to acknowledge that parallel? So far your argument for a methodological distinction between the two amounts to 'Holocaust deniers are snivelling liars, whereas Apollo deniers are Truth Seekers' - a POV it seems to me that Holocaust deniers could just as easily assert with the terms reversed. Can you dig any deeper? Adhib 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Adhib 21:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• The parallel method additionally has much in common with the features listed as characteristic of conspiracy theory.

Not true. This is a common accusation of people who lump all hoax theorists together as one group, and attacking the weakest, as if they were charactistic of all. Carfiend 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Asserting that the claim is not true doesn't prove it so - some proof is really wanting. If you'd be kind enough to review the features isolated in conspiracy theory, it's undeniably true that points 2,6,10,11 and 12 apply in at least some examples of Apollo denial, and 5 and 14 arguably do, too. Such things certainly apply also to Holocaust denial. That has to be relevant to a discussion of methodological similarities. Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the section you're talking about? I dealt with this below. Since there are no similarities, it's irrelevant. Carfiend 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no indeed - I meant to refer you back to the bullet point above, to do with the differences I think you have yet to define between the two scepticisms. Adhib 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory features

OK, let's deal with this one once and for all. Again. These 'features' are so broad, that most theories meet at least some. Let's see how NASA and the whistleblowers do.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

Limited and partial evidence? Both NASA and the Hoax proponents meet this one. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

Yep, both meet this one. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

No, neither really meet this one. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait , please expand on why the hoaxers don't meet this one. Don't they claim that the data Nasa claims is missing, in fact never existed? Don't they claim that various percieved oddities with the historical record are evidence of a plot, while Nasa claims that they are misinterpretations? Numskll 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to have lost the entire telemetry and hi quality video for what is claimed to be the first trip outside earth orbit does strain credability, so sure, there might be a bit of that. Carfiend 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That assertion is an opinion, not an absolute. NASA is a bureaucracy, and they weren't flying the Apollo program any more, so there was not necessarily an urgent need to keep track of that stuff. Yes, they should have kept better track... and if they knew someone was going to make a big deal out of it, maybe (though not necessarily) they would have. You should maybe do some research to find out how much other engineering stuff from totally unrelated government agencies from 40 years ago is also missing, before drawing any inference about whether there is anything unusual about NASA having misplaced their own stuff that was, after all, obsolete by then. For a sort-of comparison, I saw a news story recently that one of the major networks had just uncovered a tape of raw footage of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Interesting stuff. And it had been thrown in a box somewhere and nearly forgotten about. Someone happened to find it, before it was about to be tossed. And this is a private, profit-driven organization; obviously a valuable piece of footage, yet they treated it like yesterday's newspaper. So it is not necessarily reasonable to argue that the way a moon hoaxster thinks NASA should have preserved and protected this info squares with the realities of the way old stuff is often (mis)handled. For another example, you sometimes hear about evidence in criminal trials having been lost after some years have passed. It's a reality. It happens. The hoaxsters have presented no statistical backing for their claim that there is anything unusual or mysterious about it. Wahkeenah 00:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

No, not really either. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

Perhaps NASA meets this, they do claim to have done something no one else did. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this,'unique discipline, unrepentant resolve', go to the willingness by hoaxers to believe that Nasa could hold such a grand conspiracy together? I ask because I querstion the fact that the hoax hasn't been blown wide open by now. Numskll 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:No, not really. It is unravelling right now. Carfiend 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Nope, although perhaps NASA relies on this, eg "we have an LEM in a museum, so we must have gone to the moon". Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

NASA uses this somewhat, the hoax proponents do sometimes. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

Both NASA and the hoax proponents claim the other does this. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

No, not really, people involved with NASA contractors and NASA employees propound the theory. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

NASA and the hoax proponents claim this of the other. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

The hoax has this characteristic. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

Not really. No ellaboration has really been necessary. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But you'd agree that this is a common charge made against hoax proponents, right? Doesn't just such a debate take up a considerable part of the talk pages here? Numskll 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The hoax theory does not get more complicated in response to 'evidence', because no evidence is ever introduced. Carfiend 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But you'd agree that that is precisely what 'pro-NASA' people say, that the hoax gets more complicated. NASA does claim to produce evidencee, even if you don't accept it? Wouldn't you agree that part of the assertation is true?

It does get more complicated. To every response, they have to come up with a further flight of fantasy to try to explain it away. To use a simple example, they start talking about the "waving flag". When that is demonstrated to be false, they say, "Maybe the film was doctored." They say there is no independent evidence of the flights. When that is demonstrated to be untrue, their next step is to say, "Maybe they launched unmanned vehicles with phony signals coming from them." All of these "maybes" presented without any actual evidence in support of them. It reminds me of creationists who explain the dinosaurs by saying "Maybe Satan put the bones in the ground to deceive us." In fact, the existence of several moon hoax "theories" are a symptom of this situation. When you start with false assumptions, you can end up with many conflicting "reality constructs". If you accept the historical record of the Apollo program, there is no inconsistency, nor can the hoaxsters demonstrate that there is any. Maybe the whole thing was a gigantic hoax. But the hoaxsters have presented no evidence of it whatsoever. I keep waiting. Where is it??? Wahkeenah 00:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The 'film was doctored' claim is not in response to a response about the flag. Those are two separate issues arrising from issues in NASA's evidence. Gravitor 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to this comment: "'the flag is waving because Buzz is shaking it' vs 'Buzz is trying to stop the flag from waving', but since the video is NASA anyway, and we don't have the original hi-res, we can't really know. Carfiend 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you. See Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored. In that light, don't you think that the pro hoaxers do meet this criteria 70.160.231.253 00:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

No, it's a small group who are accused. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service.

No, not really. Carfiend 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

These are frivolous ripostes, not arguments, Carfiend, and I've apparently distracted you from the issue I think is decisive, which was my point just above this new sub-head. I hope you can muster the patience to entertain that point, too. Adhib 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not frivolous, except in the sense that you bandy around accusations that, when examined, look that way. I'll take a look at what you point out. Carfiend 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that your patience is sorely tested, here. But please note I specified which of the features undeniably apply to at least some examples of Apollo scepticism. Your ripostes would be an answer of sorts to a point I am neither making nor interested in making (that the methodologies of Apollo deniers and Apollo boosters are incomparable). For now, I'll assume you were distracted by your passion for the issue, and were not deliberately engaging in sleight of hand, there. Adhib 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a response to an accusation you made. If you are going to randomly sling accusations, please don't complain when they are debunked. Carfiend 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For the second time, I recommend you reconnect with what I said, not what you recall I said - here, I'll even quote you the relevant point: "it's undeniably true that points 2,6,10,11 and 12 apply in at least some examples of Apollo denial, and 5 and 14 arguably do, too. Such things certainly apply also to Holocaust denial. That has to be relevant to a discussion of methodological similarities." To this point, you have raised no answer, acting as if I had asked a different question and pretending I have claimed all 14 features in the list are of relevance to this discussion. Milk and two sugars? Adhib 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait. i just want to point out that in the post atomic bomb era there as a sort of reaction against science, against which the point above could been seen as valid. Look at the charactures of scientists in media from the era. Numskll 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a vast conspiracy to slur science. More comedy from the pro-NASA front. Carfiend 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That bit of hyperbole wasn't responsive, re 'vast conspiracy to slur science.' So your contention is that, following the atomic bomb, there was no anti-science lietmotif in populer media and that this non-existent motiff therefore could not be construed as a positvie indicator towards point 14 on part of the hoax theorists? What about the flying saucer scares? Couldn't they too be part of a broader anti-science sentiment?

• The parallel in methods gives rise to a parallel editorial problem for wikipedia - how to structure an article in order to handle the kinds of controversy which emerge in these circumstances. Holocaust denial has a structure which is proving stable, in a much higher-stakes controversy than this one.

Since there is no 'parallel method', there is no editorial problem. We simply have to report the facts, as the NPOV policy tells us. Anything different is the wrong approach. Carfiend 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this conclusion prejudges the reasoning you have yet to set out here. I appreciate this isn't where you want to focus your energies, but perhaps you might think of it as your chance to put the record straight on the methodological question.Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there needs to be a distinction made between comparing Holocaust denial with Apollo denial, which I can't disagree is, in fact, offensive; vs. comparing the article about Holocaust denial with this article. It should be possible to model one article on the other without drawing any direct comparison between Nazis and Apollo questioners. However, maybe you would want to post a proposed article on that subject here first, and see if it flies. Wahkeenah 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think with Carfiend's full agreement that we may separate what one believes from how one comes to that belief, we are entitled to discuss this purely in terms of methodology, not in terms of this or that political association. Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough already. This has all been dealt with and debunked. Let's move on. Carfiend 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the rush, already? Let's get this settled. Adhib 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no rush. Look at the archives. It's been debated to death already, and completely debunked. Carfiend 19:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Only in your opinion. However, maybe the solution to all this brouhaha is to have two articles: one that outlines the alleged hoax the way the hoaxsters want it to read, and one that answers every question they bring up. Wahkeenah 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider what Wikipedia:content forking says. Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm just wondering if it would make sense in this situation, to reduce the combativeness. Wahkeenah 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, B, I think my earlier suggestion escapes your forking warning on grounds of Wikipedia:summary style. Adhib 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew I had seen it somewhere before. :) Wahkeenah 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the motivation is partisan, and not really concerned with article quality (except the sense that you think that an article that more closely conforms to you POV would be better quality). If the issue is length, then I have no a priori problem with the summary style, but I think it would have to be done very carefully. Carfiend 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that this would be a concern. But consider - if we can frame the topic in a way which is acceptable to all parties, and reserve empirical disputes to a summary page, the blizzard of reverts here will dramatically fall - as it can be demonstrated has occurred in the example which dares not speak its name - and we can, I think, move up to a new level of refinement of the content here. Adhib 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, sumarize it on the main page, and put the details on another page? I think that would be OK, as opposed to all pro-hoax on one page and anti-hoax on another. BTW, there is so much talk here, I can't read but a fraction of it. Bubba73 (talk), 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, it sounds like a way for the NASA camp to wriggle out of trying to answer difficult questions. One of the strengths of this layout is that you can easily see which questions NASA has a good answer for and which one they don't. Gravitor 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the idea was to give the moon hoaxsters some "wriggle room", as it is they who keep whining about how this page is too "biased". If they had a page of "their own", they could put write it in a way they consider unbiased. Then a separate page could carry the challenges and responses/explanations. Perhaps that approach would indeed give too much credence to the hoaxster side. Wahkeenah 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's one megillah after another, but if it cuts down on the revert wars, hopefully it's worth it. Wahkeenah 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the fact that there is much arguing over how the page should be constructed. But we can continue on this same mode, that's fine. Wahkeenah 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Things that NASA has in common with Neo Nazis

1. One of their senior staff was an SS Officer, and was involved in slave labor camps. 2. Neo Nazis have no independent evidnce for their claim, neither does NASA. 3. NAZIs were accused of killing people who disagree with them. So is NASA. 4. Do I need to go on? This is offensive, stupid and wrong. It prevents real debate by inflaming the dialogue. It is a troll tactic, and should stop. Carfiend 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you want the NASA page. Your comment doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic at hand. and BTW, don't you think what your doing is trolling? Numskll 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I was doing it to prove a point, which I should not have done, but your insistance on poisoning the well with your offensive suggestions is getting beyond tollerance. Carfiend 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:POINT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I just said above, in my irritation, I sunk to those same tactics to prove a point. I should not have done that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Carfiend 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, my aim is to improve the article. I think the parallels I and others have drawn could be productive in revising this article to be more encyclopedia like and less fan page like. Please consider how your POV might be causing you to take offense where none was intended. Please consider how your direct persona attacks against those who disagree with you might be causing some offense of there own. Please consider that that others may also hold sincere opinions that may not agree with your own. Please consider that your insistence that a thing is true/fasle does not make it so and that otthers may not be convinced by your assertations but lack of being convinced doesn't make them a troll. please try to remain civil Numskll 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am remaining civil. I don't think we have anything more to say on the whole NAZI thing. You have your POV, which seems unshakable by actual fact, and I have drawn my conclusions, having looked at your suggestions. We are not in agreement, and I do not see this discussion going anywhere positive. Thank you. Carfiend 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some wiki writers are touchier than others here. I've occasionally had some of them run to "mommy" when my own comments went over the line. That's something I typically won't do; I would rather settle it face-to-face (or technically keyboard to keyboard), if possible, unless someone gets into an obnoxious revert war, which does happen here from time to time, but it's been far worse on some other pages. However, be very careful about labeling someone a sockpuppet, as that is apparently considered a very offensive charge on this website, unless you can prove it. I don't take it personally, but many do. Wahkeenah 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while you didn't point that out to SA, you did speak up when you did not have to when he was acusing people. Kudos. Carfiend 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But you're the only person calling anyone Nazis, and your POV certainly doesn't seem to have been changed in the slightest by the rebuttal of pretty much every claim you've made of 'evidence' of lunar landings being hoaxed. But then if someone was interested in facts, why would they be an Apollo-denier? Mark Grant 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The only person I am calling a NAZI is Verner Von Braun, and he was a NAZI, so I don't see that as a problem. You claim rebuttal, but I don't accept that - I don't find your explanations convincing. Carfiend 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the Tom Lehrer song was a little unfair, though it was certainly funny. I don't know that Wernher Von Braun was ever accused of war crimes (that peculiar distinction between "fair" and "unfair" killing in wartime), he was just doing what he was told to do, flying his Vergeltungswaffe rockets (a.k.a V-rockets; ya gotta love them German words). He and his cohorts were both snapped up by the Americans and the Soviets, so those countries were being just as "expedient" as those men were. In reviewing the article, it occurred to me that his death at a relatively young age, apparently following a vehicular accident, is something the hoaxsters overlooked. Given their tendency to read between the lines, I'm surprised they missed the chance to claim he was threatening to speak out. Wahkeenah 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, perhaps, unfair to treat him as a NAZI, since he was, in many ways just doing his job. However, he was involved with slave labor camps, and his apparent willingness to work for the NAZIs and then the west shows what I think is a chillingly mercenary streak (just my opinion). He was never accused of war crimes. He designed weapons that could only really be used to attack large civilian populations, but did not make the decision to use them, and in any case, was far more useful as a scientist alive and free. Re his death, it is mentioned by some theorists, I just don't think anyone has got around to writing about it here. Carfiend 01:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes... so many conspiracies, so little time. Wahkeenah 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

paper

Not surprisingly, the one thing on this page relating to facts, and not nazi smears, got no response. Is there anyone with access to this who can take a look at it for us? http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/31 Carfiend 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't access it. And from the summery, I don't see what it has to do with the moon hoax. Algr 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about what was happening in Antarctica in the late 60s. I am trying to find out what NASA says VB was doing there. Carfiend 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. Wahkeenah 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be a good source, but it's not on the web: "Space Man's Look at Antarctica," Popular Science, Vol. 190, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 114-116, 200 (from http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/vbbiblo.html). Of course I'm sure it's all faked anyway. Mark Grant 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I requested a biography of von Braun today through inter-library loan. Perhaps that will settle it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

von Braun was a remarkable person. Fifteen years before anyone knew that there were lunar meteorites on Earth, he made a trip to Antarctica and gathered over 1,000 pounds of them - even though only about 90 such stones have been found since! And the ones he found did not show signs of a fiery trip through our atmosphere, unlike the others. And unlike the others, the surfaces of his did show signs of being exposed to space for billions of years. And he was able to fool geologists all over the world. Or else all of the geologists are in on the conspiracy. Just like all of the astronomers and physicists have to be in on the conspiracy with that change in the surface gravity of the moon they had to pull off. All of the encyclopediasts have to be in on it too. And I just realized that I'm part of the conspiracy, and I shot JFK too.

Thank you! Appreciate it, Carfiend 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can access the paper. It does indeed shed light on WvB's motivation for the trip. Simultaneous with the space program, an Antarctic program was taking place, and it was thought that the two could learn from each other. The South Pole was the closest thing to Outer Space in terms of hostility towards human survival. Albert Crary, NSF’s chief scientist, 1962: "the choicest test ground [for space exploration] on the planet is the land and water surrounding the southern pole."

WvB seems to have been especially interested in using experience with polar stations to design a lunar station, both in terms of technology and in dealing with medical and psychological problems in isolated conditions. One Antarctic researcher (not named) is quoted as saying "von Braun flew in to see our moon station". TeraBlight 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the WvB biography "Dr. Space" from the library today. There is no mention of Antartica in the index. What are they trying to hide? Bubba73 (talk), 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How dare Dr. von Braun go to the south pole for a legitimate scientific purpose? Nah, he only wanted the hoaxsters to think he was going to Antarctica to collect fake moon rocks, whereas he was actually in the U.K., working with Stanley Kubrick, et al, to create those rocks artificially, from the same materials Stanley was using to build the 2001 set which, as we all know, looks exactly like the Apollo footage of the lunar surface. Wahkeenah 05:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it. And you see how there are no stars in the photo that supposedly shows him in Antarctica? That's because they've edited them out, so that we don't see that the constellations are all wrong for the southern hemisphere! TeraBlight 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, somebody should check out movies about the poles being made around that time. Maybe von Braun got some useful footage from Ice Station Zebra, as part of his plan to fake his trip to the Antarctic. Wahkeenah 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That was Howard Hughes' favorite movie. Come to think of it, I bet I've stumbled upon the answer. The entire NASA program was a Hollywood production, funded by Howard Hughes. It all fits into place. In fact, he talks all about it in his autobiography. Wahkeenah 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

JFK

If you want a structure guide, this is pretty good John F. Kennedy assassination. Carfiend 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was also thinking of the JFK situation, in lieu of the hot-button topic of the Holocaust. Again, though, the parallels are debatable, because there was immediate suspicion of a plot by the Soviets, and the government went to great pains to paint it as a lone act in order to downplay anything that could trigger an international incident. The family also did their best to keep a lid on things, and all the secrecy fed the conspiracists. At the time, few openly discussed the possible Mafia connection, which sounds more plausible than most of the theories. However, after all this time, despite boatloads of suspicions in all manner of contradictory directions, posed by endless theorists trying to sell books, nothing substantive has emerged to definitively demonstrate that it was anyone other than Oswald. So, in that sense, it does make a good parallel: tons of questions, and ultimately you go back to the original and realize that that's the way it was. Wahkeenah 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - although I would say that most people have resigned themselves to the fact that key evidence has been destroyed at this point, and we will probably never know the truth, rather than accepting the govt's story at face value. Carfiend 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The same was said of the Lincoln assassination. Wahkeenah 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Carfiend 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'Intelligent Design' may be another. Mark Grant 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the level of Revert Wars on that page and/or the Evolution page (which I obviously have not checked lately). If the editors have found a way to keep things relatively calm, it would be worth a look. Wahkeenah 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a little different, it is an overtly religious campaign to take control of education and create a wedge on separation of church and state, it's not really an argument about creation. Carfiend 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

but not Kennedy assassination theories - there is no critical examination of most of the theories. Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are so many, and contradictory, it's hard for a debunker to know where to begin. I used to wonder about it also, although I was convinced from Day 1 that Oswald was involved, due to the attitude he copped to the press while under custody (can you believe they allowed a brief, live interview with the accused assassin? Things were different then) and I remain convinced that he was a triggerman if not necessarily the only triggerman. But the parallel with the Apollo hoax story is not all that parallel, although I'm fairly certain that a fair number of JFK conspiracists turned their attention to Apollo once the JFK story began to run out of steam. Wahkeenah 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as with most cover-ups, many theories are proposed - without full access to the information, th truth may never be known. In the case of the JFK killing, things like the 'magic bullet' indicate something is wrong, but not who perpetrated the killing. It's similar with the NASA hoax - the evidence points to a cover-up, but the details cannot be known without more information. Obviously that will not be forthcoming until a full and independent review can be undertaken. Carfiend 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a parallel in the theories. In JFK there are many "theories", but there are no alternative theories that are (1) consistent with the facts (2) have evidence to support them, and (3) are detailed enough to be verifiable. By that, I mean that they are all vague: "the Cubans did it", "the Mafia did it", "the CIA did it", "the Russians did it", "the federal reserve did it", etc. The "theories" listed in this article are similarly vague. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly general common ground: (1) many and varied and contradictory theories, each based on a list of "evidence" that is chosen for the purpose of fitting the theory; and (2) no actual evidence, the absence of which is also claimed as "evidence" by the dissenters. Wahkeenah 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep - all we need to do is to say it leads to child mollestation and terrorism, and we'll be in good shape! Carfiend 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And Nazism. Wahkeenah 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(That sarcastic remark assumes I have any clue what you're getting at, which I don't.) Wahkeenah 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you do! Just list a lot of irrelevant, unrelated bad things, and you're done with your counterarguments! Carfiend 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Wahkeenah 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are in outline form here, so of course they are vague. You don't want to reproduce the books here do you? Carfiend 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the JFK conspiracy page you often see a point razed in one section, and a counter argument many paragraphs away. I think we already have a better structure, with each issue dealt with to its conclusion. Another difference is that the JFK conspiracy proponents have far stronger arguments, with no insulting ones like Nasa doesn't know better then to shield the film from radiation. I think it is a good idea to have a section comparing the moon hoax to other conspiracies, including real ones like Watergate and Piltdown Man. Algr 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In an argument this tense, things being razed is not that uncommon, unfortunately. Carfiend 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The thing to do is remain calm, and try to get past tense. Wahkeenah 12:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I complain, but I'm actually beginning to like you! Carfiend 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't get used to it. >:) Wahkeenah 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

naming convention

I HAVE IT! I saw you use the word skeptics, and it fits perfectly "apollo mission skeptics" when introduced and later in the article changed to "skeptics". Additionally "Skepticism" when talking about the notion. It sounds NPOV and accurate to me. I'd like to hear other people's opinions first though. i kan reed 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to 'Apollo skeptics', or 'Landing skeptics'. Carfiend 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that, though I think it has dignified philosophical overtones that are somewhat undeserved. Adhib 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but if it would reduce the contention, it would work. Except I would suggest "Apollo skepticism", unless you want to make it specifically about the hoaxsters themselves. You can't bring "landing" into it because some of the hoax hypotheses concede that landings occurred. Wahkeenah 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Landing skepticism works, even those who believe the landing happened are skeptical that it happened in the way it was described. Carfiend 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Apollo [mission] skepticism" or "Apollo [mission] landing skepticism"? I like the first one, since the second one is implicitly self-limiting in scope. Wahkeenah 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean association with the skepticism movement? That doesn't bother me too much because they are the originators of the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Just because I personally beleive that there is such proof doesn't mean that the notion doesn't fall under skepticism. If you mean that the term skepticism is somehow anagonistic I'd like to see an example of it used in that light. To me, it seems apt, without being indicative of anything attacking or defensive inherently. i kan reed

I mean, rather, that it might tend to muddle (in a way that seems overly generous) two entirely different attitudinal stances - the respectable philosophical one, with fine intellectual antecedents, established strengths, weaknesses and appropriate applications, on the one hand ... and a kind of hayseed obstinacy in the face of anything asserted beyond the hayseed's immediate experience. But as I say, I can live with it. Adhib 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, if you read the ravings of Kaysing and his devotees, "hayseed" often fits. I don't think we could call the page "Apollo hayseeds", though. Wahkeenah 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, but if you didn't disagree we could be missing something important already. While I agree that there is obstinance among people with these views, which I must confess I personally beleive to be ridiculous, calling them obstinant is opinion and NPOV 100%. Now, if you had a quote from a respected member of the science community regarding obstinence(I beleive there may have been something like that in popular science), that could be included on a section about how they are viewed by a certain subset of people. It is best not to include any inherent attack in the name given to the beleivers, and I don't see skeptics carrying sufficienct positive connotations to be undue and inherent praise of someone. i kan reed 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Apollo skepticism" indeed confers more dignity than it deserves. This is following the Christian concept that if you treat someone with dignity, over time they might actually acquire some. Wahkeenah 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This humanist can say a hearty Amen to that. Adhib 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And, in the interest of equality, Awomen. :) Wahkeenah 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (I stole that one from Mark Russell). Wahkeenah 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

getting back on topic, in addition to changing the interior of the article, would changing the article name to reflect this ALSO be a good thing and leaving a suitable redirect here?

Well, what is the actual proposed title? Carfiend 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Program Hoax Theories Numskll 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going for "apollo missions skepticisms"- brief, generally descriptive, not inherently unkind, and a straightforward summary of the idea. i kan reed 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As my Uncle Wernher used to say, "Sehr gut!" Wahkeenah 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the theories relate specifically to the moon landings, not the entire program. Carfiend 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire program was about getting to the moon and landing on it (and returning). That was its purpose. They are synonymous. Wahkeenah 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that too, Carfiend, but don't some versions of the theory claim that a real attempt to reach the moon was never tried? Thus, the reference to the program as a whole. 70.160.231.253 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone skeptical of Apollo 7 or 9, which stayed in low earth orbit. When I've asked if they are skeptical of Apollo 8, 10, or 13, which went to the moon but didn't land, I can't get a straight answer. Bubba73 (talk),

I think the title needs to contain the phrase 'moon landing' to be descriptive of the real crux of the theories. Quite honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the current title - no one has really explained what the issue is. Carfiend 06:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the guy who temporarily renamed the article a week or two ago. Wahkeenah 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't really matter either way whether it's "moon landing" or "apollo missions," but in the interest of trying to get this figured out, "apollo missions" makes slightly slightly more sense because it specifically indicates nasa(most people don't seem to care about anything else landing on the moon)

I like it the way it is. I'd vote to keep it, unless someone has some pressing reasons why they hate it. Gravitor 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the guy who temporarily renamed the article. I'm not married to any particular title. Wahkeenah 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I changed the title to something like 'Apollo Moon hoax conspiracy Theories' it stayed that wway for about 45 seconds. before it was changed back AND I was accused of being a POV jihadist for daring to make that change without having it vetted by the moon hoaxers. My point in making the change is that I think conspiracy theories was more accurate. The discussion above on conpsiracy theories would seem to bear that out. I vote let's change it back. to 'Apollo Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theories' unless we can find acceptable evidence that:

1. The hoax actually occurred. Then we can delete the Apollo program page and put this one in its place.
2. It turns out the hoax theorists bleive that the hoax perpetrated by only one person or by a group of people acting separately without communicating with each other.

I know some people who don't believe in the hoax think that calling the hoax idea a 'theory' is glorifying it, because, in part, hoaxers don't present an idea of what actually happened but instead, what didn't happen. I think the theory is that the hoax occured as a result of a conspiracy. That makes the title a good one. Numskll

The current title: "Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations" is accurate and clear. I vote for it. People are making accusations, but not presenting a theory of what happened instead. (Denying a theory is not a theory in itself.) I don't recall that anyone is denying the Apollo program, just the parts that happened outside the radiation belts. Algr 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the hoax happened is a theory: 'NASA faked all or part of the moon landings.' The landings themselves, in the event they happened, are not theories but historical facts, RE: 'Denying a theory is not a theory in itself'. If they didn't happen, then they are hoaxes, still not theories. I don't believe that 'accusations' is as precise or a desrcriptive as 'theories' because the latter doesn't take into account the respnses to those accusations in the same way as the former does. Also using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' links the hoax phenom to the larger social entity, as is appropriate given the discussion above on conspiracy theories. 70.160.231.187 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I argue that they are accusations, as opposed to the normal concept of a "theory". They are not a true "theory", more of a "hypothesis". However, "conspiracy theory" fits. However, it's pointless to try to force that title, as it is one step short of saying "looneys". Wahkeenah 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a typical piece of nonsense. In what way is it not a theory? Carfiend 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory, which involves making observations and hypotheses, then conducting repeatable experiments and/or making further observations to confirm or adjust or disprove the developing principles of the theory. It might be a "theory" in the layman's way of using the term (hence the false statement about evolution that "it's only a theory";; they think a "theory" is a "hypothesis"). The Apollo flights were not a "theory", either; they were a technology and engineering achievement. Nor were the reported events a "theory", they were well-documented and well-covered historical events. I wish you had been around then; you would have a different perspective. Wahkeenah 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things. 1. Yes, it is a theory which makes observations and hypotheses, and 2. NASA's 'theory' does not meet this criteria. The theory is that NASA faked the landings. This generates testable hypotheses like: "If the landings are fake, we should not be able to find detailed, hard to fake evidence like the telemetry data." If we can find the telemetry data, we can reject the hypothesis that the mission was faked. "If the landings are correct, we should not find inconsistencies in the photographic and video presented". We can reject this, because of all the inconsistencies. etc etc. Carfiend 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Methodology, redux

Just there, the Apollo deniers' methodology once again stands revealed as indistinguishable from certain other types of 'alternative theorists' whose identity we dare not mention. The relationship between conviction and arbitrary evidence (sorry, 'theory' and 'hypthesis') is identical. Adhib

As I said, the Apollo saga is not a "theory", it's a set of events. The converse of the first "If", which you would like to use to imply fakery due to their absence, is not logically valid. The second "If" does not preclude fakery (or allegations thereof). To put it a little more tartly, they can't even tell if a flag is waving, so how easy would it be to fake some data for them? Therefore, the presence or absence of such data is irrelevant. The third "If" implies inconsistencies, which have been alleged but not demonstrated beyond doubt. Obviously, some people see things differently than others do. Therefore, the alleged inconsistencies are insufficient. Wahkeenah 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You assert the claim that it's not a theory again, with no evidence. Then you go into whether or not you agree with the theory. We're not talking about whether you believe the flag is being shaken by Buzz or blown by a fan, we're talking about whether it's a theory. Carfiend 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need evidence beyond knowledge of the language we all share (to varying degrees) to 'prove' the Apollo landings are not NASA's theory. Either they happened, in which case it is a historical fact, or they didn't happen, in which case it is a lie, a hoax, or a conspiracy. The hoax proponents do a have a theory or theories, even if they are not fully articulated (I don't know whether they are not); That elements witihn NASA faked the moon landings to varying degrees for various reasons. The fact that they don't accept or recognize or value the evidence that NASA and others have produced is another matter entirely. Numskll 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously, to the extent that NASA is practicing religion rather than science, it does not have a theory, but to the extent that we are trying to determine the truth, we have two theories, the hoax theory, and the landing theory. NASA promotes one, the landing skeptics the other. Various data is available, and which theory most closely fits the data is contested. Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[Carfiend], your response fails to engage the topic athand and seems designedto be offensive and absurd. Please review the topic and revise your tone. Numskll 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article, Theory. In common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think.

OK, I see. I am trying to impose the notion of "scientific theory" on this conspiracy theory, whereas it's more like "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". That follows. And it follows that the Great Unwashed dismiss Evolution as "just a theory", because they think it's "just conjecture", "just speculation", or "just opinion" rather than what it is, which is a "scientific theory". Wahkeenah 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Again, slurs without evidence. What features of a theory does the hoax theory not have, in your opinion? Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two separate, but related languages Numskll 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean "English", and "NASAshillish"? Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Or "English" and "Kaysinglish". Wahkeenah 02:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review my post dated, 19:08, 27 July 2006, for a meaningful treatment of the 'two separate languages' (and try to remember that it is a metaphor) issue and cease the meaningless and immature bickering. This is not a school yard. Numskll 13:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Where is this notion coming from that NASA's data have not been subject to peer review? The records are public, and are probably some of the most widely read science ever published. Even this discussion would count as peer review except that we aren't qualified to call ourselves NASA's peers. (But tens of thousands of people around the world are, including Russians and Chinese who have their own space program.) Algr 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's just another hoaxster red herring. One of them makes this undemonstrated (and demonstrably false) assertion, and soon they are all parroting it. Wahkeenah 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the peer review of the telemetry data? Oh, right. It's 'missing'. Where is the evidence, beyond some photos and 'moon rocks'? There is no data that does not originate in a NASA lab. Carfiend 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one of the six missions' telemetry is missing. Why are the other five so stunningly unimportant? Algr

That's not true - the others are missing also. Carfiend 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is done on publications not data. 70.160.231.187 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that the original data is unavailable for independent examination? Carfiend 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The publications CONTAIN the data. Algr

So you admit that the original data is unavailable for independent examination? Carfiend 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Call your congressman, offer to spend your life savings to fund looking for this data (or at least to fund his re-election campaign), and maybe they'll make it a priority. Wahkeenah 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Elected officials have raised this. Why should I spend my life savings waging war against corrupt govt? Carfiend 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was a budget for it, and a justification, they might do it. Wahkeenah 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are scientists asking NASA for the proof - they can't come up with it. Carfiend 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking is one thing. Are they willing to fund this archival expedition? Wahkeenah 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean NASA hasn't stolen enough money already? Carfiend 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not enough to develop a good archival system, at least. Wahkeenah 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So you've moved from saying 'the data has been peer reviewed', to 'if you want peer review, you'd have to pay for it'. I'm glad we're straight on that. Carfiend 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think research is free? Wahkeenah 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get an honest confession from you that there is no peer reviewed data on the moon landing. Carfiend 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly would peer reviewed data on the moon landing be, pray tell? Seems like just another meaningless conspiracy theory phrase to me. Mark Grant 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know that that's true. I'm only hearing it from the Kaysing side, and he is already a proven liar, so I don't trust anything he says, even if it might accidentally turn out to be true. Wahkeenah 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification. Data doesn't get peer reviewed, published research does. So when you ask for peer reviwed data, you're demonstrating a lack of background on the subject that would seem fundamental to the discussion at hand. The bulk of published research generated by NASA will have been peer reviewed. That is how academic publishing works. You're likely wanting independantly generated data -- another matter entirely. The fact every scrap of this data doesn't exist (or has been lost) and that this lack is interpreted without rational support as being proof positive of a fraud on the part of NASA makes this discussion meaningless. You might as well be arguing over the socialogical impact of the diaspora of tree-ents from mirk wood to the shire. The thing over which you argue does not exist. The individuals with which you are arguing are not serious. They see this talk page as their soapbox. They aren't trying to improve the quality of this article, but to validate their extremist POV here on the talk page. Some sort of intervention is wanting, so that meaningful progress can be made. Numskll 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was in astronomy class in college, I had to do a report on the Moon. As one source, I had an entire book of collected peer-reviewed research on the Moon. In all liklihood, that was only a tiny fraction of all of the peer-reviewed research based on the Moon landing data. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So someone other than NASA has evidence that NASA landed on the moon? Oh, no. Thought not. Carfiend 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point you to my new section, it feels concieted, but, the EUROPEAN space agency claimed to have spotted the landing sites with their probes. i kan reed 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The landing site, or an unidentified blur? Carfiend 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I look like someone with ties to the ESA? All I have to go on is what the head of their science department was quoted as saying. All you wanted was 3rd party, the extent to which they go to demonstrate, what, in the scientific world, is considered a an unimportant perspective(particularly in europe; this seems to be an american thing, apparently(at least someone indicated that on the talk page somewhere, I don't think that's a debate I want to get into). So, no, the evidence isn't stunning, but it is similar to having a witness at a trial, as your own jury, you can take their testimony however you feel. i kan reed

I have no idea what you look like. Perhpas if you link to the quote, someone can investigate. Carfiend 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As you would have it [1], although, to be honest... it was a ref in the article. i kan reed 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, can you save us some time and just tell us what arguments you'll use when clear photos of the lander stages are available? Will you argue "they could have been put there afterwards"? Or will you argue something else? I'm left with the impression that no data will assuage your certainty that the landing s were somehow faked. If that's not tue, please let us know what will. It's clear that somehow the hundreds of thousands of documents, videos, films, testimonies, financial records, engineering data and personal experiences of the Apollo program somehow fails to meet your demanding standards, some clarification would be nice. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for an answer as to how, if he were head of NASA in 1969 and knew for a fact that the flights were for real, that he would prove to a skeptic that the flights were real while they were happening. Wahkeenah 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I answered that above - if you have specific questions, let me know. Carfiend 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "hundreds of thousands of documents, videos, films, testimonies, financial records, engineering data and personal experiences of the Apollo program" would be very convincing, if they wern't conveniently "missing". Re photos of the lander site, they would prove that there is a rocket of some kind on the moon. I suppose you are going to make the leap of faith that a craft on the moon = a human landing? That's the kind of flawed logic I'm used to from you. Carfiend 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who says hundreds of thousands are missing, and if they are missing, how does anyone know how many there are? I suspect another Kaysing-Sibel fairy tale. Wahkeenah 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this. The design documentation, the blueprints, the telemetry, the hi-res video. You know that that is all missing. You are right, 'hundreds and thousands' is an estimate. Carfiend 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you have made that assertion, but you haven't provided EVIDENCE that the blueprints, telemetry, etc are missing. The only missing high res video that I know of is the Apollo 11, and that's because the magnetic tapes were lost. Are you building your entire case on that single video? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just pointing out your error. The hi res video is missing. The telemetry is missing. Not just from Apollo 11, but from all missions. The design blueprints are missing. Grumman claims to have thrown them away, along with most of the documentation of the Apollo process. Please try to keep your facts straight. Carfiend 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide evidence that your claims are correct. You keep repeating the same things, but you haven't provided evidence. Could you do this please? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is cited in the article - NASA and Gruman admit this, it's not even contested. Carfiend 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint would seem to be with Grumman, not with NASA. If true, then they aren't missing, they were deliberately discarded, probably because they didn't see any reason to keep that old stuff. Companies discard old stuff all the time, and there is no basis for ascribing anything sinister to it. Wahkeenah 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, in Grumman's capacity as a NASA contractor. They are missing. Grumman and NASA's explanation for this is variously 'discarded', or 'lost' depending on the specific piece of evidence in question. The point is they don't have it. Carfiend 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who says that they are missing? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article you would know. Dr. David Williams (NASA archivist at Goddard Space Flight Center) and Apollo 11 flight director Gene Kranz both acknowledged that the Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes are missing. The hi-res tv is supposed to be on the tapes. Carfiend 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Independent confirmation

If you were head of a _real_ space program, how would you arrange for independent confirmation of a moon landing? Algr 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Take Bill Kaysing along, and leave him there, so he can spend the rest of his days looking for the exit door on the "movie set". Wahkeenah 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For the other side of the coin, how about independent examination of some of the pro-hoax claims. For instance, the "C" rock photo. Take that photo and crop it so you can't tell that it is from the Moon. Then ask 100 photo experts what that C-shaped thing is. Don't tell them why you are asking, and see what they say. Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. NASA has not provided any independent evidence for the claim that they landed on the moon, and have lost much of the most convincing evidence. Their extraordinary claim is not, so far, substantiated. The "C" rock claims are subject to third party scrutiny. Carfiend 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That we landed on the moon is not an "extraordinary claim". Claiming that there was a hoax is an extraordinary claim. Prove it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA has never "claimed" anything. They and all their observers around the world merely reported the events as they happened. Wahkeenah 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what they claim. No one but NASA saw what went on. Conveniently, there's no way to verify their claims. Carfiend 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so. As has been stated here many times, there was plenty of independent confirmation. That doesn't square with the hoaxsters' premise, so they won't accept it. The assertion that they have "lost most of the convincing evidence" is a blanket statement with no arithmetic behind it. If you could go back to 1969, and were running NASA, how would you have demonstrated during the flights that they were actually occurring and were not being faked? What would you have done differently? Wahkeenah 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There was not any. No one but three NASA employees (it is claimed) saw the 'moon landings'. Everyone else say video provided by NASA, or tracked objects that they were not able to confirm the nature of. Carfiend 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Supposing you are the head of NASA in 1969, how do you demonstrate, while it's happening, that the moon landings are for real? Wahkeenah 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'd have the integrity to blow the whistle, rather than try to cook evidence that it's real. Carfiend 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. You are assuming it's a hoax. Assume, for a second, that it's real, and you are the head of NASA. Then, how do you demonstrate, while it's happening, that it really is happening? Wahkeenah 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the blueprints and the development information is key. The testing and design work is a big part of it. That's the test between a mock-up for a movie, that has to look right, and a machine that really has to work. Examining how it was designed, and the itterative testing would be powerful proof. I'd say that testamony under oath from the people claiming to be on the moon would help, a sealed video unit and camera examined by a third party without tampering would help. Full telemetry data, and the hi-res video would be good. Off the top of my head, that's what springs to mind, but I'm sure we can add to it. Carfiend 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's all after the fact. I mean while it's happening; while the vehicles are (presumably) on the way to the moon, how do you prove it's actually happening? Wahkeenah 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the sealed camera unit, the telemetry data, they could have taken a copy of the day's newspaper with them, and recorded it with the sealed camera, a specific stunt or code word given by a third party to the moon crew to perform or say on the sealed camera on the moon. I'll think on it though. Carfiend 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that everything you mention there could easily be faked. But I will say no more about this one question, and let you ponder the matter. Wahkeenah 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because it would start to involve people outside of NASA, which would start to be a conspiracy theory... Carfiend 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-apollo people often mistakenly refer to photographic evidence as proof. The fact that photos can be doctored or shot in a studio is more than enough reasonable doubt to poke holes in the photographic evidence. Many of the photos have glaring discrepencies that can only be explained if they were fake. We know that they had the capabilities, and the facilities to make fake photos. For some reason they spent a lot of time and money building big hollywood sets and testing special FX. How does that help get them to the moon? The photos are not proof. There is no proof. There is a distinct difference between evidence and proof! My criteria for proving that we went to the moon are; Full transparency, third party independent auditors like ISO and ANSI and any world record organization, multiple onboard 24/7 live webcams (one pointed at earth, one pointed at moon, multiple inside capsule) that are inspected and sealed by independent third party auditors, a tracking beacon emitting on a special frequency that is installed and sealed by independent third party auditors, Quantum Entanglement experiments conducted in cooperation with numerous universities and science orgs during voyage, a sealed box (which nobody except independent third party auditors know the contents of) with various colored flares and lasers that can be seen from earth when set off on the moon, a volunteer news reporter chosen at random by independent third party auditors to tag along and report the voyage live, etc etc etc... There are a number of reasonable things NASA could have done to verify it, but they didnt. Any time somebody claims to make a huge accomplishment, you dont just take their word for it. If i claim to run a 3 minute mile, do you put that in the record books? or do you get an independent third party auditor (like Guiness book of World Records) to verify it? This is not unreasonable!--Arltomem 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything Carfiend asks for exists

Everything you ask for, Carfiend, already exists. Detailed blueprints for the moon landers are already sited in the article.

Not true. They are simply not. There is a technical manual, that has some drawing, but that is not the same thing. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(Remember the discussion about where the rover fit?)

No. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the testing and output was done by subcontracting to businesses, not Nasa directly. Nasa didn't even build the lander, Northrop Grumman did. (You can apply to work for them here: [2]) Here is the design, and the itterative testing you ask for: [3]

Again, that's not what you say it is - it's a link to a magazine article. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

High quality video would have required hundreds of pounds for a Quad format VTR and tapes on the lander - but they brought back movie film that was of even higher quality, not to mention 70 mm stills.

Rubbish. Please do some basic research. The hi quality video was relayed to the telemetry tapes. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The "high quality" video they are talking about is simply somewhat higher quality than what was broadcast. And it is for the Apollo 11 moonwalk only - nothing else. If you read the links about it, you can see some Polaroid shots of that video. The contrast and detail is better. However, due to technical reasons (the antenna used), the actual video from Apollo 11 moon walk was transmitted at 10 frames per second. Normal television in most of the world uses 30 frames per second. 10 frames per second is very jerky. They put the 10 fps video on a monitor with long-persestance phosphors and used another TV camera to capture that monitor, at 30 fps to be broadcast, a live scan conversion (and recorded). The original 10 fps was also recorded on telemetry tapes (1 inch, 14 track analog tape). If that 10 fps tape is found, and can be played back, with modern technology a better quality video can be made than the old copy after the live scan conversion that we currently have. I contacted one of the people involved, and they are looking for the tape. If it turns up, will that convince you? Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(How long would it take to fake tens of thousands of photos using 1960's technology? Just how many army artists does Nasa have?)

There were not 10s of thousands of photos in the 60s. Most were released in the mid 1990s. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Those cameras, and the video that was transmitted, were in fact sealed, because of the need to protect against radiation.

Not by an independent agency, which was the point. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bart Sibel has gotten Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Ed Mitchell to swear on a bible. If that isn't convincing, then why would more of them help? Full telemetry data exists for all missions except 11.

No it doesn't. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, these two discussions, Independent confirmation, and Peer review, are both because you said above that we weren't answering those subjects. This is our response to your request. We've asked you what evidence would satisfy you. We tried to get you to _imagine_ a real moon landing, and your first response was to "blow the whistle", and debunk it anyway!

No, you didn't - you asked what I would have done if I were head of NASA at the time of the Apollo program. Carfiend 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I didn't post these other points. I know it's hard to tell one of us NASA retirees from another. :) Wahkeenah 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you responded with requests for things we already have available - most of them are already in the article. This isn't how people who want to know the objective truth behave, this is "defending the faith" against overwhelming evedence. Algr 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorsed - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what to make of that remark. Nothing that I 'asked for' exists. For example, where are the third party sealed cameras? You clearly did not read what I wrote. You comment is ridiculous fiction, "defending the faith" against overwhelming evedence. Please try to answer actual issues, rather than behave as if you're having a completely different conversation. Carfiend 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, if anything does exist, Carfiend will claim it's a fake (like LM-13). It's pointless to even discuss anything with a 'true believer', as they have no interest in reality. Mark Grant 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, the "true believer" behavior of landing believers is the real problem. When the fact that they have no evidence for the landing is exposed, they repeatedly fall back on the explanation that it doesn't matter, because even if they had evidence, they also have prescience about what their accusers would say. Of course, evidence for this telepathy is never presented. Carfiend 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence contradicting the established history of the Apollo flights? Wahkeenah 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out. Time. And time. Again. There is no 'established record' of the moon landin, except for NASA's account. You know there isn't, and yet you continue to behave as if this were not true. That's true believer syndrome, right there. Gravitor 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're merely offering further reason for people to believe that you have no interest in improving the article here, only in pushing your own point of view, no matter how often people point out that you're wrong. Mark Grant 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is definately the boldest blatant dishonesty I've seen from the pro-NASA camp. A list of things that are obviously not true on their face ("hi-res video would have meant lots of tapes in the lander") and then everyone else cheering on this ignorance, as if it's a sports game, not an attempt to establish the facts. When the obvious facts are pointed out, the only response is "even if we were right, you would ignore it", a false and stupid slander. The NASA case is debunked, and it's supporters shown to be intellectually and morally bancrupt. Evidence above. Gravitor 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing "debunked" is every piece of so-called "evidence" the moon hoaxster cons have tried to claim. The hoaxster cons have proven time and time again to be a combination of ignoranimouses and liars. The famous Fox special is all you need to see to know that's true. Wahkeenah 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That mainstream media. I can't believe it's part of the conspiracy against NASA too... Carfiend 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 01:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep - when you've got nowhere to hide on the facts, change the subject, avoid the question, parrot nonsense. Carfiend 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, review WP:CIVIL. While I won't do anything directly because of my involvement in this thread, other admins will if you don't start treating the people with whom you disagree with respect. Your consistent incivility is uncalled for, please examine your tone. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We're just having a lively discussion. I can't speak for anyone else here, though. :) Wahkeenah 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I could do without the veiled personal attacks, the vandal-like editing of the headings on the talk pages, the ridiculously unmoored amd casually offered accusations, and the willful lack of meaningful engagment in the ideas of the 'opposition' on the part of the pro-hoaxers. I don't think these will change without some sort of intervention. See the Adhib/Carfiend conversations above for examples of this poor and one-sided behavior. 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If, say, detailed blueprints of the moon buggy (the Lunar Rover) showed up, would that convince the hoax believers that the landing was real? Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be powerful evidence that would show serious development of the program, rather than just a model in a museum. On it's own, it would not provide proof, but it would certainly be nice to have some evidence for the landings. Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It would be too easy to fake such evidence... even easier now than it would have been then. It would prove nothing to those who already accept the historical record, and it would immediately be claimed as a fraud by those who don't believe the historical record, as they would point out that NASA was its source. It would be a nice set of historical artifacts to have, but is otherwise irrelevant. Wahkeenah 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A second question for Carfiend: Can you briefly (one or two sentences) describe the difference between the Lunar Module and the Lunar Rover? Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

?? The module is the 'lander' and the rover is a car. What do you mean? Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1971 film and hoax consciousness

There was no public consciousness of an alleged hoax. That came years later. You cannot just make an assertion that there was, you have to prove it. The fact that one guy started to raise questions does not mean there was any significant public awareness of it. Your posting of that assertion is your personal point of view, not a demonstrable fact. If you were alive then, you would know that. Wahkeenah 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base your assumption that I was not alive then? Carfiend 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because your discussion of this whole subject suggests a lack of real-time awareness of the evolution of the space program. It's written from the viewpoint of someone who only knows what he's read about it in the history books. Just like I can't know what WWII was like, only by reading about it. Wahkeenah 05:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From the beginning of the Apollo program there was some skepticism of it. In his book A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar orbit mission in December 1968, such conspiratorial stories were in circulation. Several public media reports and artworks are believed to have helped to fuel the growth of the hoax accusations:

In 1967, British playwright Desmond Lowden wrote a play called The News-Benders, in which all major technological advances since 1945 were shown to have been simulated; the play was televised in January 1968 and showed a Moon landing faked with models.

Around the time of Project Apollo, while not asking about whether the landings were faked specifically, soon after the missions, Knight Newspapers (later to become Knight-Ridder) found that more than 30 percent of respondents to their poll were suspicious of NASA's trips to the moon.

Carfiend 05:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these ideas were out there, in some circles, does not mean there was any notable or widespread consciousness of them in the minds of the general public. Very, very few would have seen that movie and said, "Oh, yeh, that looks like the moon hoax everybody's talking about." Because very few were talking about it. If it were the late 1970s, maybe. But not in 1971, while Apollo was still ongoing. Such an idea put out to the mainstream would have been met with peals of laughter. No, the hoaxsters waited until it was over to really push the idea... when it was "safe", because they knew there would be no more moon voyages to prove what morons they were. Wahkeenah 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you got any facts to back that up? Carfiend 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The dates of the books of Kaysing and the others is proof enough. Where were they during the missions? Keeping quiet, is what (except maybe between a few close friends). Because if they went public, the amount of ridicule heaped on them would have been overwhelming. Wahkeenah 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• As usual, you all send us chasing wild geese. Now I have to go rent that bloody film and see what you're talking about. Wahkeenah 06:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a great movie, but that won't tell you about how prevalent the idea was in the general public - anyway , I suggested a new version - what do you think? Carfiend 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but it would refresh my memory of what it was maybe supposed to represent, and then maybe I could look for some independent (i.e. non-hoaxster) references to it, if I feel like spending time on it. Lacking firm evidence, you have to (at least temporarily) take away the notion that there was any notable public consciousness of the hoax idea. It is only valid to say that it may have planted or reinforced the idea, in some viewers, as just another step in the series of bullet points in the opening paragraph about ideas that led to the hoax hypothesis, which went public with Kaysing's 1974 book. Wahkeenah 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And it never hurts to check out Jill St. John in peak condition. :) But why does Blofeld seem like at any moment he could burst into a stanza of "Time Warp"? :) Wahkeenah 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read your latest posting on Diamonds Are Forever, and I think it's sufficiently tentative. Kudos. Wahkeenah 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need some evidence for this. Your memory is quite fine, I'm sure, but it is also original research. Carfiend 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the need for evidence. I just don't remember the scene as such, or its context, and I don't want to take someone else's word (yours or anyone's) for the specific on-screen sequence of events. Wahkeenah 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(Changed mind about remark and cut it.) Wikipedia considers a work of fiction to be it's own source, so watching a movie and describing what you saw is not original research. If it were, then you couldn't just quote Bart Sibel, you'd need to reference an expert saying what Sibel said, and then you need an expert saying what the expert said Sibel said, and so on.

I've never come across anyone who became 'skeptical' of the lunar landings because of 'Diamonds are Forever'. Nor could I see it being considered a 'moon hoax studio', given that the rover which features prominently in the movie is nothing like a real LRV (oh, but I forgot, the blueprints don't exist so it may well be that the real LRV actually looked like that and the photos were faked). Mark Grant 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I found that connection rather strange. I think I vaguely recall seeing that movie and found nothing strange about Nasa wanting a mockup set for the astronauts to practice in before the real mission. Algr

Did you see the movie NASA mocked up? I bet that didn't look strange either?! Carfiend 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Which movie are you referring to? Wahkeenah 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The one they told you was shot on the moon! Carfiend 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There was video on every moon flight. The quality improved with each flight, as this ongoing engineering "experiment" improved. It's all reasonable and logical. Wahkeenah 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential new section

I'm having trouble picking out good sources to use, which is why i'm not just being bold and making the change, but I think a section on the relationship of these accusations to the modern space program. Things like:

1. skeptics citing how our much more modern shuttlecraft don't go to the moon(and can't)
2. the quite public take offs and landings of the space shuttles.
3. the massive scatter of shuttle parts from the exploded shuttle.
4. live video feeds from the space station indicating our presence in space( being hard to fake)

5. There's no nonsense about it going to the moon! Gravitor 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

you know points, and counterpoints, given from a modern perspective of space missions

Also, if anyone has anything from authoritative sources on the arguements from this perspective it would help a lot.(technical details are fairly easy to come accross and cite) i kan reed 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need more controversy in this article. The hoaxsters have not had much to say about the shuttle, because it's an ongoing event. If they were to mothball it, then it wouldn't be too many more years before the hoaxsters would say that the shuttle, also, was fake; just as they did with Apollo, where they did not publish until they knew it was "safe" to make their accusations. They would further add that the apparent deaths from shuttle explosions were actually murders to silence potential whistleblowers. Wahkeenah 16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

since this is apparently going to become a slightly POV talk, I'll go ahead an tell you that a great many of the people who beleive this stuff find the shuttle program much harder to refute because some of the results of the shuttle program are actually used by normal people(things like gps and sattelite TV, which simply could not work from the ground(while groundwave has a maximum range of 10 miles, it can't be used to determine direction, LOS is usually needed for that)) and most of the shuttle disbeleivers start getting into crazy super-disbeleivers who refute a good many commonly accepted scientific principles to prove their point. they are also far less common than the moon landing deniers.

however arguing over semantics which should be properly cited and explained is something that should be left to being presented by the more authoritative decriers and supporters of the relative subjects from properly cited sources. So, back to my original request, if you know any published information by skeptics or supporters alike that refer to the modern space program, i'd like to get a skeleton of this section started with proper citation. i kan reed 16:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Few people doubt the existance of the shuttle, but the reason is fairly obvious - there's no lie about it landing on the moon - NASA dare not try to pull a hoax like that these days, and is stuck with what it can actually do, not what it would like to fake. Gravitor 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

please please please leave your arguments at the door(or metaphorical equivelants) you know quite well what you are saying is not defined fact. Many(might be pushing it, probably about the same number as the flat earthers) people DO beleive the shuttle missions are fake, just because you think they are wakko doesn't mean that they don't deserve mention as well. This proposed section isn't to harm your personal beleifs it's to discuss their connection with another set of beleifs, and also to bring up some issues given our modern capabilities with regard to space travel. Not everyone is out to defame you, some of us just want to expand the knowledgebase of wikipedia and could care less what some people beleive. sheesh. i kan reed 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's obvious because it's happening now. The hoaxster cons waited to push their bogus arguments until they knew there were no more moon flights happening. Wahkeenah 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we can get that soap box moved out of here? Numskll 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. People believe NASA this time, because getting into orbit is not impossible. NASA is not trying to go to the moon, because these days it just couldn't be faked. That's why no one has ever followed up on the supposed moon landings. They can't. The comparison to the shuttle launches are complete rubbish - no one doubts it's possible to launch a rocket, they doubt it's possible to get a person to the moon and back. Carfiend 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're claiming that NASA could fake a moon landing in 1969, but couldn't fake one now? Huh? Where does that whacky idea come from?

Oh, and by the way, the Russians were talking recently about offering tourist trips around the Moon if anyone was willing to pay for them. I guess they'll be hoaxes too? Mark Grant 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you believe it because it's happening now. If you had been cognizant in 1969, you would have had no trouble accepting it then, either. Wahkeenah 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week or so. Time for another archive, ja? Wahkeenah 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, can't have the truth hanging around too long now, can we... Carfiend 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Since my own comments would be archived, I can't quarrel with that statement. >:) Wahkeenah 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Numskull - you said that 'many people believe the shuttle missions are fake' - who? How many? I've never heard of any. Carfiend 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, I'd urge you to read the archive more carefully on the matter to which you refer, but past experience with you has taught me that it's pointless. I would however urge you to try to engage seriously in the topics at hand rather than using this talk page as your personal soap-box. If you look over your posts of the past week you seem profoundly disengaged, disengenious and unresponsive -- I'm referring in particular to your 'input' in the methodoligy and naming conventions sections. Perhaps you should consider a blog. Please be civil if you choose to reply. I find your slightly veiled personal attacks tiresome. Numskll 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Those sections are pretty devoid of anything meaningfull from you - it's hard to think of anything to say except to point out the logical flaws. Sorry, but if you want serious debate, you've got to meet a basic standard of truth and sense. Carfiend 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Numskull "profoundly disengaged, disengenious and unresponsive" - you said that 'many people believe the shuttle missions are fake' - who? How many? I've never heard of any. Any engaged, serious responses likely from you? Carfiend 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that I haven't written anything on the topic of the space shuttle might be a tiny clue that you should polish up your reading comprehension skills. But, of course, you're not serious. You're simply being disruptive in hopes of maintaininig the status quo. your posts, as a whole, lack a quality called 'cohesion', meaning your responses don't address what came before them except in the most cursory way. Cohesion is required for true discourse. It is the ante. without it coversations don't happen. Exchanges that lack this quality of cohesion can not be deemed discussions in any meaningful way; without cohesion you have two primates barking at each other. Numskll 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm afraid that I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Carfiend has any interest in improving Wikipedia, only in pushing their own agenda: this is rather strongly backed up by the fact that almost all of their edits are on this article. Since I haven't been here for long, I'm not sure what people are expected to do about someone who's impeding the improvment of an article, if they're too nice to get into a stupid edit war. But until and unless Carfiend stops preventing those improvements the page will continue to be a horrible mutant mess that benefits no-one who's actually interested in the truth. Mark Grant 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise - it was one of the other pro-NASA folks who said that. Still, no questioning of his nonsense from the pro-NASA camp. Anything, no matter how wrong seems to be fair game if it's from 'your' side. I can only reflect your accusations, and say that I have seen no evidence from you that you are doing anything but pushing your POV at all costs. You so rarely address issues of fact, so rarely present any practical change that would improve the article. Please. Show some good faith, address some issues of fact, or suggest some changes that imprvoe the article. Carfiend 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. First, I was the one who said that said that "many people" beleive that the shuttles are faked too. That isn't something I'd put into an article(weasel words) but the only person I've met in real life who beleived the shuttle landings were faked also beleived that the shuttles are equally fake. However, people I personally know aren't encyclopedic. Thus, I was trying to find out if anyone knew any potential source material of opinions. Secondly, if all arguments are given from the perspective of those who beleive them, there is no point of view. "Commonly accepted fact" isn't sufficiently FACT to be used in an article about what is, essentially, people disagreeing with commonly accepted fact.(2-5% dissent isn't very much). You can(and should) argue about who is a reliable source of opinions on these subjects, but it's not an attack or POV by wikipedia when an argument is attributed. Two diferent worlds. i kan reed 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A starting point could be to try to find a poll on the subject. This article cites various polls that claim that up to 30 percent have "some doubts" about Apollo. That doesn't mean that anywhere near 30 percent firmly believe it didn't happen, only that they have questions. It reminds me of when Garrison Keillor said a poll showed that something like 50 percent of the public "would 'consider' eating squirrel." It doesn't mean that 50 percent actually would. Anyway, maybe there's a poll lying around someplace about the shuttle program. Wahkeenah 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If we were 'pushing our POV at all costs', there would be no conspiracy theorist claims on the page, just a big banner saying 'We went to the moon, dude'. In reality, we're merely trying to ensure the page gives a balanced view of the subject, and have tried to get to you discuss how to improve this page on a number of occasions. Currently the page is basically a long laundry-list of claims mostly from random web-sites and self-published books: that's not what Wikipedia is intended to be, nor is it your soap-box. We've pointed out that the page should be rewritten in a similar style to other conspiracy theory pages, but when people have tried to make a start on rewriting it, you delete their changes, even though the majority view here seems to be that it should be rewritten. As I said, I see no evidence whatsoever that you have any interest in improving this page. Mark Grant 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A reliable and verifyable poll I cited in the article (I assume it is still there) says that 5% of Americans believe in the hoax, 89& believe in the landing, and 6% aren't sure. An interesting thing is that this seems to be primarily an American phenomenon. A guy in Germany (sorry, I don't have a reference) estimated that fewer than 1% of the people in Europe believe in the hoax. It would be interesting to find such a poll. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The poll you are citing is a gallop poll [[4]] and the figures you name are there.

In the July 1999 poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) do not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing. Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion.

Numskll 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is the truth is not a popularity contest. Go and tell evolutionists that they are in a minority in the US and therefore wrong... Carfiend 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a small minority does not define something as true or false, only as a fringe viewpoint. The truth or falsehood of such a viewpoint is a separate issue. Wahkeenah 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not 'fringe', but it is a minority belief, like evolution. Carfiend 19:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A recent poll indicates that a significant number of Americans (over 1/3, I think it was) suspect some shenanigans about the 9/11 attacks. That's after just 5 years. After 30-plus years, the number of folks who suspect shenanigans with Apollo is way much smaller. After all this time, it's single-digits. Belief in an Apollo hoax is a fringe view, no question. Wahkeenah 06:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

my creation of this section

A quick question. It's not copyright violation, or plagarism, to copy and paste what someone's title is, is it? i kan reed 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• if you mean someones job title then no, it is not AFAIK Numskll 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did mean the job title, thanks i kan reed 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Wahkeenah 17:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I lifted exact text from the article(his(the ESA guy) name and title), because I assumed that no variations are really acceptable when describing a job title. i kan reed 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Using someone's correct job title is not a copyright vio. Carfiend 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless their job title happens to be the lyrics of a song written since 1923. Wahkeenah 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that NASA has no Head of She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah. ;) Carfiend 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against the hoax

Greed: consider how much money "someone" from Nasa would make by saying "yes it was all a hoax."

Soviet propaganda "These 'capitalist (insert phrases of choice) made all this up, while the glorious Soviet Union put up Sputnik, Laika etc.'

Jackiespeel 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're using logical arguments; and where the hoaxsters are concerned, logic does not figure into the discussion. Wahkeenah 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And you're all being silly. We shouldn't care if it's correct or incorrect. What matters here is that some signifigant people beleive it. We should report that. It's statements like this that make these guys beleive that there's POV pushing going on. It really doesn't help much to repeatedly denounce what public opinion generally considers silly. It's a lot better to try and fix minor points of subtle POVing and help expand known counter-claims than to argue in order to convince people of something they really would prefer not to be convinced of. Being childish only supports more childishness. i kan reed 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would be better to produce an article worthy of an encyclopedia rather than a laundry list of claim and counter-claim. I can't see a print encyclopedia doing that. Mark Grant 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but "proving" or "disproving" one side or the other on the talk page won't help much in that regard. I would also submit that this article does a little more than that. Like mentioning the encounter between aldrin and that one guy.

A topic of this nature is likely to contain lists of arguments and counter arguments, and have a tendency to descend into long "fluffy cotton wool" discussions and pschological analyses of the accusatory kind.

There is room for making a list of "logical arguments against the hoax" - to which I would add Occam's Razor (which would apply to quite a few hoaxes and counter claims) - and I was just starting the list off.

Are there any "illogical arguments against" it being a hoax? ;)

Jackiespeel 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of them. Carfiend 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that we shouldn't care whether an article is factually correct or not is offensive. We should have a good intuitive sense of the veracity of something we write about. The problem on this page, and which is the usual starting point of these lengthy diatribes on the talk page, is that the hoaxsters claim the article is not "neutral". But their idea of "neutral" is to present only their side and take away the counterarguments, thus leaving the reader with the false impression that the questions the hoaxsters raise don't have reasonable explanations. Thus they hope to use this page as just one more recruiting tool for their little league of hoaxster conspiracists. Wahkeenah 17:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that we shouldn't care whether an article is factually correct or not is offensive -- however, technically speaking, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Which, frankly, could eliminate a large fraction of the page: who, for example, can verify statements supposedly made in a Apollo-hoaxer's self-published book? It's not as though there are many copies around. Mark Grant 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

it's not verifiable for factual information regarding the apollo program, because the writer can't be established as an authority on those matters, it is a perfectly verifiable source for what people beleive in regards to the program. i kan reed 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (i know someone is going to be insulted by this, but they really can't lay their hands on anything concrete themselves.)

I disagree. How would I realistically verify a claim posted here saying that 'Joe Bloggs claimed that NASA never flew to the Moon because it's the land of pixies' in his self-published book 'Shut up, we never went to the moon, OK!'? At best you end up with 'On geocities.com/moonpixies.html, John Smith said that Joe Bloggs claimed that NASA never went to the Moon because it's the land of pixies', which is getting a bit silly. Mark Grant

Now the question of "verifiable" comes into play. OK. As you are suggesting, virtually everything the hoaxsters put forth is based on their opinion about whether the flights were "possible" or not, combined with their inability to interpret photographs and other evidence. The article then would come down to every line beginning with "Kaysing says this" or "Sibel says that". In short, the article would be about those guys rather than about the issue. Which might be a good thing, as those charlatans need some exposure for what they are (or were, Kaysing now being dead). Wahkeenah 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what I think article should be about: Apollo-denial as a phenomenon, not a laundry list of claims and counter-claims. Mark Grant 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, the term "verifiable" means "able to determine the truth" about a given subject. Wahkeenah 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that you can verify that when someone posts 'Joe Bloggs says that NASA never went to the Moon because it's the land of pixies', that they actually did say that. It doesn't mean that you can verify that the Moon really is the land of pixies or that NASA never went there. Mark Grant 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The next issue, then is the one of notability. Anyone can say anything, especially on the internet, so you can fully verify that, "Joe Bloggs says this", and then someone will say, "But he's not notable." Why? Because he has no expertise, no background on which to base an opinion... arguably, the same status as Kaysing, Sibel, etc.? No, because he's "not well known". The only reason those two yokels are considered "notable" is because they are famous... circular reasoning, ultimately. Wahkeenah 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: few, if any, of the Apollo-deniers would pass the notability test if they weren't known for being Apollo-deniers. Mark Grant 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this article is much better than it used to be. It used to read like a catfight. It has been toned down significantly, although it could still do with a little less editorializing. The catfight is now mostly confined to the talk page, thankfully. Wahkeenah 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is better, one of the main ways forward has been for both sides to rely more on sourcing their claims rather than unsourced editorializing. Carfiend 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been one exceptionally good point, and that is that we should give extra focus to the movement. Anything skeptics might have in common?(this is not an invitation for personal attacks or inflamatory remarks).i kan reed 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several categories of opposition which have to be considered, from those who have a consistent disagreement with the topic - Flat Earth Society etc (whether or not one agrees with them) to those who say that this moon landing was a hoax (but other space flight did occur).

As there are a group of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax, there should be an article about the subject, along with the claims, who propounds them and the counter arguments (and who propounds them).

Can I add Crabtree's Bludgeon?

Has anyone used the term moon-shine about the whole discussion? Jackiespeel 12:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos what we need is more abusive terms. Carfiend 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

See undue weight. Do not remove the tag. •Jim62sch• 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• You need to write something specific justifying the tag for this particular article. Do not put the tag back until then. Wahkeenah 01:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• You don't have any comments. You have not participated in this discussion at all. It is not your place to be imposing your will on the others here. You are the vandal. Wahkeenah 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe what Jim is saying is that the undue weight section of NPOV applies to this article as it currently stands. In that the article is almost completely made up of pro-hoax arguments. In particular, sections 5,6 and 8 constitutes the bulk of the article with minimal weight given to differing opinions. Especially given that the Apollo hoax claims are pseudoscience, the NPOV section on pseudoscience also applies. For these reasons, this article violates NPOV. And Wahkeenah, there is no need to use all caps. Please remain civil. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, posting a link to that section would have been better than an edit war. Personally I tend to agree, but try convincing Carfiend and friends that this topic counts as pseudoscience... Mark Grant 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Josh, you are correct. Mark, I would have posted a link but I'm trying to do too many things at once...sorry about that. •Jim62sch• 01:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, why is it that the hoax proponents are the ones who constantly rail against the alleged lack of neutrality? (As Mr. Grant is hinting at). Wahkeenah 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's only 'neutral' in relation to the number of Apollo-deniers who post here (i.e. seems to be about half and half in terms of editors). It would be good to have more truly neutral readers look over the article and say how neutral they think it is: but I suspect they'd agree that it's heavily biased towards the Apollo-deniers in its current form. Mark Grant 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean outside Wikipedia? Becuase they are just like intelligent design proponents, creationists, and numerous other pseudoscientists. That doesn't change the fact that this article is a massive violation of WP:NPOV as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've calmed down a bit. What I resent is some guy just showing up here and imposing his viewpoint, while interested parties have tried to debate the matter for some time now. But if the pro-hoaxsters don't read this section, maybe they'll think the tag was put there by a pro-hoaxster, and they'll be OK with it. Quick! Archive this stuff before they catch on! Wahkeenah 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read the archives, you'll see that I was here before. But that's of no importance: you see, if I remember correctly, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, thus, if I stumble across an article that I think violates WP:NPOV, I have every right to tag it. So, before your dudgeon gets too high, let's try to remember that nothing trumps NPOV -- not even some tenuous consensus you might have reached on the page. Whetever the pro-hoax people might think, the fact that theirs is a minority view (very much a minority view) means that the article cannot be a 50-50 split (or as it currently is, a 90-10 pro-hoax split). See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight •Jim62sch• 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience:

"the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

Personally I'd say the article as it currently stands significantly fails that standard. However, it's difficult to improve it when the Apollo-deniers have deleted all recent attempts to rewrite the article in a style more consistent with that standard. And they will, of course, claim that Apollo-denial isn't pseudoscience. Mark Grant 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to reflect, I'm fine with it. The busybody who posted it, because he thought the article was too heavily weighted in favor of the hoaxsters, has actually aided and abetted their arguments. Wahkeenah 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, with an administrator telling us that it's a massive violation of the NPOV, I guess for the time being we should ignore claims from the Apollo-deniers that it's neutral in the current form. Mark Grant 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything on his page that says he's an admin. However, if that's the case, then Canfield and the others will probably have to slink away, and the article can sit for a few weeks until the next Edit Jihad begins. Wahkeenah 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, JoshuaZ is the admin. I'll have to read through some of the other pseudoscience pages over the next few days to get a better idea of how others have done it. Mark Grant 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, that I could believe. No hard feelings. Just Joshing. :) :) :) Just stay away from the Holocaust page, or the hoaxsters will be all over you like moon dust. Wahkeenah 02:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Has anyone even read undue weight?:

...None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.

Unless someone can explain why the tag should stay, I will remove it. This is someone trying once more to pour fuel on a fire that was beginning to burn more constructively. I think we all agreed that the article was gradually becoming better, by being more factually based and better referenced. Not by trying to score points and place provocative tags. Carfiend 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If I delete it a third time, I'll get yelled at for reverting it 3 times. You've got 2 chances yourself. Do as you will. Wahkeenah 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can explain why the tag should stay, I will remove it. -- The tag should stay because even a Wikipedia administrator has said above that "this article is a massive violation of WP:NPOV as it currently stands". If an admin is calling the page a massive violation of NPOV, I don't see how anyone can really dispute that... As for 'undue weight', you're the one mis-reading it. That section explains why this page can exist, the section I quoted explains why it's a violation of NPOV. Let me repeat it for you:

"the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

This article in no way meets that standard. Mark Grant 03:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark is correct here, although I would hasten to add that my status as an admin does not inherently mean I have any better understanding of what the article should be. Admin duties are primarily blocking and deletion, so citing my adminship is a fallacious argument from authority. JoshuaZ 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Put back "as per talk page"? I don't see any consensus here. However, there are bigger fish to fry. Wahkeenah 04:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You miss another point, Wahkeenah: any editor can place an NPOV tag on an article so long as he explains why in either the edit summary or on the talk page. True, posting the reason on the talk page is the better option, and I admit that I initially failed to do so, but I did explain it in my edit summary. In addition, the NPOV tag needs to stay until I feel that my objections have been satisfactorily addressed. That's the way Wiki works.

Now, rather than squabble with me, why not try to make this article meet the various NPOV criteria. As for the hoaxsters or Apollo-deniers, they are just going to have to accept the fact that theirs is an extreme minority view, and that the scientific view will take precedence. If they choose not to accept that, and instead resort to edit-warring, the article can and will be locked. •Jim62sch• 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, over the next few days I'll have a go at rewriting the page in a form consistent with the policy on pseudoscience. I've taken a local copy so I can work on it without leaving the current page in an unreadable state between edits. Mark Grant 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, your argument is that any editor can poison the well by placing any tag on any page, whatever the feelings of anyone else? Even if that's true, which I dispute, it's hostile, anti-social and counterproductive. Unilatterally re-writing the page in your view of NPOV is also likely to be counter productive. I would seriously caution you against doing that, discussing changes and reaching concensus is a much more constructive route. Carfiend 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Read your talkpage carfiend. This, I'm afraid, is utter nonsense, "it's hostile, anti-social and counterproductive". I'd suggest you take some serious time to read through WP:Five Pillars in its entirety. This, I'm afraid is rather humourous: "I would seriously caution you against doing that". It seems to me that you do not know the policies or guidelines. Time to read up. •Jim62sch• 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your vague accusations, and wild gesticulations aside, your post is content free. What more should I expect? My exhortion to you is not to do with what some rule-monger might consider 'legal', but what is likely to be productive. Carfiend 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And you're on your way to an RFC. Your constant disruption and violation of numerous policis and guidelines is wearing on the community's patience. •Jim62sch• 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Threaten all you like. I have constantly call for work on issues of fact, not these pointless debates you seem to want to engage in. If you are for real on this, contribute to the factual issues work, not constant sniping. Carfiend 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "threat", I don't make threats. I'm explaining to you how Wikipedia works. As for your cxomment re sniping, well, it might be time for self-reflection on your part. •Jim62sch• 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is, the version I'm rewriting is almost entirely about Apollo-denial and Apollo-deniers without the laundry-list of claim and counter-claim, so it should make you a lot happier. As for 'reaching consensus', the page is way too broken to fix by minor changes, but I have no intention of just replacing it, merely of offering an alternate version and replacing the current page with it if there's a consensus that it's better than what we have and more consistent with similar Wiki pages: it's just a last attempt to save this page before I find better things to do with my time. That said, now I've spent a few hours trying to rewrite it, I'm not sure there's enough sense in the Apollo-denial claims to ever create a viable page about it... I may just be wasting my time. Mark Grant 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have said prior, I too beleive this article gives undue weight to the hoax theorists in that their beleives are presented as an alternative to the historical record thus creating a false balance. Numskll 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as others have said, you should read undue weight before you form your "beliefs", and consider the fact that there is no "historical record" aside from NASA's record. Carfiend 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on your notion that there isn't a historical record a number of times, so you must know that I disagree with you. Simply repeating your mantra that there isn't one when faced with it is patently irrational. I accept that you don't believe it exists. Accept that I do. I've considered what you asked but am not convinced that you and I share enough common ground to discuss the matter. Please seriously consider my position as recorded above. Let's talk through this. let's see what Mark's draft looks like. Let's move on. Numskll 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've 'commented', but not, unfortunately, presented any independent evidence of human landing by non-NASA source. You can disagree all you like, but until you provide some evidence, you're pissing in the wind. It's not a matter of belief for me, it's a matter of evidence. There isn't any independent evidence of humans on the moon. You know that though. Carfiend 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to the library and read the magazines and newspapers from that era. There is a huge historical record. Your next comment will be, "NASA is the only source." Then you have to (1) prove that NASA is the only source and (2) prove they lied. You can't do either one. Wahkeenah 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent my claim. I said there is no independent historical record. I know that there are lots of magazines with NASA photos in them. Again, there is no evidence of another source than NASA. Your belief that there might be is not relevant. Let's see it. Carfiend 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You make the claim, you must prove it. From what I've read, there is plenty of independent evidence. But no matter. You claim there isn't. Prove it. Wahkeenah 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is so flawed it's hard to discuss it.

Me: There is no evidence for it.

You: Yes there is.

Me: Show it to me.

You: No - prove that there isn't any.

Me: I can't prove it doesn't exist, it's just that no one has ever seen it. Please, show me the evidence.

You: No, but you can't prove that it doesn't exit.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Carfiend 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only interested in revising this article to conform to genraly accepted realty and the historical record. I'll repeat my assertation that the bulk of the information on this article should be about the conspiracy theories as they are genrally understood, not a tit for tat laundry list that creates the false impression that hoax theorsts are somehow as creible and and valid as the historical record. Let's revisit the way the article on Holocaust denial is treated as a model for revising this article. I'd love to have a hoax proponent engage in that topic and help move towards that excellent exampleNumskll 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Look how many times? Popularity isn't proof - go talk to the evolutionists about that. THERE IS NO HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE HUMAN LANDING ASIDE FROM NASAs! The article is about the accusations that NASA lied. NASA's side get's to respond, as much as they like, but re-writing it to try to pretend there's no issue is not going to fly. Let's keep the article fact based. And please, enough with the Nazis already. That has been debunked several times. Carfiend 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the proof that NASA is the only source? Also, where is the proof that the Holocaust argument has been debunked, beyond your personal opinion of the matter? Wahkeenah 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As above. There is no evidence other than NASA. You claim that it might be out there somewhere, that's a fine belief, but it's not a fact until you present some evidence. Your religion is fascinating, but I'll stick to what there's evidence for. Carfiend 00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's your opinion. In the opinion of other writers on this talk page, there is evidence for independent confirmation. And I'm still waiting for your answer on how you would have independently confirmed, on July 20, 1969, that it was actually happening. Wahkeenah 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my arguments is not helpful. The idea NASA and the hoax theorists are binary opposites is false on its face. Please reread the undue wieght section, in the event that you've read it, with that idea in mind. You don't have to beleive it, just try it for an exercise and perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. The hoax theorists are a fringe group. All your upper case shouting won't change it. But let's not argue about that anymore. Let talk about how to move this article into a rational zone, shall we? Numskll 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NASA shill James Oberg says "It’s not just a few crackpots and their new books and Internet conspiracy sites," Oberg said in 1999. "There are entire subcultures within the U.S., and substantial cultures around the world, that strongly believe the landing was faked.". It's not a fringe theory. Even if it was, undue weight refers clearly to the main page, ie Apollo Program, not to pages devoted to the idea. Go read it. I won't discuss it further with you til you do. Carfiend 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As above, from undue weight: "...None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper."

I do not agree that the article gives undue weight to the hoaxster cons. There is a degree of editorializing against them, which I happen to agree with, but that doesn't matter; and every argument they put forth is clearly based on nothing except their imaginations. The article effectively shoots down everything the hoaxsters put forth. That's why many of them here (though not Canfield) have argued that the article is biased the other way. Putting the NPOV tag there accomplishes nothing except to invite further Edit Wars. The banner on the talk page says it's controversial, and that's true. You should leave it at that. Wahkeenah 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Wahkeenah says. Carfiend 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you do, eh? Then maybe I should rethink my position. >:) [apologies to Groucho Marx] Wahkeenah 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I beleive the article gives the impression that there the idea of a moon hoax is an open question and that there is some sort of controversy surrounding it. In all candor, the article should clearly state that the hoax is the belief of a fringe group, headed by random intellectual/academic/media lightweights, and backed by souly by roundly debunked assertations by zealots who simply do not accept significant parts of what most people considered reality and the likely product of cold war big science paranoia. Every sentence should reflect that that. Other than that is should be all about the conpsiracy theories. See my talk page for the beginnig of just such a revision. 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Numskll 00:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article addresses every open question that has been posed within, and then some. Not to the hoaxsters' satisfaction, of course, but hopefully to the general internet reading public's. Wahkeenah 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of pro and anti hoax web sites, this is an opportunity to show the evidence from both sides in a truly neutral way. Carfiend 00:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, I've read undue weight. You seem to be taking the bits you quote out of context. Please stop that. Here are the partos of the policy that most specifically apply to the issue. This, by the way, is likely what tripped the Admin. :

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• (this includes the bit you decided wasn't quote worthy) None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.
• (look how this sentence paraphrases my take on the moon hoax) We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Nothing you've said addresses my position in any meaningful way. Further, the appropriate title ( and topic) for this article is Apollo Program Moon Hoax Conpiracy Theories. the term 'accusations' is less desirable for reasons I've stated clearly and repeatedly above. 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Numskll 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like your argument, essentially, is that although every one of the hoaxsters' ideas is shot down, the article still "dignifies" their claims somehow just by addressing them in such detail. Thus, the page could be editorially slanted against the hoaxsters, and yet give them undue weight, at the same time? Wahkeenah 00:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, the article as it stands gives undue wieght to the hoaxsters because it presents their theories as somehow on par with the accepted historical record and fails to sufficiently contextuallize the hoax's adherents. This question: the page could be editorially slanted against the hoaxsters, and yet give them undue weight, at the same time? is probably true in an absolute sense but as a practical matter I beleive that it is the context of the laundry list and the false impression of balance it gives that damage the neutrality and validity of this article Numskll 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, good luck trying to remedy that problem. Wahkeenah 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I recognize the difficulty and believe that competant treatment of the topic is possible on wikipedia if positive actions are taken to keep the zealots (of all stripes) at bay, while saner heads work on positive changes Numskll 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• All things are possible. :) Wahkeenah 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah wrote: Putting the NPOV tag there accomplishes nothing except to invite further Edit Wars. The banner on the talk page says it's controversial, and that's true. You should leave it at that. placing the NPOV tag notifies casual readers that "something" is fishy about the article they're about to read and it may serve as a beacon to otherwise disintersted editors to come and have a look. The controversial tag, by comparison, does not display on the article itself. I honestly beleive the revision is more about an appropriate context via changes to structure and tone(see 'on methodologies' and 'conspiracy theories' above) rather that of radical changes to the content(though some subscetions may be warranted to cull donw the length of the article). Numskll 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Although I don't agree with it, I see what you're saying. Wahkeenah 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. I'm pretty sure the point of the NPOV tag is that people won't agree with it . . . that was me being funny . . . sort of . . . not really . . . I'll stop now Numskll

Part of the problem here is that Pro-NASA people keep trotting out the same nonsense long after it has been de-bunked. They keep on trying to portray the controversy as a fringe, which it is not, they never admit the evidence against them (see above, and the discussion about whether there is independent evidence for a human landing - there clearly is not, but the Pro-NASA camp will never admit that), and they keep trying to wriggle out of addressing the issue on the page. Carfiend 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If 6 percent is not a fringe view, how low does the percentage have to go to be considered such? FYI, being a small minority view does not, by itself, make a viewpoint false. That's a separate issue. Wahkeenah 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I quote you Wikipedia policy: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Apollo-denial _is_ a fringe belief with no scientific backing, and should be treated as such... anything else violates NPOV. Mark Grant 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the NPOV tag. Obviously we disagree. See above. please don't revert it again. Please consider your bias. Thanks Numskll 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please consider your bias"? What rot. Why can you never address any issues of fact? Oh, wait. I know. Your problem with a fact based article is that the facts are not on your side. Carfiend 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed why I think this article is NPOV. That is what is required. I've also expressed a set of high level strategies for improving this article whch would tend to obviate the NPOV issue. I ask again that you consider your bias. You have stated clearly and repeatedly that you believe the claims of the hoax theorists. Consider whether that bias could explain your failure to see that the article has issues with NPOV. If you wish to discuss specifics like:

• your failure to understand what the term 'historical record' might mean.
• your misreading of the undue weight section.
• Or your insistance that your strident posts on various topics equate to 'debunking.'

Please do so in an appropriate section. I've asked you several times to remain civil and observe AGF. As you seem to have difficulty with both, I can only repeat that request. Numskll 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to talk to someone with such a weak grasp of logic. Instead of addressing the issues, you just repeat things that have already been debunked. Carfiend 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Need you be reminded of WP:NPA as well? •Jim62sch• 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV of this page is in dispute. Carfiend's characterization of my position in the edit summary is a something he made up whole cloth. It has no relationship to my position. Numskll 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to understand what your position is. Carfiend 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Plesse do not remove the NPOV tag until the issues raised above have been addreesed Numskll 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Contrary to the comments that I dropped in here out of nowhere, I reiterate what I said in early June:

Every believer in any hoax theory I've ever run across has been woefully ignorant of basic science (especially that science disputed by the conspiracy theorists), math, politics, economics, etc. Were they not, they'd not make such glaring mistakes in developing their "proofs" of a hoax. -- For example, one of the earliest boners in the Apollo hoax theory was, "there are no stars in the background!" Duh, it's daytime! (Besides, given even the modest special effects used on Star Trek, the assumption that NASA would have been too dumb to put stars in the picture, if they were supposed to be there argues against a hoax as one cannot say, "they were too dumb to do a simple thing" and "they were really smart and could pull the wool over everyone's eyes".)

Re the former USSR of course adds another nail (or twenty) in the coffin of this conspiracy theory. As they were able to track, via radar, the entire mission, one thinks they'd've noticed, and commented upon, anything that was at variance with the Apollo missions landing on the moon. After all, this battle to land a man on the moon was a competition betwen the two countries, with national pride at stake. To think that they would just clam up if they knew that the mission was bogus (as they would have known) is to show a complete misunderstanding of the dynamic between the two nations. (As would including them in an ever-widening conspiracy).

Expected rejoinder: "But that they tracked the spacecraft to the moon doesn't mean humans were on board, so there!". Alas, the Russians also tracked the conversations between mission control and the men on the moon, and could very easily determine whence the source of those radio signals (it's a simple matter of triangulation).

Finally, all of the other nonsensical "evidence", if it were true, would have been noticed and pounced upon by the Russians. Alas, that they did not is an excellent indication that the "evidence" purporting to "prove" that man did not land on the moon, is bogus. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's open another broadside of mudslinging. Your post contains no facts, or reference. It is a hand grenade tossed into the page to cause disruption. Again, please, if you are interested in improving this page, help work on factual issues. Carfiend 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

•Jim62sch• 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. Someone calls you on your playground mudslinging, and asks for help in identifying pertinant facts, and you respond by calling them a troll. Please try to be civil, and try to find ways to contribute, rather than disrupt. Carfiend 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no stars in Project Gemini photos either. I wonder why? "If it were real there would be stars visible in the jet-black sky." (Kaysing 2002:24).Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent point that should or could be added to the explanation in the article. It then puts the hoaxsters in the awkward position of having the say the hoax was planned from Day 1, and that earth orbit was not possible either, which pretty much collapses most of their alternate "theories". Wahkeenah 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

if you've seen the video of this, I think you see the straps in the back flapping - but there is supposed to be no wind in space. Hmmmm..... I think most conspiracy theories think the hoax started a couple of years after this flight. Bubba73 (talk), 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would have something to do with "inertia", which the hoaxsters probably know nothing about, having evidently played hooky during 8th grade science class. In any case, it looks like you've unveiled a whole new tunnel for the hoaxsters to mine: the concept that none of it happened. Not Apollo, not Gemini, not Mercury... nor the Shuttle. Oops. Wahkeenah 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as putting this on the main page, I think there are already three non-Apollo photos showing no stars, so if you add it, I think some of the others should be taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It might work to have a simple response saying "no stars show in the other NASA space photos either", and have a postage-stamp sized gallery of examples. The lack of stars is consistent across the board, and easily rubs out this ignorance-based argument of the hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. But this "inertia" thing. We only have Newton as a source for that. No independent verification. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if he saved his research results on his Apple? Wahkeenah 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for a negative?

W - how is anyone supposed to proove that they did not say something? I have never seen any evidence that any of the theorists on mentioned in this article have ever used to the derogatory term 'conspiracy theory' about themselves. Unless you can show an occasion where they did, we should assume they did not. Otherwise, how about attributing all kinds of rubbish to NASA, after all, you can't proove that they didn't say it? Carfiend 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is you that has made the claim that no one in the history of the universe who believes the moon flights were a hoax has ever described it as a "conspiracy theory". You have made the claim, so you must provide the evidence in support of it... as you keep reminding everyone who posts something you don't agree with. Wahkeenah 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, stating that there is no evidence for something obviously can' t be documented. So a statement like "There is no evidence that any major hoax proponent has ever used the term about themselves", or "there is no independent evidence that NASA ever went to the moon" are always shorthand for 'there is no known evidence. Obviously, someone might have muttered it under their breath, but it is not recorded. Carfiend 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is strictly your personal opinion. That is called "original research". Wahkeenah 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's pointing out that no evidence is presented. Carfiend 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "anecdotal" evidence. Until you have written every word that hoax proponents have written, you cannot say authoritatively that "there is no known evidence", because that is an "unknown" only to you. Now, in keeping with the assertions about how articles are supposed to be written, if you can cite a well-known hoax accuser such as Kaysing or Sibel making that same statement, then you can say, "Kaysing or Sibel say that no hoax accuser uses the term 'conspiracy theory'", then you've got something. Besides that, the best you can say is "Canfield says that no hoax accuser uses the term 'conspiracy theory'". That sho'nuff sounds like "original research" to me. Wahkeenah 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's have a section on the NASA administrator's confession. After all, you can't prove that he didn't make one, can you? Get real and stop with the childish games. Carfiend 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said he did. If you've got the evidence, present it. However, you have no basis for saying "never" in that one section. It implies you have read every known publication on the subject, which is possible, but I doubt it. Wahkeenah 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So you'd be fine me saying "NASA administrators seldom admit to committing the hoax"? Carfiend 00:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, please be rational and look at WP:V. If you want to claim that they never refer to it as a conspiracy theory, you need a citation. Your sentence is ""NASA administrators seldom admit to committing the hoax" would need a citation also however, it would run afoul of WP:NPOV by implicitly assuming a hoax took place. Don't muddle matters. JoshuaZ 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your logical contorsions are painful to watch. It's fine if the victim of misrepresentation are the other side, but not if it's your preffered POV? Of course. Carfiend 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it seems to me that the only way out of this morass is to accept the wisdom and witicisms of Canfield as holy writ and grant unto him omniscience? Nah, not gonna happen. •Jim62sch• 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever studied logic? The way out of this 'morass' is not to imply that people have said something they havn't, and then demand that they prove that they havn't. It's ridiculous, and brings the pro-NASA sides methods into disrepute. The solution is to follow the normal standards of evidence. Carfiend 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer: You can prove within reason a negative by demonstrating that someone has performed a good-faith search to the extent that if the item in question existed, they would have a very high probability of finding it. For example, you can't just look at an unknown house and say "there is no evidence of people inside." But if you look in every room, and examine every area where a person might hide, then you could reasonably say so, and can document a failed search as evidence for a negative. This is labor intensive, and can never be perfect, (did you check for babies in the air ducts?) so the Burden of Proof is important. If someone wants to say "No one ever said..." then they must prove that real research failed to turn up an example. However "XXX seldom says..." requires proof that at least some XXXes did say it. Algr

• I had reworded it to say "the hoax accusers themselves typically do not use that label". If that one user still has a problem with it, I don't know what to do. Wahkeenah 08:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• However, consider the larger issue: That user has been insisting that every pro-Apollo generalization be backed up by a citation. Yet here he tries to impose a blanket statement which he asserts is true and which is clearly based on his own experience. This is technically called a "double standard". Wahkeenah 09:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Furthermore, as I think about it, this is all a typical hoaxster red herring. The fact that they don't call it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean that it isn't one. It fits the definition perfectly. However, it is inflammatory. Wahkeenah 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'inflammatory' to the individuals who subscribe to the theory perhaps, but accurate and descriptive to everyone else -- which is the vast majority. Therefore the title of the article should be changed to reflect that.Numskll 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ensuring constant edit wars (I think we're in the wrong section now - alas.) Wahkeenah 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More faulty logic from the pro-NASA camp. You are applying the double standard. Consider again the two statements:

1. Hoax proponents typically do not use the phrase.

2. NASA proponents typically do not admit to the hoax.

In neither case is there any evidence that they have said what is implied by weasel words. Carfiend 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

here's why I'd consider a distinction, one group is one we as encylopedists are identifying as important, specifically for their beleifs, and who is in that group is a fuzzy line(such as people who aren't sure either way). Their completeness cannot be defined therefore, so making any statements about all of them that aren't specifically about why we seperated them as that group are almost impossible, asside from those can can go without saying (e.g. they all live on earth). The other declaration, is that exact sort, they defend hold a certain poitn of view, because we've selected a subset of people based on those that defend that view. even making the claim that they defend it is pointless without going into how.i kan reed 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand you. Perhaps you can re-phrase that? Carfiend 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

of course, summary: "NASA proponents typically do not admit to the hoax." is self-defined. They would not admit to it because they are the proponents. The moment they say there's a hoax, they are no longer within that group. It's circular reasoning, unlike some random person somewhere calling themselves a conspiriacy theorist. All I'm saying is that it's a false analogy. i kan reed 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're missing the point, but to pander to you for a moment, we'll tweak it.

1. Hoax proponents typically do not use the phrase.

2. NASA staff typically do not admit to the hoax.

Now, let's look at the point, which is that you are applying a double standard. Obviously no one can prove that a person did not say something. That does not mean that the article should assume they did until proof that they did not surfaces. It's ridiculous. Carfiend 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're accusing others of not having a grip on logic? Are you kidding? The first statement may be a logical statement assuming it's true. The second statement is the picture-perfect example of petitio principii and circulus in probando. It's like saying "Mel Gibson has not admitted to being gay" -- duh, probably because he isn't (although in the wording, the accuser clearly asserts, absent any proof, that he is). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Both statements are true, except that the second statement contains a logical phallacy, in that it presupposes there is a hoax, which has not been proven. However, it is easy to prove that the hoax side is a conspiracy theory. Your dispute is not that it fits the definition of a conspiracy theory, it's over the term "conspiracy theory" itself, which you find offensive. Wahkeenah 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Wahkeenah, whether it is a conspiracy theory is not what's under question right now.
2. he did not make the point i was trying to. I was figuring you'd change it to "NASA staff". this again is different. because 1 is a group of people selected based on their opinion, an ephemeral and hard to determine concept. There is no grand list of them, and even if you queried all the known people who fit into that category, another could arrive who would call themselves a conspiracy theorist. What people are a member of NASA's staff is a determined finite set of people, who can be individually checked for quotes on file. Sadly, in my opinion, this means your comparison is still not valid. i kan reed 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you can not prove that no NASA employee ever admitted to the hoax - I don't even believe you could come up with a reliable list of all NASA employees, given their record keeping skills. The two are entirely comparable. Carfiend 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, your logic only makes sense within your point of view, and is therefore faulty. "I'm right, so what I say is right" is not an argument. Carfiend 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of "this is an invalid argument" is hard to comprehend? "2. NASA proponents typically do not admit to the hoax." And mashed potatoes do not typically admit that they are meat, either. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Riiight. The penny is dropping for you at last. That, and the 'conspiracy theory' comments, are rubbish. Now, let's move on, and deal with the facts. Carfiend 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the facts

In an effort to get back to the task, I suggest we focus on trying to establish facts. Where are the telemetry tapes for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17? Many of the hoax proponent sites appear not to mention them, but I cannot find any evidence of them being available. Where are they? Carfiend 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since this seems to be of primary interest to you, why don't you research that question? Wahkeenah 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Look - I thought that rather than going around endlessly on unrelated stuff, there might be some interest in working collaboratively to get to the facts. I'm disapointed that you would rather rehash sterile edit wars and terms of abuse than try to work on improving the factual content of the article. Carfiend 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah is correct...if you're going somewhere with this, do the research. •Jim62sch• 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying. I thought that there might be some interest from others in helping work on factual content in the article, rather than pointless mud-slinging on the talk page. Apparently not. Carfiend 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, you can't just assume that something is missing and demand that other people prove it isn't. If you want to make this statement, then you must back it up with research. The whole Apollo hoax movement is based on people inventing this kind of accusation, and demanding endless evidence from others. Your behavior (and people like you) is the main reason why I reject the hoax idea.

Please read the question. I am not assuming anything. I have looked, and continue to look, for information about where the telemetry tapes for Apollos 12, 13, 14, etc are. I am not demanding, but inviting anyone interested in the truth to help me find out. I thought that looking at basic facts might help us reach agreement. It seems that it has just generated hostility. Carfiend 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bringing up the fact that they are apparently missing, on a page claiming it was a hoax, automatically carries the assumption that there is something sinister about their being missing, whether you directly intend that or not. It's a built-in bias, just as calling it a "conspiracy theory" carries a built-in bias, whether the one calls it that intends that or not. Wahkeenah 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Once more - my intention is to try to galvanize people who seem to engage in permanent mud-slinging matches with each other to lay down their shovels, and help try to find some facts. Surely between us we can figure out where these tapes are? I'm honestly baffled that you're not even curious about where they are. Carfiend 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mild curosity may exist. However, read WP:OR. JoshuaZ 03:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we publish my research, but there must be some record, some statement by NASA, something, saying where these are? Carfiend 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a record, then I will be very happy for you. Bueacracies lose things routinely and have no idea where they went. Original fossil casts for example are misplaced surprisingly often. Note that if you could find something through research and get it published in a reliable source like a history journal, then it wouldn't be WP:OR either. JoshuaZ 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RE OR, please read my last post. Carfiend 04:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why "must" there be a statement? There might be, but there's not necessarily any compelling reason that there must be. Am I curious about where they are? Not enough to spend my tax dollars on it. It's an old project, and there's not necessarily any legal reason for them to keep old stuff around. It might be around, in a mislabeled crate next to the one with the Lost Ark in it, but there is no absolute reason that it has to be around. Wahkeenah 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to see the hi-res video?! Carfiend 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look. Again. I'm trying to find out where they are. Why the defensiveness? Shouldn't you be interested in the search for truth, rather than trying to find a priori reasons why, even if there were no evidence, it would be ok? I'm asking the question "What are the known facts about the tapes?", which, I thought, might be one we could agree on. Stop with the defensiveness already. Carfiend 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, lets assume good faith on Carfiend's part, and treat this as a simple request for for research tips. I wouldn't assume that everything NASA ever did has been put online yet, so finding these tapes would mean going to an archive somewhere. You said you "have looked, and continue to look, for" the info. So tell us where you looked so far. Algr 05:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here [[5]], though much of the Apollo era stuff hasn't been digitized yet and you may have to order it (CASI has a service that will digitize specific docs on request - not sure about cost (if any - it is in part a public service) and time frame) and look at this [[6]]for some insight into the processing of telemetry data. I'll warn you, you'll need patience to wade through this stuff (this particular doc is only 13 pages though) or perhaps, depending on your level of technical literacy, an engineer to interpret parts of it. Numskll 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV part II

Since the original discussion is getting bloated and heading off topic, let me elaborate on what I think is the issue here: Carfiend says that the page is neutral because both points of view are treated equally. The people claiming that the page violates NPOV believe it does so for precisely the same reason: by Wiki policy, Apollo-denial should be treated as a minority view that contradicts the scientific consensus. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Mark Grant

Mark's summary fits my understanding. Numskll 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP policy does not say that minority views should not be given respect on pages devoted to them - the misunderstanding is about a piece in the NPOV policy that refers to minority views on main pages, for example, if the Apollo Program page was predominantly about the hoax theory. It isn't. This page is about the hoax theory, and the policy people keep rolling out does not apply. Both points of view are represented here, but in many places it is stated that the hoax proponents are in a minority and have virtually no support in the scientific establishment. Since this page is about the hoax accusations, it is only natural that they are featured. NASA's POV is also represented. The POV warriors on that side think that this page, like Project Apollo should only present NASA's view. Carfiend 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with carefiend here. This is a topic where the minority view is the main point. It should still be painted as a minority(and scientifically unaccepted) view, and if that isn't the case, then it does indeed have an NPOV problem.

carfiend, I'm going to have to jump on you before(or even if) you jump on the "scientifically unaccepted" part of my comment. It's generally pretty well established as a precendent on wikipedia and elsewhere that scientifically accpted means peer reviewed science journal of a related field. There's all sorts of journals on this subject many of which support NASA's view on this matter, if you can find any articles suggesting otherwise from credible science journals, then we'll have a whole new flamewar on our hands that will just be deadly. to see what i mean, and research for yourself check stanfords journals on space exploration.

None of that means that the views of the minority should not be fully addressed and listed in the article about them, it only refers to the light in which portrayls should be made. i kan reed 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This article should be about Apollo-denial as a cultural phenomenon, not a laundry list of arguments treated as the equal of the accepted scientific viewpoint. Compare it to other articles on similar topics. Mark Grant 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend's summary does not entirely fit my understanding. Mark's is closer. The answer I am sensing a consensus developing around is to put the examination of the arguments within its own article, and leave this one clearly demarcated as a metanarrative, describing the history of the story's existence and key events in its exposition (as exhaustively explored above). This has the advantage that, as for other controversial items on the 'pedia, we can accommodate passionate would-be contributors in an appropriate place, without adding to the credibility issues constantly faced by the 'pedia. This should suit editors on both sides - what purpose could it serve to maintain your views in a medium that's universally dismissed as lacking all credibility?

May I now take a straw poll on who would assent / object to my making such a split? If you are all at least open to the suggestion, I could then draw up a draft of the two emerging articles for you all to review. Adhib 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. It is an act of desparation by a group who cannot win their argument with facts. Please, I am appealing to any of you who are in good faith to work on issues of fact, like the telemetry above, instead of trying to undermine Wikipedia policy. Carfiend 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I assent. My rational for doing so is well documented above, Carfiend's false "Good Faith" vs. "undermine Wikipedia policy" dichotomy aside.Numskll 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose It is agaisnt wikipedia NPOV policy to have a POV fork, where one POV is given it's own article and others are given another. I'd much rather see their claims and everything remain in this article, but present that this is not credible science under the most standard criteria for credible science(peer reviewed journals, experimentation, provable hypotheses). even a subsection that is a laundry list of claims would be ok, just not as a lead in to the article. i kan reed 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

as an extra, i've found the peice most descriptive in policy here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a cultural phenomenon and merits discussion of its point of view fully and clearly, so long as wikipedia does not assert it as being the predominant scientific view. i kan reed

Just so we don't fall for Numskull's implied criticism - at no point is the hoax being presented as accepted science. Carfiend 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

that's true, however, it may need to be explicitly stated as non-science, because it deals with something related to science(it's in some ways a stretch, in some ways not) i kan reed 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is stated in the first paragraph that "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the hoax accusations have rejected them as baseless.". How much clearer can we make it? Carfiend 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah that sounds fine, I think people are overreacting then. This article has style problems, not NPOV problems.

I obviously disagree that the issues are simply those of style for reasons I've given above. I don't think a weasel worded disclaimor at the beginning of the article 'fixes' the NPOV issue. With regards to the propsed fork,Doesn't this rule, WP:SS, apply? I assumed that a summary style (with attendant global fixes to the psychophrenic POV, oddly contorted phrasing, etc)was more in line with Adhib's proposal than the POV fork and would give space ( forgive the pun) to the airing of minutia. Numskll 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, to address your factual error, SS is a guideline, not a rule. It's existance does not mean that every article needs to follow it. Secondly, what is 'weasel'y about the statement

It is stated in the first paragraph that "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the hoax accusations have rejected them as baseless."? It is a clear statement of fact. The kind of clear facts that the pro-NASA camp seem to loath. A POV fork will be against policy, and not help. Let's focus on making the article more factually correct. Please, again, consider helping research facts rather than fighting POV Jihads. Carfiend 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

this whole talk feels like an exersize in WP:POINTi kan reed 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

? I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Carfiend 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i was getting frustrated, I think I'll take a short break from discussion on this page. i kan reed 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am frustrated with this endless wrangling, which is why I am suggesting that as a way forward we focus on questions of fact, like, above, where are the telemetry tapes? I find it revealing that there is no interest in this question, while plenty of interest in arguing about pointless, inflamatory things. Carfiend 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I need to know the magic words to ask the question. Do you think this guideline, WP:SS might apply to Adhib's suggestion. It seems to apply to me and has the advantages I mentioned above. Here is a revision of the sentence I called weasel worded: ""The mainstream scientific community have rejected the hoax theories as baseless,a view shared by the overwelming majortiy of the pulbic."" I prefer this one becuase it does not give the impression that disinterested scientists or those who have not commented have a good chance of accepting the hoax theories. I think much of the article is rife with gems just like the example. The rules, guildlines, and/or sky-writing on pseudoscience would seem to support the approach i've taken. Oh, and the telemetry tapes are missing and presumed lost as I understand it from the article. What else is there to say about it. They're lost. we can't analyze them. They don't support anyone's claim. And aren't we supposed to be discussing ways to improve the article in this space, not trying to prove one truth or the other? Numskll 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The one there already is more specific, and factually verifiable. On the second point, if you had read it, you would realise that the article talks about the Apollo 11 tapes. The others are unaccounted for. Please read before commmenting. Carfiend 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the telemetry tapes are missing and presumed lost as I understand it from the article. - per one of the people involved in the search, right now they're still expected to turn up: but there's still a possibility they really were re-used rather than stored in an unexpected place. Either way, it won't make a difference to the Apollo-deniers, because they'll just claim the tapes are fake when and if they do turn up. Mark Grant 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, a failure to read the article and the comment in question. The article deals with Apollo 11, the status of the other tapes is unknown. Please do us the courtesy of reading before commenting. On your second point, a wonderful ad-hominem attack based on your ability both to mind-read and to see into the future. "facts are irrelevant, because I know what the other side will say". Great. We havn't really got the top thinkers working on this from the pro-NASA side, have we? Carfiend 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. For how to properly deal with issues of undue weight, see the articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design. •Jim62sch• 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about helping to work on establishing the facts? No? Much better to argue about evolution! Carfiend 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, as is your habit, you completely ignored my first question WP:SS, which was my main one and most applicable to the topic under discussion, for reasons I don't care to guess at. on the other stuff: As you may remember, I was talking about weasel words and the sentence in question. I sought to remove them while keeping the sense of the sentence. I gave my rationale in brief above. Your opinion on the merits of either are your own, though I do think given the wikipedia take on pseudoscience my version makes sense and certainly reads better (minus the typoes of course)and will make more sense to the average reader(again see my rationale above concerning the spectre of all those disinterested, commentless hoax theory scientists and technications out there). As far as the tapes go, that discussion is best carried out in a section devoted to it, not in the current discussion about problems with the NPOV in this article. I suggest you start one and I'll, to the best of my ability, respond directly to as many of your questions as I have time and patience for -- a courtesy you have not afforded anyone here I'd remind you. Still, unless you have evidence that NASA made the tapes go missing for the reasons you are guessing at you're just dealing with an absence of available information not a evidence that proves the hoax theories. Again others have argued this fundamental point with you and you've rejected it. I've no expectation, given your behavior here, that my saying it again will sway you. You've got all the proof you need to convince yourself and you have [convinced yourself]. You should write a book on the topic or, as I've suggested before and as is echoed in some wikipolicies, guidelines, or informal praxis on bias and unbridled POV, perhaps a blog. Numskll 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I have responded to every question that has been posed. Carfiend 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been, see focus on the facts above. Carfiend 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More speculation on other's actions and motives. The question I have posed is "Where are the Apollo 12,13,14, and 15 tapes"? It is a perfectly neutral question that we should all be able to seek the answer to without an agenda. Carfiend 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already decided.

I'm glad you've condemmed me. If I had decided already, I would not be asking the question. Carfiend 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend, please dont insert your rants in the middle of my posts. That's vandalism and introduces the possibility of you actually changng my words or breaking them up so the meaning changes. You been asked not to do this before. I've fixed my part. fix up yours Numskll 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the merits of a wiki is that you are not restricted to a simple flow of text. If you can't deal with that, then fine. Your post contains nothing but unsourced accusations, and does not contribute to a better, more factual article. I am asking again that you stop this pointless exchange of playground insults and join me in looking for facts to improve the article. Carfiend 22:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Ok. you're not going to engage again. At all. No suprise. And you think you'll acheive consensus on NPOV this way? No? . . . Anyway, Please don't intersperse your rants in other's blocks of text on this page. I'm pretty sure their rules, guidelines and matybe even common sense that argue against it. It impares readability. However, don't despair, there is magic feature of contemporary personal computers called 'cut and paste'. Try using that. See, you can copy the part of the others comments you wish to respond to, paste them into a new space and then format of your response and the bit your responding to differently so anyone coming to the page who has not, lets say, read every word, could make some sense out of it. Just tearing up another's post on the talk page breaks the continuity of discussion(such as it is). You been asked before. It's a simple courtesy I ask of you again. And enough of your tacit(and explicit) insults. I believe I am working to improve the article. If you can't deal with it, fine. But enough with the insults Numskll 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for two answers from him: (1) if he were head of NASA on July 20, 1969, and knew for a fact that the Apollo program was for real and that men were on the moon, how would he prove it? and (2) where are the results of his research on the topics that interest him so much, such as the missing tapes? I heard they were recycled, and that the 2001 Fox program was inadvertently taped on one of them. Now that would be a coverup. Wahkeenah 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) You keep saying that. I keep telling you - I answered it above. Which part of the answer are you not happy with? (2) Where are the results of my research? I've been encorporating the things I have found (where I can source them properly) into the article. As you know. I am asking for help from anyone interested in the truth to try to track down fact like where the tapes are. I am constantly baffled at how much more interested you are in mud slinging than in factually improving the article. Carfiend 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is way too much stuff to wade through. Kindly copy-and-paste it here so I can see it. :) Wahkeenah 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been archived somewhere by the looks of it. Off the top of my head, I suggested that ways to do this would be stratgies like: 1. Having the astronauts respond to some third party generated information, like a major newspaper headline (something that could not have been predicted days or weeks in advance, when the footage would have been filmed. 2. Taking a third party sealed camera, that could not be tampered with easily. 3. Have another arbitrary object like a newspaper appear in the moon footage that was given to the crew by a third party just before the launch, again, to avoid the footage having been filmed in advance.

As I say, these are off the top of my head, so I don't want to go into whether or not each could be faked too, obviously that's a fruitless discussion - the point is that there would be some third party coroboration of NASA's story with these approaches. Carfiend 02:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. And if it had ever occurred to them that people would be debating this 37 years later, maybe they would have. At the time, there seemed no need to. Just like there is no apparent need to do that for the shuttle. However, maybe someone could go through the transcripts and see if they actually did make reference to current events. Not that that would prove anything, as they could be doing it live on a soundstage, vacuum-sealed to ensure that the flag never moves (which it didn't, once they planted it firmly). Wahkeenah 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting hypothesis! The hoax theory says the landings were filmed, probably weeks in advance. That would predict that there would be no mention of events that occured after the filming. If they did mention something that happened after the launch, it would be powerful evidence for the launch. Carfiend 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I just assumed that's what you were driving it. But the theory of filming weeks in advance is based on nothing, so it is just as plausible to suppose that the "simulated" moonwalks were done live in a studio. Keep in mind that what we saw initially was TV video, not film. So it could very easily have been done live. It also just occurred to me that the first thing Armstrong said when he stepped off the LM was "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", flubbing his line by failing to say "for a man", and with static almost drowning out the last part of the sentence. The hoaxsters would have us believe those imperfections were done on purpose to "make it seem genuine". Wahkeenah 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think there may be some live interviews from the shuttle? Carfiend 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or on what is alleged to be the shuttle. There's a walk-through mockup in KSC, so it would be very easy to fake all this stuff right now. Wahkeenah 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sarcasm aside, I think it would still be quite difficult to fake a live interview with a schoolchild (I think it was, I don't recall) with a weightless astronaught that went on for 10 minutes or so. Doing it live would still be very difficult. Pre-recording is the key. Carfiend 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, pre-recording on low-grade videotape to make it "look real". Wahkeenah 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the shuttle is hi-res video, which, again, speaks for reality. The hi-res for the Apollo missions has been 'lost'. All we have is grainy stuff that would be easy to cover wires etc. Carfiend 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Only for the Apollo 11 moonwalk. The complete video for the other Moon missions is available on DVD in high quality, because there were no scan conversions, etc. Spaceflight Films Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I couldn't find the things you're talking about on the site - there are some documentaries, which might contain some clips, but not the full video. Carfiend 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Those DVDs contain the full video and film.

• Apollo 11
• Apollo 12 (On Apollo 12, the TV camera was damaged shortly into the moonwalk, so there isn't much video of the moonwalk. All of the other stuff is there.)
• Apollo 15
• Apollo 16
• Apollo 17

Apollo 17 Product Description "On 6 DVDs this spectacular set brings you the complete television transmissions and onboard film of the Apollo 17 mission - the last lunar mission of the Apollo program. Featuring complete coverage of training, preparation, launch, recovery and more, this set brings you rare onboard recordings (such as audio from inside the command module during launch) and delivers over 27 hours of material documenting this historic mission. Featuring unique commentary from interviews conducted at the time of the mission, you'll get a fascinating look at what going to the moon is really like... until we go back, of course."

Bubba73 (talk), 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And if you are wondering why Apollo 14 isn't listed there, it is being replaced by a more comprehensive package. There are DVDs of the other missions too. Bubba73 (talk), 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Carfiend 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave a wrong link the first time, this is the correct one, Spacecraft films not Spaceflight films. Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think you ever answered the question of what was Kaysing's "epiphany" about the moon hoax (aside from getting canned by NASA). Wahkeenah 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Positive Evidence for the hoax

The 'evidence' on this page seems to focus on perceived gaps in the historical record and bits of unconnected trivia that seek to negate the 'truth' around the various Apollo landings. My question is this: Is there any evidence that actually points to the hoax? Any evidence of action/actors taking part in a cover-up? Any evidence of a conspiracy? I'm not asking for 'questions' about the completenesss of NASA's records or uninformed speculation on various pieces of hair or bits of dust in the photos, or the ridiculous questions about why stars don't show up in the photos -- we've seen enough of that. I'm asking for a single piece of semi-credible evidence that indicates, directly or indirectly, the conspiracy occured. Please be specific as possible. Numskll 11:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The evidence that I have seen is of tampering, inconsistencies and errors within NASA's account, including impossible claims. In terms of a 'smoking gun', a tape of a confession, a memo about the hoax, then no, I have not seen it. Carfiend 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

actual evidence of tampering would qualify, please expand. 'Impossible claims' too were they really impossible.Numskll 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on the page. I'm not going to feed you with more discussion of things we've already been over. How about posing some questions of fact that we can use to improve the article? Oh, right. Carfiend 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

it was and is a sincere question. Please regulate your tone. If such evidence did exist it should be noted prominently in the article. If it does not that should be noted too. Numskll 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

His answer is exactly what I expected: NASA is the only source (which is untrue on its face) and the burden of proof is somehow on NASA, despite the fact that the hoaxsters have yet to present any evidence contradicting the conventional history of the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying this (NASA is the only source (which is untrue on its face)) which part of the statement that NASA is the only source for evidence of a human landing is not true? What other evidence for a human landing do you have? Carfiend 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic. You've just begun another section that discusses NASA evidence below. Why try to hijack this topic too? I've replied to your concerns below. Let's try and keep this discussion orderly so new eyes will be able to make sense of it.Numskll 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Independent Evidence for NASA's human landing

The 'evidence' for the NASA human landing is entirely from NASA. Is there any independent confirmation that human landing took place? Carfiend 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, some people walked to the Moon to act as independent witnesses :-) AdamSmithee 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Score one to sarcasm, independent evidence zero. Carfiend 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk about beating a dead horse - we just had this discussion in the "Independent confirmation" topic above, and everything you suggested might convince you already exists. Then you redefined your requests into impossibility, and started blanket-denying the existence of all sorts of stuff without evidence, and generally started saying that Nasa ought to be treated like known criminals. The hoaxers endlessly lie about evidence and credentials. (see Bart Sibrel stalking astronauts) When did Nasa ever lie about anything? What "Independent Evidence" did Christopher Columbus have that he discovered America? Algr 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

it has been noted above that no 'independant' evidence, that the hoaxers would find credible, does or can exist -- possibly due to the fact that NASA didn't see the need for it and partly becuase of the practical problems associated with getting independant evidence from the moon --but that evidence that most people find credible and convincing does -- again, see above. We can argue about whether that evidence 'proves' anything till the cows come home to no good effect -- that is the very nature of debates surrounding conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. I'll remind you that NASA is not a monolith and information from that organization comes from a host of individuals, who in their role as scientists and academics, do have a sort of intellectual independance built into the context academic/research institution --another point that you have at least tactily dismissed, but that seems reasonably compelling to others. Numskll 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a good way to summarize this argument would be:

• The evidence supporting the Apollo flights is incomplete.
• The evidence contradicting the Apollo flights is nonexistent.

I think a better way to characterize it would be:

• The evidence supporting the Apollo human landing is incomplete and comes from only one source.
• The evidence contradiciting the Apollo human landing is suggestive and circumstantial.

Carfiend 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many citations here and in the article of other sources besides NASA tracking the flights. To keep saying NASA is the only source is untrue and typical hoaxster dis-information. The only "evidence" appearing to contradict the Apollo chronology is from a combination of ignorance and willful deception practiced by guys like Kaysing. Wahkeenah 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is the hoaxster response to the idea (which seems true on it's face) that NASA isn't a hive mind or that a swarm of sub-contractors and academics also contributed to the program? This question certainly goes to the intent of independant verification misconception, and should, as a practical matter, have implications on the way the evidence is presented in the article itself. Thus, the question would seem to have a direct bearing on the topic at hand and the required scope of such a conspiracy, as is pointed out in several anti-hoax sources, would seem prohibitive and its long-term success unlikely. No? Numskll 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as independant evidence?:Russians also tracked the conversations between mission control and the men on the moon, and could very easily determine whence the source of those radio signals . . . Numskll 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nyet. The KGB was in on the conspiracy. >:) Wahkeenah 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This point has been addressed

We have a referenced source, outside of NASA, the ESA, with a prominent member being quoted with a statement supporting outside evidence of the apollo missions. This is independent verification. Additionally this has prompted me to want to write an FAQ for this talk. I'll draft a straw poll for that further down the page

Interesting question

As a change of pace, here is an interesting question for everyone: Which of the following pieces of evidence was the one that actually convinced Bill Kaysing that the Moon landing was a hoax:

1. no stars in the photos

2. questions about shadows in the photos

3. flag waving in the photos

4. "moon" rocks could come from Antarctica

5. missing Moon Buggy blueprints

6. lack of a blast crater under the Lunar Module

7. the moving "coke bottle" in the Apollo 11 moonwalk video

The answer may surprise you! Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Moon Hoax trivia quiz! I'll play! I guess that it was... the flag waving? Carfiend 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it had to do with whatever he was smoking at the time; hence the expression, "Kaysing the joint". Wahkeenah 23:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe he came upon that discovery the same way that General Jack D. Ripper arrived at his theory of "Purity Of Essence". Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's got possibilities. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The answer is: None of the above! It was a trick question. In his book, Kaysing said that he decided beforehand that no one was going to the moon. All of this "evidence" came afterward. Kaysing seemed to know about truthiness more than 35 years ago! Of course, NASA sympathizers (NASA-istas?) are going to cry "foul" and say that you should look at the evidence and then make up your mind, instead of making up your mind first... Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why am I not the least bit surprised? This confirms my suspicions about Kaysing. He probably hatched this plan the day he was canned. He waited until it was "safe", when he knew there would be no more flights, and also rode the crest of the wave of conspiracy theory stuff published in the mid-1970s, centering on JFK, Vietnam, Watergate, etc. -- a context which the young hoaxster cons are unaware of because they were mere infants then, if anything. Wahkeenah 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is often stated that he was fired, but on page 80 of his book, he prints a letter from Rockwell/Rocketdyne that indicates that he quit for personal reasons. His employment history with Rockwell (as stated in the letter) is summarized at Bill Kaysing. The letter says he was "Publications Analyst", and I don't know if that is the same thing as "head of technical publications" so often cited. Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That phraseology is often used as face-saving (on both sides) when someone gets fired. However, in the absence of firm evidence, I will accept that statement. It's possible he didn't lie all the time. :) Wahkeenah 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Publications Analyst" could mean anything. It could mean his job was to look for spelling errors and to make sure the pages weren't printed upside-down. Wahkeenah 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Elsewhere in his book, he said that the VP and Head of PR at Rocketdyne said that he "had been fired and was a disgruntled employee grinding a personal axe". (This was in the 1970s, I think.) He uses the letter saying that he quit for personal reasons to coutner that. So I'm not sure what the facts are. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Subject of the article

Surely the subject of the article is (very simplified) "there are some people who believe that the 1969 Apollo landing was a hoax; these are the reasons they present; here are the counter arguments." Are similar arguments presented against some of the other space activities - and if not why not?

It is getting on for 40 years since the event: has anyone come up with even a photograph that has been tidied up? Surely it would have been much easier for NASA to have said that "for technical reasons we are sending an inhabited rocket to the moon to place a number of locator/marker beacons before the 1960s are out, and actual men on the moon by (say) mid 1972 using those beacons" - would remain within the spirit of JFKs remark, and would involve far less hassle than a global cover-up. Jackiespeel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• The hoaxsters cite various alleged "anomolies" in photos in support of their argument. The bulk of their argument against the flights stems from Kaysing's pre-judgment that it "wasn't possible". They start with that premise and look for "clues" in support of that judgment. That's the basis and the essence of the hoaxster conspiracists' "theory". Lacking any direct evidence, they also throw red herrings out there, such as arguing that somehow NASA needs to "prove" what those of us who lived through that era already feel satisfied is true. Their arguments don't stand up to logic. To film the walking on the moon, they would have to have been working in an airless environment to keep the flags motionless, as they remain through the entirety of the moonwalks on the films. They would also have to have launched all manner of orbiting and soft-landing craft to the moon, which the hoaxster cons do not deny they did, as a total ruse. They also knew how to do rendezvous and docking. They planned the flights around the Van Allen belts to keep exposure to a minimum. Everything they needed to do to go to the moon, land, and return, they knew how to do. Kaysing's original premise, that it wasn't possible, is false, and therefore his entire argument has no logical basis. But the hoaxsters continue down that garden path, and that's why there are constant wranglings over the wording of this article. They want to present only their side, with no response, leaving the false impression that there really is something to their argument. Wahkeenah 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question "has anyone come up with even a photograph that has been tidied up?" Yes - there is one. The only one to my knowledge that has been tidied up is the famous one of Buzz Aldrin, in the "photographs" section of the main article. It was tidied up by adding black area at the top because the original frame cut off at the top of his helmet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll - please keep to the point, folks!

My suggestion to follow a model for article structure, deployed with some success elsewhere on wikipedia, in the spirit of the guideline Summary style, has got somewhat lost. I'm proposing we do this in order to de-escalate the endless warfare this topic attracts, to stabilise the common ground (which is that the idea exists, has a particular history, and some notable characters), and place the 'examination of the arguments' piece in its own space, with ample room for perpetual fisticuffs. I'm not seeking permission to make wholesale changes - just asking if you'd mind me drafting what such a model would look like in this case, for consensus-gathering. So: Can I request further comments on this motion and this motion only in this new section - otherwise they'll get lost? So far I have -

• Carfiend opposes - seems to him to be a desperate measure I'm resorting to to evade his mastery of facts.
• I Kan reed opposes - considers that this would constitute a POV fork.
• Numskil assents - for reasons he believes he has aforementioned. He also refers i kan reed to WP:SS on the POV issue.
• Jim - forgive me, I couldn't tell, was that a yes, but follow this third model, or no, this third model shows a change is unnecessary? Adhib 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• This worked well on conspiracy theory several months ago. It's at least worth outlining, and then we can see. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I favor the idea of summary-style main article and another article to examine the claims. In the main article, the hoax theory could be talked aobut in general, and it can be stated that it goes against the mainstream, and link to the other article listing and examining the claims. (I am opposed to a fork which would make one article pro-hoax and the other article anti-hoax.) Bubba73 (talk), 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, outline it and see how it goes. •Jim62sch• 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Give it a try. Wahkeenah 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - the point I was making above in a slightly different form. Jackiespeel 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you could somehow describe the movement without their arguments, it would work, but I wonder what that would look like. (And if any pro hoaxers would accept it. Would it be all about Sibrel stalking astronauts and such?) I Oppose an article that would allow Moon Hoax claims to stand without skeptical comment. WP:SS Seems to suggest instead spinning off sections like "Photographs and films" into their own article. And as far as "popular culture and parody" do we really need an exhaustive list? Algr 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"need" is a strange word in that context. I don't know whether 'we' do, but concievably someone might. Carfiend 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've read the article for the first time a few days ago, and read it in its entirety. It doesn't flow well at all in my opinion, so I am in favour of splitting. Sections 1-4 and 6-8 are general and/or historical in nature, whereas section 5 is predominantly technical. Dividing into one main and one "examination of arguments" article would seperate these disparate components. TeraBlight 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the following observation will help placate some hoax proponents who feel strongly about the repeated use of the Holocaust denial article as a reference: If you take a look at the entries for Project Apollo and The Holocaust, you will notice that these DO follow broadly the same pattern, apart from a different ordering.

• Overview & planning,
• personnel (astronauts/perpetrators),
• chronology (missions/execution),
• products (samples/victims),
• aftermath & context.

In no way does this imply that NASA and Nazis have anything in common, it merely mirrors the fact that Apollo and the Holocaust are the same type of thing at a superficial level - namely projects. (Yes, this is meant to sound a little callous.) Analogously, it is evident that Holocaust denial and Apollo hoax claims are also the same type of thing, so a similar encyclopedic treatment would seem indicated. TeraBlight 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, et al tags part 3

• User numskll posted those banners at 00:59 on the 11th, no doubt in exasperation at that point in time. Now that you've raised this logical question again, I'm waiting for the hoaxsters to go on yet another rant that comparing the arguments of the Holocaust deniers, or even merely the structure of the article, with those of the Apollo deniers, somehow equates to comparing Apollo deniers with Nazis themselves. But the hoaxsters often put a parallel-universe spin on things that are obvious to the rest of us. Wahkeenah 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I replaced the tags ScienceApologist posted and Carfiend, I believe innapropriately, removed. I did it because I think the tags are valid, not out of some overwhelming emotion, please WP:AGF. I also put a heading over your comments Wahkeenah on the tags to try and keep the straw poll section on topic. I'm sorry if that is agianst your wishes and will completely understand if you feel the need to return them to the Straw Poll section or I'll do so myself if you wish. I simply belive a small amount of topic discipline may help new readers grok the issues being discussed . Numskll 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sehr gut. Wahkeenah 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A difficulty of this article in particular

This talk page repeatedly has subsections where someone says "Side X does not address claim Y." I have noticed no helpful article development resulting from these sorts of subsections. Particularly, there have been no true documented debates on this issue, which makes specific oppurtunities for anyone to address those concerns specifically as those concerns quite rare. The article, as it stands, expects a format where all claims are expected to be addressed. As I mentioned, there is no NPOV way of managing that. This is where I think all the "undue weight" concerns stem from. My reconmendation is the "complete list of claims" type sections be changed into "characteristic" or "common" claims, to help address the Notion of types of concerns, which would give the reader a more concise and clear understanding of the objections. I'm basing this off the fact that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article should focus on helping clarify things from a reader's perspective. I'd like some feedback on whether this would actually address the tension found in the article and whether it would improve the quality of wikipedia(and keep in the spirit of the wikipedia project). This would result in some NPOV concerns if done blindly so careful examination of the article should be done first. i kan reed 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, considering the inflammatory and condescending attitude of many of the other pages on both sides, from Sibel to Plait, this article is one of the least offensive writeups on the net, as I see it. It could still do with a bit less editorializing, but when dealing strictly with facts it does try to be straightforward and not take the "Jane, you ignorant slut!" approach, for the most part. Wahkeenah 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, strangely, with W. The article is improved through removing editorialising and focussing on the facts. It is unusual to find a page that simply treats the claims of both sides in terms of the facts of what they say without adding (much) of a layer of polemic. Carfiend 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the theoretical strengths of wikipedia. Some have ridiculed it as "knowledge by consensus" or some such, but that's the way it is with all reference books in general, it's just that this one has a potentially much broader editorial base. And unlike many of those other sites which are pushing a personal agenda or whatever, this one at least has the chance to avoid that trap. Wahkeenah 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A pat on the back, my good man. A pat on the back. Carfiend 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might have been true 10 hours ago, until the Johnstown Edit Flood was unleashed again. >:( Wahkeenah 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you got a pat on the back for being so affable or something Numskll 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew I should have been suspicious. It's like a bit I've alluded to before, where Groucho Marx is expounding at length on some concept, and some vaccuous audience member jumps up and says, "I think that is a wonderful idea!" Groucho comes back with, "Oh, you do, eh? Well, then there can't be much to it. Forget about it!" Wahkeenah 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What Happened on the Moon?

In the section "Major proponents of the moon hoax" is a redlink to David Percy's film "What Happened On the Moon?" (note the capital O in "On"). However, there exists an article named What happened on the Moon (with a lower case H), created last April, that isn't very well written. It's tagged as a stub. I couldn't verify the correct title using IMDb. If the title contains a question mark, it must be encoded correctly. Could someone fix that page (NPOV) and link it here correctly? Wipe 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• What's stopping you from taking care of it? Wahkeenah 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on this. There seems to be people here with a lot of information and opinions on the subject. If they don't care or have the time, it's fine by me. That documentary apparently has views that are against my own so I don't particularly mind if nobody finds it. Wipe 15:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - Wahkeenah is just naturally hostile to anyone who looks like they are trying to get the facts straight. He doesn't mean anything by it. Carfiend 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

carfiend: WP:NPA is a non-negotiable policy. i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Wahkeenah knows it's not personal. ;) Carfiend 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm "hostile" to folks who post something here and then expect someone else to do the work. Wahkeenah 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He said he came here looking for someone who knew something about the subject. assume that he means it. i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Wahkeenah 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wipe, the best you can do for that article is tag it with {{expert}} i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I don't see any mentions to REM's album and song "Man On The Moon", where the chrous goes like this: "Hey Andy, did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch? Hey Andy, are you goofing on Elvis? Hey baby, are we losing touch? If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool" I'm not putting it in myself, not quite comfortable with wiki-editing yet :) Cheers Trubadurix 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to get an English translation first. Wahkeenah 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It was in there at one point, but was taken out to cut the size down. Put it back if you like. Carfiend 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would obviously be a powerful addition to the prose in this article. Wahkeenah 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've lost nothing of your dryness these few days. Carfiend 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is dry here in the Great North. Wahkeenah 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Get Rid of That Neutrality Tag

A few days ago I started adding my edits to this piece and find it very interesting, and I have noticed that it actually DOES present both sides of the issue, so why is that Neutrality Box hovering over the text like a Moon lander? Can I shoot it down with my laser ray NOW, or will somebody else do it?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that you not touch it until you have read all the debate and discussion on the matter. Wahkeenah 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Please look over the several sections in talk about it. I'd note that there is a redraft of the article in the works. Numskll 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's part fo an ongoing campaign by landing believers to move the article to conform to their POV. I advocate removing it. Carfiend 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It used to be that the hoaxsters were the ones posting it. But in this case, the original poster posted it and then walked away, so I don't see a problem with removing it. We'll see if that assessment holds true or not. Wahkeenah 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I contradicted myself in the space of two days. Forsooth. However, the distinction is that George Louis' reason for taking it down has to do with whether it presents both sides, and that is apparently not the criterion. However, the one who posted it has done nothing to try and improve the alleged problems with the article, so I'm OK with Mr. Hoaxster taking it down, as the lightning bolts will accrue to him instead. Wahkeenah 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

;) Carfiend 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag now also questions the "factual accuracy" of the article, something that is not backed by any part of this discussion as far as I can see. The entire opinion-portion of the article ("claims"/"rebukes") is clearly labelled as just that, so it cannot be meant. If there are accuracy issues with the fact-portion (i.e. the history of the hoax accusations and its notable proponents), it should be easy to specifically point these out. TeraBlight 08:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no fact disputes, the tags are just there to disrupt. Carfiend 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As has been discussed ad naseum above it is the structure, composition and tone of the article that violate NPOV and quality standards. The tags are useful because they bring new eyes to these issues. Seemingly naive questions like these make the idea of never archiving anything on these pages relatively appealing. Please consult any one of the three or four discussions labeled NPOV.n Numskll 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Parallax argument

One of the rebukes in section 6.4.3 claimed that stellar parallax is undetectable with an Earth-Moon baseline. While this is most likely true for the technology in question, it is not true in principle. I tentatively changed the paragraph to incorporate this. TeraBlight 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. No evidence is presented for the inability to make parallax deteriminations, as usual. Carfiend 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at the posting, it does not contradict the practical answer given. No human is going to be able to just look at the photos and see a difference in parallax. Wahkeenah 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But the claim that is made is that an astronomer could detect the parallax mistakes. Carfiend 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, where you bin, boy? On vacation? :) Wahkeenah 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No one - not even astronomers - would be able to detect that tiny parallax in the Apollo photos. Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The resolution of camera lenses are more than a factor of 1,000 from what is needed to capture a parallax that small, and film has considerably less resolving power than the lenses. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To put it in perspective (no pun intended), suppose you were taking a photo of something one mile away, in front of very distant objects. Now you move the camera 1/100,000,000 of a mile to the side (about 6/10,000 of an inch) and took another photo. Would you be able to that the position of the object one mile away had shifted? And that is for the nearest star, and almost all stars are much farther away than that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is also assuming that the astronauts are rock steady when taking the photos. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend repairing your nonsense. Carfiend 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That should require no time at all on your part. 0:) Wahkeenah 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Carfiend 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the parallax paragraph again, trying to incorporate the extra quantitative information added in a less confusing (I hope) manner. TeraBlight 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has gone to the dogs

This article right now is horrendous because it is bending over backwards spoonfeeding hoax believers mumbo-jumbo with no attempt to actually describe the main subject which is the hoax accusations and their context. Detailed arguments have no place in Wikipedia and the tit-for-tat call-and-response is out-of-line. There is no other article on Wikipedia that has this sort of writing style for good reason: it is editorially quite poor. Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not mean equal time, nor does it mean that we need to give each perspective a "sounding board". I recommend trashing the entire article and starting from scratch describing the moon hoax conspiracy theories with the notable proponents and the plain facts regarding the general incompetence of the proponents and the fact that their ideas are not taken seriously. --ScienceApologist 22:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I started trying to do that by revising this page, but things got busy at work and I lost enthusiasm after a few hours of trying to make sense of Apollo-denial nonsense: if anyone wants to take over what I started, it's at User:Mark_Grant/HoaxRe-Edit. One of the big issues with the current page is that the nonsense is spread across the article so you never get a sense of just how nutty these people are or how little sense their 'theories' make: concentrating their arguments into one place makes it far more obvious and demonstrates the huge inconsistencies even between different Apollo-deniers, let alone between them and reality. At an absolute minimum some of them must be wrong because they can't all be right. Mark Grant 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article has gone down hill in the past several days with the general trend of edits leaning towards the hoax proponents. I believe, Adhib, was going to attempt a draft (see the tow straw polls above) that would have addressed the issues raised about but that seems to have petered out. I've begun two separate wholesale revisions as well. one shot down in POV jihad flames, the other remains dead on my talk page. Maybe we could start with an outline and break up the work. Failing that, calling attention to the issues seems to be a good start. Numskll 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The general trend is towards less editorializing, and more referenced facts. Your problem is that the facts do not favor your beliefs. I cannot help you with that. The article, however, is gradually getting better. Carfiend 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is that the facts do not favor your beliefs. Exactly, your claimed 'facts' do not: which is precisely why it's NPOV, as we've discussed before. Apollo-denial is minority pseudoscience, and should be treated as such. As I pointed out above, the only thing we can safely say about the Apollo-deniers is that at least some of them have to be wrong, because their own claims contradict each other. Mark Grant 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well documented and sourced facts are the basis of all Wikipedia articles. If they don't fit your worldview, that's tough. Carfiend 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And you, of course, have no 'well documented and sourced facts'. No matter what you may claim, Apollo-denial is pure pseudoscience, and should be treated as such by the NPOV policy. Mark Grant

My only response to the hoax proponent is that she should follow WP:AGFand WP:NPA. I won't speculate on the nature of her problem, though I will point out that, in the event that she is human like the rest of us, her 'beliefs' are not infallible and thus, as I've suggested above, perhaps it wouldn't hurt for her to consider her own bias before posting attacks like the one above. Numskll 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tags Carfiend inappropraitely removed. See the various and recent NPOV discussions for rationale. Carfiend, please follow wiki policiesNumskll 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a coincidence. It's a consequence of the shadowy international organization called Apollo Revisionist Force, or "ARF" for short. Wahkeenah 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Numskll 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also trying to come up with a fake organization whose acronym would be "WOOF". My creativity is running dry just now. :( Wahkeenah 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stratagee, latagee, patagee, satagee... I have it! The self-defining Watchdogs Obfuscating Observable Facts. Wahkeenah 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the moon landing is an observable fact. Oh, wait. I'm thinking of something else. That's observable. Carfiend 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a first pass at re-ordering things into what I think is a more rational format. I was tempted to remove the entire laundry list of claim and counter-claim, but the biggest thing I think the article really needs is to put the information about the hoax proponents and their theories in one place, so it's actually possible to find out who says what about what. Mark Grant 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I hadn't really thought about beginning with the personalities involved but I see how that is a valid opening. I'll work within that frame. Thanks. Numskll 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You've hit upon something important, that the various "theories" are the products of the imaginations (or "connecting the dots", to be more charitable) of these individual writers. We have a list of those guys, and we have a list of the various "theories". Marrying the two lists would seem to be the logical and efficient thing to do. Wahkeenah 01:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I definitely think the minutia -- various pieces of disputed or missing evidence should be retained too, perhaps in the context of who says what. Numskll 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no moon!

• Case closed: now stop your petty bickering!--152.163.100.69 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's actually a hologram, set up by ancient intergalactic travelers, projected from the various pyramids they built. The trickiest part of their project was figuring out how to make it blot out the sun a few times a year. Wahkeenah 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)