Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

LRRR?

What does this abbreviation stand for? At first, I though it was Lunar Lander RetroReflector but that would be LLRR. Then I thought it was Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment but that is LLRE. I also checked the wikilinks and sources and can't find it there either. Can someone in the know spell it out the first time it is used so others can figure it out? MilCivHR (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, forgot to Google it first. Assuming this is not a reference to the ruler of Omicron Persei 8, I will update the page with "Laser Ranging Retroreflector." MilCivHR (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This was changed and ultimately removed because "Direct quote so cannot change wording." However, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS editorial brackets are allowed to clarify info (see specifically the second bullet under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_Style_%28punctuation%29#Sentences_and_brackets) and http://www.netplaces.com/grammar/punctuation-pairs/making-a-rare-appearance-square-brackets.htm (Sorry, haven't figured out how to do the short links yet) I will leave it for a day or two for comment and then re-add. MilCivHR (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to explain what LRRR is before the quote, and leave the quote unchanged. I've tried this, take a look and see what you think. LouScheffer (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks MilCivHR (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kettering Grammar School

Kettering Grammar School would certainly have tracked all the Apollo missions. I will look for sources to confirm this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This page contains one reference, here is another. Both mention some monitoring of the Apollo missions . Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This specifically mentions 'on the way to the moon' but the tracking was done by one of the group from Florida. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"destroyed"

The significance of the word "destroyed" in the following sentence is unclear:

Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been destroyed during hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.219.18 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I though it an unusual word, slightly sinister. I assume it means that destructive forms of testing and analysis were performed on the rocks, crushing, powdering, heating, dissolving in acids etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Used up? Consumed? Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

'Used up', or maybe even just 'used' sound better to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. "Used" says all that needs to be said. Their actual fate isn't that relevant, and trying to describe every eventuality with just one word is impossible or confusing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a consensus for a minor change so I have made it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading propaganda in the article

Table Mountain Observatory, Madrid Apollo Station, Honeysuckle Creek and Goldstone is all a part of NASA, yet in some how they're all included in the list as "independent".

Sven Grahn used a NASA tracking station, so no independent verifications there either...

kinda amazing (..or not) that an article on wikipedia contains false misleading propaganda in a desperate attempt to prove that there exists independent verifications for the moon landings (which it doesnt) 91.145.38.53 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read the section immediately above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No i dont because this isnt about me, its about the article contains misleading propaganda 91.145.38.53 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You will get further with interacting with other users if you stop labeling everything as propaganda. Calling everything you don't agree with propaganda isn't helping with putting your point across, so please do so in a more neutral manner. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did NASA bother with all of those tracking stations, if they were going to fake the Moon landing? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because it IS misleading propaganda. The article contains pure lies, why? please address THAT very problem instead of using me as the problem, focus on the subject not on the person! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda is an intentional effort to mislead the public. It is not possible for you to simultaneously call the article propaganda and assume good faith. You can violate behavioral guidelines or you can continue to edit at Wikipedia, but not both. VQuakr (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this about where we tell the Anon editor that this page isn't his personal axe-grinding forum...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

In theory at least, the IP's comments are germane to the article. Why the IP thinks that the above listed observatories cannot be mentioned in the article has not been put forth, but WP:NOTAFORUM does not seem to really be an issue here. WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV are issues. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they are making relevant points, however are not presenting them in a good manner. I'm trying to explain on other talk pages that they need to approach it in a more neutral manner to get their point across but that labeling everything everyone else edits as propaganda and lies doesn't allow others to pay attention to their actual point. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Boy - if you can get IP's to also stop posting "this page sucks" while simultaneously giving no concrete information or edit requests, you'd deserve some kind of award... Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Lets see. They actually represent a useful other side of the discussion that few editors view things from, the it didn't happen side. Most editors are from the it did happen side, so it will be valuable to have some insights from the other perspective if they can remain civil and approach it in an encyclopaedia building manner rather than a "you are all part of this huge conspiracy" manner. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

91, do you have any evidence of Mercury-Atlas 8 or Gemini 4 that didn't come from NASA? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The article has a mix of evidence, some completely independent of NASA (for example, the QST guys) to those that had *some* NASA involvement, but not in a way that could support a conspiracy. For example, the Parkes radio telescope was built and staffed by Australians not working for NASA. But NASA did hire them to help broadcast the lunar landings. Or the moon rocks, which *were* brought back by NASA, but analyzed by a university lab in Australia that concluded they were older than any Earth rocks. To me, this seems like an independent verification of NASA claims (the rocks are indeed not from Earth), but conversely you could claim that since NASA had possession, they could have doctored the evidence. So perhaps it would be worthwhile to separate the article into two parts; those completely independent of NASA, and those that had some NASA component, even if small, or open, or hard to fake. LouScheffer (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We need to be neutral and the fact that a lot of people believe it was all faked does need to be taken into account. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I divided the evidence. Still needs cleanup. LouScheffer (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Table Mountain Observatory, Madrid Apollo Station, Honeysuckle Creek and Goldstone is all a part of NASA but is STILL listed in the article, who is supposed to be about INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION. VQuakr guess what? tell someone who cares because i DONT! admins who is protecting false misleading propaganda in an article and dont allow it to be changed to the truth should never be respected or even tolerated. 91.145.38.53 (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors, you have been warned several times and I'm about done defending you. If you don't try and start operating as a member of Wikipedia's community you will be blocked from editing permanently. If you read this talk page you'll see people are taking steps to try and address some of the issues you are raising and other editors are trying to work with you.

P.S. VQuakr isn't an admin. In fact I see no admins other than myself involved in these articles, and I'm only involved from an administrative non-editing perspective due to disruptive editing and personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Warned for discovering the very FACT that this wikipedia article contains false and misleading propaganda? thats why i have no respect for the admins anymore, "PROTECT THE LIE!" (no matter what)

So i repeat, Table Mountain Observatory, Madrid Apollo Station, Honeysuckle Creek and Goldstone is all a part of NASA but is listed in the article as independent... WHY?

address this problem! comment on subject 91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Table Mountain and Goldstone were/are run by JPL, which is managed by Caltech, and has little to do with manned space flight. But JPL does get its funding from NASA, so I can see where you think this evidence might be tainted. So I removed it. For the Madrid Apollo station, there is solid evidence that most of the people who worked there were not employees of NASA, but of the Spanish space agency INTA. I linked to this document and left this in. For Honeysuckle creek it was not clear whether the workers were employees of NASA, or one of the local Australian agencies. So I removed this as well. LouScheffer (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

ANY OBSERVATORY, who have HAD or HAVE anything with nasa to do today - should be deleted if its included in the "independent" section 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Selene photo is neither a photo nor an evidence

The Selene (Kaguya) photo is not a real photo but computer-reconstructed image from many photos taken from the Japanese. And it's not an evidence because the Moon landscape image may have been taken not by Apollo astronauts but by an unmanned module such as a Surveyor. The presence of a "moon-walker" on it is not a proof because the foreground may have been in a studio with this image as the background. I've seen such very convincing picture in the Pleven Panorama. The foreground is real but the background is painted. Even though it's only about 10 metres away from the visitor, it's very convincing. So the entire battlefield (both foreground and background) seems real. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor is SELENE and JAXA truly an independent third party, as the collaboration between Japan and NASA extends back 40 years. Japan astronauts have flown on 13 different shuttle missions, five of which happened after 2008. JAXA is quite dependent on NASA to provide a pivotal role in its space program. Veritatis in lege (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Kaguya FAQ says:

KAGUYA (SELENE) observes the entire lunar surface using mission instruments such as Terrain camera, multiband imager, etc. This means that KAGUYA provides images where Apollo were landed with 10 meter resolution of Terrain Camera. Since Apollo lander and rover were too small to detect with 10 meter resolution, it is difficult for us to provide discernable images of the landing sites of the Apollo.

--

As the article says, it is a reconstruction from SELENE photographs of the actual lunar landscape. There is no way that the Apollo photograph could have faked that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand. The landscape may be real but the presence of the lunar rover could be as in the Pleven Panorama. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with it at all. The Apollo photo was taken on film and brought back to Earth. The SELENE spacecraft is not on the surface of the Moon - it orbited above. Its photos had a resolution of 10 meters, so the artifacts on the Moon are too small for it to see them. The SELENE photographs were in 3-D and stored in a computer. A computer was used to reconstruct what the landscape would look like from the surface. It matches the terrain of the Apollo photograph, and it is independent evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. I don't claim that Selene should show any artificial objects on the Moon should they be there, so it's natural that there's nothing like this on its photo. Instead, I claim that the landscape of the Apollo photo may have been taken by an unmanned spacecraft instead, and used as the background in a studio to make the photo on the left. Therefore, the Selene photo proves the landscape but doesn't prove the presence of the lunar rover. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

None of this matters, since everything talked about here is Original research. Wikipedia is not a forum, so let's try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. If you can find a source to support making a change, that would certainly be worth discussing.
— V = I * R (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the photo was taken by an unmanned spacecraft. If you say that, it is your wp:OR and POV. (Also notice the footprints in the photo.) Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The footprints in the foreground also can be made on earth. OK, I'll shut up finally. As long as the official sources support your side, I can't do anothing more. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LRO

This is not "independent" evidence, but it's evidence that the ball game is over for the conspiracy theorists: [1] Now they can go back to trying to figure what really happened to Che Guevara. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to note that but you overtook me! Yes, you're right that it's not an independent evidence, but if you agree, I can rename the article to just "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings", removing the word "independent", and everything will be OK. If you don't afree, I'll have to delete the section as irrelevant to the article's title. As to the "ball game", don't play wishful thinking, it's not over - as Popov notes, any photo made since the mid-1990s can't be an evidence because anyone can now put even a pink elephant there! Last not least - please leave Cuba alone. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the conspiracist thesis is that it typically "uses the theorem to prove the theorem". Their basic premise is that everything NASA says is a lie. However, there is not yet any valid source that can prove that NASA lied about the Apollo program. So it's an "if-then" situation in which the "if" portion is assumed to be true - without any evidence backing it. Certainly, any photograph anywhere can be manipulated - just as the hoaxsters often manipulated the evidence to try to make their points. But there are many eyes watching this program. The relative lack of coverage by the mainstream media shows how little importance there really was to "proving" the Apollo flights occurred. There was never actually any doubt, except in the minds of a few, for somewhat understandable reasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

uses the theorem to prove the theorem - yes, exactly. In order to "prove" or at least have "evidence" of a conspiracy/hoax, they have to assume that there was a conspiracy/hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the chicken and egg problem, in our case "who holds the burden of proof"? The problem with the hoax debunkers is that they believe what their authorities say. Whoever lied for the 11 September events may have lied for the Apollo, USS Maine, etc., etc. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The accusers hold the burden of proof, and they have failed to prove anything except their ignorance of science and technology - and even of 9th grade level physics, for that matter. Start with the "waving flag" nonsense, and go downhill from there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If the burden of proof is not at NASA, why a special page devoted to that proof (evidence) exists? --Лъчезар (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LRO is not *absolutely* independent, but it is largely so. Although the probe was launched by NASA, the team that built the camera and interprets the images is not. From the web site, "The LROC Team consists of scientists, staff, student researchers and an Instrument Development Team that come from various disciplines: Planetary Geology, Geography, Engineering, Information Technology, Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Business. Scientists working on the LROC team are faculty and researchers from various academic institutions, government and the private sector: Brown University, Cornell University, Washington University in St. Louis, John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Arizona, DePaul University, Adler Planetarium Museum, Malin Space Science Systems, United States Geological Survey, Ohio State University, SETI Institute, the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, University of Münster, DLR Berlin, and the University of Hawai`i at Manoa." LouScheffer (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All these are U.S. institutions. Somewhat independent of NASA maybe, but not independent of the U.S.! --Лъчезар (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of these, the University of Münster, and DLR Berlin, are not U.S. institutions -they are both in Germany. LouScheffer (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that these two German institutions have control on how the LRO is used. This control is still in the hands of NASA. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Prove it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious. The LRO is controlled from Houston. And most importantly, the images are published by NASA, not the Germans. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The question will arise as to what to do with these articles. Not all the conspiracists are going to go away, although they will be hard pressed to demonstrate that the current program is a ruse. Instead of "Independent Evidence", which has a POV-ish edge to it, perhaps "Independent Observations" would be better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Where are the Lunar Rovers? There is no mention of them in the LROC News site. Dr.K. logos 21:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably too small to be visible in the initial photos. There's also the question of what was done with them. I'm assuming they were parked near the LM's, as opposed to being re-packed, which would be seem to be a pointless thing to do, unless there was a reason to that I'm unaware of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Bugs. I agree with you that they should have been parked near the LMs. I also thought about the repacking and I agree that it would be pointless to stow them inside the descent stage again. I guess that at this orbit height the LRO doesn't have the resolution to capture the LRV. Dr.K. logos 22:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
      • As I understand, these are relatively low-res photos from an initial sweep, and they expect to get better photos later in the mission. Lunar orbiters never seem to get much attention. There was a lunar orbiter in the 1960s that mapped the entire surface of the moon, a great achievement in itself, and an essential prequisite to finding suitable landing areas for the Apollo craft. Cameras were not so high-res then, and even with the effort they made to find rubble-free areas, Armstrong, for example, had to do some last-minute maneuvering to keep from crashing into objects that weren't apparent from the orbiter photos. He focused totally on the landing and pretty much kept his mouth shut until he knew he was going to land safely ("Kicking up some dust"), and once on the ground he announced, "Tranquility Base here; the Eagle has landed", prompting Mission Control to comment about "a bunch of guys about to turn blue here" from holding their breath while Armstrong lowered the craft in nearly radio-silence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. From what I read about the LRO, I think it has the resolution, even at this orbit, to discern the LRV(s) but they may not have been observed yet, I would guess, because they don't cast as long a shadow as the LM, due to them being substantially lower. Also the rover reflectivity may not be as high as that of the other components, in effect making the rover pixels hard to detect. Dr.K. logos 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The rovers were left near the LMs (A15, 16, 17). Someone pointed out some rover tracks on one of them. The rovers are pretty low - the LM descent stage is about 10 feet tall.

I don't think good photos was the problem for Armstrong. Early in the A11 descent, they knew that they were "long" - i.e. going to overshoot the planed landing site. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73. Your comments confirm my thoughts about the detectability of the LRVs in the current pictures. Dr.K. logos 00:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73 is your go-to guy on all things Apollo. :) I wonder, assuming the orbiter is going to re-map the entire lunar surface, whether we will see the Moon on Google Maps at some point - complete, maybe, with "street views"? Although the roads there are largely unpaved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Google moon maps? This idea is out of this world. ;) Dr.K. logos 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The rovers are 3 meters long and (I think) a little less than 2 meters wide. That would be as few as 2 pixels at this resolution. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the higher-res photos come in, it's possible the rovers will be spotted, and then on the lower-res photos, their presence will be detectable. It's hard to tell much initially, from 2 pixels. The most telling sign of the LM towers is the shadows. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Bubba73: That was my estimation also based on the fact that the descent stage of the LM, which can be considered a square of side 3.7 m, occupies three to four pixels, as the citation mentions. Dr.K. logos 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two bright spots near Apollo 15, but I can't tell what they are. One is to the right, about 3:00 o'clock, the other is about 7:00 o'clock. Bubba73 (talk), 03:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the bright spot at three o' clock. But I can't see the one at 7. Except if it is the one adjacent to a small crater, in which case it may just be part of the crater image. Dr.K. logos 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is right between two craters, and is closer to the LM than the one on the right. Bubba73 (talk), 17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is the same as the one I originally thought. This spot is too close to the craters to be considered independent. There are other craters in the pictures with similar bright spots at their perimeter. Dr.K. logos 17:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

←As mentioned, these are the first preliminary photos, and LRO hasn't even reached its intended lunar orbit yet. The intended orbit will yield pictures with a resolution two to three times better than the ones we currently see (if the press releases from NASA are correct). I expect we will clearly be able to see the rovers as well as the tracks then. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• What has all this discussion above to do with the Wikipedia article?!
• The LRO is an U.S. only enterprise, and is not an independent source. But if I delete all text about it from the page, an "edit war" will start immediately. So, let the readers determine whether they're independent or not. I'm sure that any reasonable reader will find their "independence" claim laughable. Reader's intelligence must not be underestimated. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Other NASA-based sources of evidence or material are also cited in this article. However, we should also get fully "independent" (by those criteria) imagery from other nation's spacecraft in the next few years. Possibly then though the hoax theory supporters will claim that countries like China are also part of the conspiracy? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on everything you wrote but the last sentence of yours. If a Chinese spacecraft proves the Apollo landings, most of the "hoaxters" will shut up, including myself :) --Лъчезар (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any statements from the Russians, Chinese, etc., about this event? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

retroreflectors

Quoting from edit summary: "But they do not prove that the part that went to the moon was manned. One variety of the Apollo hoax theory holds that the lunar part was unmanned, even if the stack was launched with people.)" OK, at least that is conceivable, that the CM was manned but the LM was not. So I'll let it stand. An earlier edit summary mentioned "limits of evidence", but there is no evidence that an unmanned LM landed and deployed retroflectors. Bubba73 (talk), 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By far the most sensible interpretation of the evidence is that the Soviet retro-reflectors were placed by un-manned probes, and the US ones by the manned Apollo missions, just as each country claims. But it's particularly important to be rigorous here, I think, since one of the main criticisms of the hoax theories is that their interpretations of the evidence overstate their case. LouScheffer (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic, December 1966 (before the first landing) reported that scientists at MIT had been bouncing laser beams off the surface of the Moon. Apparently a retroreflector is not needed. Dr. Caroll O. Alley (U of Md) confirms that a 6 mm laser beam will diverge to a width of kilometers by the time it travels teh 4000000 km to the Moon. It does not remain 6 mm. There is no way to tell if the beam has hit Apollo's or Russia's rover retroreflector. User:RogerMartin

Yes you can tell - by how much of it gets reflected back. Just bouncing off the surface returns an extremely low percentage of the photons. The rate of return for a retroreflector is much higher. You can also tell by the return time of the photons. If they are just bouncing off the surface, there is a wide spread in the return times. The return times for a retroflector are in a narrow range. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

wp:notaforum

Surveyor III - How was camera detached?

The photo of the Apollo 12 astronaut next to the Surveyor is labelled Pete Conrad. But Alan Bean sells the same photo, autographed photo for $239, on the web site AstronautCentral.com. So which astronaut is it? Does anyone have a photo of either the astronaut detaching the Surveyor III camera? Any photos of the Surveyor after the camera was removed? It had to be attached strong enough to withstand a lunar landing. There are photos of him standing next to it, without any tools. One would think he would need a wrench, screw driver, and cable cutters. User:RogerMartin

I'll get back to you on that. But you should create an account, see wp:account. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See this and here is a link to all of the B&W photos taken near Surveyor 3. Since there is a stripe on the astronaut's left arm, that should be Conrad, not Bean. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bean has a narrow strap on his left arm, holding what appears to be a watch or perhaps a gauge of some kind. Conrad has a wider strap on his left arm. So I think it is actually Bean in that photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the NASA report below, "The astronauts removed the following material from Surveyor 3 with a pair of shearing cutters:" LouScheffer (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is info from the first link:

AS12-48-7133 (OF300) ( 171k or 948k ) 134:16:43 "Tourist" picture of Pete at the Surveyor III spacecraft. We know this is Pete because he has his tongs attached to his hip mounted "yo-yo". Note that his footprints are not any deeper than those he made around the LM.

AS12-48-7133/4 Red-Blue Anaglyph ( 393k ) Red-blue anaglyph by Patrick Vantuyne.

AS12-48-7134 (OF300) ( 185k or 1014k ) 134:16:54 Pete is "jiggling" the spacecraft to see if it is firmly planted.

Al lent the camera to Pete, who took two "tourist" pictures of Al before returning the camera to him.

AS12-48-7135 (OF300) ( 179k or 1006k ) 134:17:30 Pete's "tourist" picture of Al at the Surveyor III spacecraft with the LM in the background.

AS12-48-7136 (OF300) ( 176k or 979k ) 134:17:30 Similar to 7135. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And you might be interested in reading this report. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73 for the link to the report. Just as I suspected: on the Surveyor 3 material supposedly brought back to Earth, "all participating investigators concluded that no material or surface features were found that definitely could be stated to be meteoritic in origin." (page 11) User:RogerMartin

"Meteoric origin" means from a meteor. In this video, about 3:30-3:45, you can see them practicing to cut the cables. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Apollo 16

Youtube isn't a reliable source, but this is interesting. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the article

The sources for the evidence in this article don't meet Wikipedia's definition of third party sources: Wikipedia:Third-party_sources. A change of name is needed.

Specifically, Wikipedia defines third party sources as those which are "not paid by the people who are involved". According to the article, the first party is the US government, therefore most organizations cited as sources fail to meet this definition (e. g.: the University of Arizona). Elendaíl (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition is probably not the right one in this context. More skeptics (I suspect) would be more concerned about NASA involvement than exchange of money. For example, the samples that NASA says were from the moon were brought back by NASA itself, giving NASA the opportunity to doctor them to make them more moon-like. This consideration would apply whether the receiving organization took any US government money or not. Overall, I suspect it's probably better to note any potential conflicts of interest than to remove the material entirely. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. LouScheffer (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is it possible that Wikipedia's definition of third party sources doesn't apply to an Wikipedia article (this one) which is precisely about third party sources? Do you mean that Wikipedia's definition of third party sources is wrong? Can you elaborate?

Regarding the rest of what you said, I fail to see the relation to my proposal:

- This proposal is about meeting Wikipedia's definition, i.e., about making this a better Wikipedia article. Whatever skeptics might be concerned about is not relevant to the proposal.

- Noting potential conflicts of interest would certainly be great, but it wouldn't change the fact that the contents of the article don't meet Wikipedia's definition of third party. In other words, it doesn't help in this regard.

- My proposal doesn't suggest removing material.

Elendaíl (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is a certain innacuracy with the current name. Elendaíl, do you have a suggestion for a better name? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided suggesting a new name in the hope that a proposal would be made by some of the authors of the article or someone more knowledgeable of the topic than myself. Since that hasn't happened, I'll give it a shot:

My take is that this article provides evidence of the moon landings which doesn't come directly from NASA. Unfortunately this yields a very ugly title for the article: "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings which doesn't come from NASA". I don't think many people will be happy with that ugly name.

However, I haven't been able to find any other Wikipedia articles which describe exclusively moon landings evidence, so I think that a practical solution is to completely drop the "third party" part and simply leave it as "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings". That means that evidence which comes from NASA could (and should) be included as well, and the article itself would change substantially, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

What do you think? Elendaíl (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure. If we include evidence from NASA, there will be a huge amount. This article started as a spin-off from the "hoax allegations" article because conspiracy theorists don't believe any evidence that comes from NASA. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has happened before. Please see Proposal to rename the article to "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings" a few threads above. Dr. K. 02:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bubba: It doesn't look like having a huge amount of evidence is something negative. Regarding the origins of the article, I'm aware of them, but I don't see how that affects my proposal. Can you elaborate on both ideas?

@Dr. K: I read the discussion you mentioned before creating my proposal. Actually, that discussion was part of the reason why I created the proposal. I was disappointed to see that a wrong name ("Independent...") was replaced by an almost equally wrong name ("Third-party..."). That discussion doesn't address the point I'm making here. Elendaíl (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There is so much evidence from NASA that you could barely scratch the surface. And people who believe that the landings were a hoax dismiss all evidence from NASA anyway. Back in the original article years ago, hoax believers stated that there was no evidence for the Moon landings other than what NASA supplied. That was the genesis of this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but I still can't see the relation. Can you be a bit more specific about how those ideas relate to my proposal? Elendaíl (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The main job of the title is to tell the reader, as succinctly as possible, the contents of the article. I think the current title does that very well. Even if it is not pedantically correct (which is likely impossible, see the paragraph below) it correctly covers the spirit of the article. "Third party" immediately brings to mind sources that are not beholden to either of the two positions - as the definition in Wikipedia states "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". A title such as "Evidence for moon landings" does not tell the user what the expect, probably thinking it would lead to a huge pile of internally consistent NASA documentation.

Third-party-ness is not a completely binary property. For example, Wikipedia after independence, states "not paid by the parties involved". But given the interlocked nature of the world economy, finding any organization who has solid evidence for or against the moon landings, but has never been paid in any way by the USA government, is likely impossible. For example, the USA government did pay India, China, France, and Russia during WW-II, and paid Germany and Japan during reconstruction after the war. So does this mean evidence from their space agencies cannot be used? Likewise. almost every scientific instrument in the USA either belongs to a university (surely contributed to by the government) or a foundation (granted a tax break, i.e. paid, by the government). Now a rational person says "sure, we helped Russia during WW-II", but by the spaceflight era we were enemies, and surely they would have been delighted to point out the USA was faking. Likewise, they find it hard to believe a professor with evidence against the landing would refrain from publishing just because their university took federal money. So they mentally weight the closeness of connection of the "paid" part, and rely on the their best judgement of the "independent" part. Supporting this, I think the best we can do is to point out where any conflicts exist, and let the reader judge.

Of course, if you have ideas for a better title, feel free to discuss. LouScheffer (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You make an interesting point here. However, I asked you for clarification about your previous comment above and you haven't replied yet. I think that before we continue with this part of the debate it would be helpful that you make those clarifications so that we can understand better the point you're making. Elendaíl (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

At one point the title had "independent" instead of "third-party" and it might have had another name or two. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been three months since I made this proposal and nobody has addressed my concerns or provided the clarifications that I requested. I guess that this article is so unimportant that there's just not enough interest in it to keep a discussion going. Since it looks like I am the only person still interested in improving the article, I'll just go ahead and rename it. I'm aware that this is not the best solution, but I lack the skills and the knowledge to do much better. I hope that at some point someone more knowledgeable gets interested again and does a better job.

However, just in case, I'll wait a couple more days to see if someone might be willing to give a hand here.

Elendaíl (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you want to rename it to? There is a recent book Moon Hoax: Debunked! by Paolo Attivissimo that covers just about all, if not all, of this stuff. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elendaíl: I think the title is fine where it is; WP:3PARTY is an essay about sources, not about the more generic use of the term "third party". Please get consensus for a new title via a move request before moving. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: LouScheffer already said the same above. I replied to him and he didn't reply anymore (about this concern). Allow me to repeat my reply to LouScheffer: How is it possible that Wikipedia's definition of third party sources doesn't apply to an Wikipedia article (this one) which is precisely about third party sources? Do you mean that Wikipedia's definition of third party sources is wrong? Can you elaborate?

@Bubba73: I wrote my proposal above (16:50, 17 January 2016). I'm afraid that once again I fail to see the relation of what you say with my proposal. Also, I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer my questions above.

Elendaíl (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

My replay is the same as before. "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings" is not appropriate because this article is a spin-off of Moon landing conspiracy theories. Conspiracy buffs don't believe ANYTHING that comes from NASA. Secondly, if the article was truly "Evidence for Apollo Moon landings" it would include an enormous amount of evidence from NASA, and that is already in dozens of articles about the Moon landing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no consensus at all to move this page to a new title. Any unilateral moves of this page will be reverted. I suggest as a minimum that a formal move request should be filed, if it must, at WP:RM. That would include proposing the new title. Otherwise, the article should remain at its existing name. I also agree with VQuakr. Dr. K. 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bubba: I would say it's not totally civil to repeatedly ignore my questions or requests for clarifications and then change the topic. I think it would be nicer if you answered.

@Dr.K.: Consensus, as per Wikipedia:Consensus, is close to being achieved by virtue of lack of response to the concerns I raised, and therefore, lack of quality arguments supporting the current title. Anyway, I would certainly prefer to reach Wikipedia:Consensus through agreement. Since you agree with VQuakr, I would appreciate that you addressed the concerns I raised to him (and also to LouScheffer).

Elendaíl (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, as per Wikipedia:Consensus, is close to being achieved by virtue of lack of response to the concerns I raised, and therefore, lack of quality arguments supporting the current title. Nope. Consensus is not achieved this way. We have here three editors who disagree with you. End of story. You have no consensus currently. That you think our arguments don't address your concerns is immaterial. That's your problem, not ours. Since you don't have consensus, you cannot move this article to a new title. If you still disagree, as I said before, you can request a page move through WP:RM so that more people can voice their opinions. But I am not about to start any lengthy arguments with you since I have already expressed my opinion and I simply have better things to do than repeating myself. Dr. K. 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Elendaíl, Wikipedia itself supports the meaning used in the current title. From Third party, "Third-party source, a source of information independent of the first and second parties in a situation". The page you cite, Wikipedia:Third-party_sources, does NOT define what the phrase "Third party" means for every usage, only what it means in the context of a source cited in a Wikipedia article. You can tell it's a specialized usage by the more general disambiguation page Third party. This is supported by the common dictionary definitions of "Third party" as well:

• "One other than the principals involved in a transaction" (Free dictionary)
• "a person other than the principals" (Webster's)
• "a ​person who is not one of the two ​main ​people ​involved in an ​argument or ​legal ​case" (Cambridge dictionaries)

In my opinion, and seemingly that of many others, the current title is fine. There was quite an extensive argument (back when the title was "independent evidence for..." ) and at that time there was a concensus of editors that "Third party" was the best of the alternatives suggested. LouScheffer (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions, LouScheffer. The definitions you brought up actually strengthen my point. I'll go over each one by one:

Third-party source, a source of information independent of the first and second parties in a situation: This one equals "third party" to "independent". Since it has been established that "independent" is incorrect, "third party" is incorrect as well.

One other than the principals involved in a transaction: This definition is for a completely different context and doesn't apply here. There are no principals and no transaction in this case.

A person other than the principals: Does not apply. No principals and no "person".

A ​person who is not one of the two ​main ​people ​involved in an ​argument or ​legal ​case: Does not apply. Same as above.

In summary, out of four definitions, only one applies to this case and it clearly shows that the title is incorrect.

Wikipedia:Third-party_sources defines the phrase "Third party source", which is a specialized usage indeed, the usage made in the case at hand. Therefore, it is even more relevant than the definition of "Third party" alone. Also, it does not restrict the definition to the context of a source cited in a Wikipedia article, as you can see clearly in the heading of the page: "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered [...]" It is not suggested at any point that this definition is restricted to Wikipedia sources.

Regarding the previous discussion, as I said earlier, it doesn't address the point I'm making here.

I think it might be worth at this point to make a couple of reminders:

From Wikipedia:Consensus: Determining consensus: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

From Wikipedia:Wrongful consensus (Example of wrongful consensus): Refusing to allow edits unless approved by one or a few editors acting as owners, several editors agreeing on the refusal, regardless of the quality of the offered edits.

From Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads.

Elendaíl (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I also fully agree with the points made by LouScheffer. That makes it four editors who don't agree with your points. If you don't find them "quality arguments" it seems that the problem lies with your analysis of the points already made not with the points themselves. I think the discussion is over. Dr. K. 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to quote some policies and guidelines which seem to be ignored or violated throughout this discussion:

Wikipedia:Etiquette: Concede a point when you have no response to it.

Wikipedia:Etiquette: Do not ignore reasonable questions.

Wikipedia:Etiquette: If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.

Wikipedia:Civility: Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.

Wikipedia:Civility: Present coherent and concise arguments.

Wikipedia:Consensus: Determining consensus: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia:Wrongful consensus: Refusing to allow edits unless approved by one or a few editors acting as owners, several editors agreeing on the refusal, regardless of the quality of the offered edits

Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads.

Wikipedia:Third-party sources: A third-party source is not paid by the people who are involved.

Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines: Stay on topic.

Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines: Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.

Elendaíl (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You can quote from policies all you want. This does not change the fact that four editors are opposed to your move proposal and have advanced arguments that you do not accept as valid. Again, the validity of these arguments cannot be determined by you since your POV does not allow you to fairly determine said validity. You seem to completely ignore my suggestion to create a formal move request at WP:RM and instead you are continuing to argue against four editors who do not accept your proposal. Consensus is clearly not on your side at present. Again, you can try your luck at WP:RM and go through the formal process of a move request. But until the time your move request gains consensus, local consensus here is that the page should not be moved. I will not continue arguing along these lines as it is an utter WP:WASTEOFTIME to continue arguing because consensus has been achieved. But until such time as you gain consensus you should not try any unilateral moves because that would be disruptive. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just realized that I made a mistake when writing my proposal. Trying to be as brief and concise as possible, I wrote "A change of name is needed". That's not my complete view of the issue. My view is that a solution to the issue is needed and that a change of name is most likely the best one in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Of course, I would be happy with any other solution that addresses the issue effectively, such as moving to a different article the entries that don't match the current title, but I think that such a solution would probably require too much effort and end up being counterproductive. I hope that my mistake hasn't been disruptive. Elendaíl (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You haven't convinced anyone else that there is a problem to be fixed. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:1AM may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks quite useful. Elendaíl (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Elendaíl, I disagree with your proposed move. I do not see a problem here in need of any solution. I think that you are confusing an internal term of art Wikipedia:Third-party sources, which is relevant in internal discussion about the type and quality of sources on Wikipedia, with the ordinary dictionary meaning of "third party" which is not the same thing, as others have made clear above. Also, when people object to an action, but, in your view, fail to fully address the points you ahve made, it does not mean that your proposed action has consensus from lack of response. That is only relavent when no comments are made at all, and even then will not apply in all cases. The more major a change is, the more we need a significnat number of editors supporting the change for it to be considered to have consensus. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an encouraging comment about this article

The moon-landing-hoax conspiracy theory has this positive side that we can now find much more details than before about this fantastic endeavor.... (oh and please, NASA, stop using special effects that twist your pictures for no good reason: the context for viewing your documents is not the same as looking for a Sci-Fi movie with FX, the Dark Matter already gives us a superb and natural lens effect: plain and HD please - lol I'm sure mister NASA reads this Wiki article's Talk page every day hmm... just saying). --HawkFest (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted some edits as POV and the removal of sourced material. You might not find Hansen's material on Google, but it is in his book, and the page number is given. Pages in Sky and Telescope were numbered according to the yearly volume. Etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Some people may not like the edits I made to certain sections regarding removal of improperly cited sources, misleading info or NOT 3rd party evidence ("evidence" funded by/aligned with NASA) but if you have strong evidence that is accurate, fix appropriately, update your sources or find new sources that say the same thing, but in a better way. The edit warring associated with reverting my legitimate and factual errors I'm reporting just makes it look like you have some sort of agenda to push. If I was really trying to be a "Conspiracy Theorist" like "Yet Another User 2" says (which is a ridiculous attack), I would have edited FAR, FAR more of the article. I stopped when I saw there was some sort of protection/agenda/bias going on. IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN EDITOR TO FIND/CREATE/FIX THE SOURCES THAT FIT THE TEXT DISPLAYED. ScottCarmichael ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 6 September 2016 (CST)

But it is your responsibility to not edit war, and to assume good faith, which you're not doing to well on. If you have problems with aspects of the article, after your edits are reverted, it is up to you to detail precisely what they are here, not in further edit summaries. Sweeping complaints about "improperly cited sources, misleading info or NOT 3rd party evidence" cannot really be considered.

• What's precisely is improperly cited? "Finding it on Google" is not the definition of "verifiable". It just means that if you want to research this, you're going to have to get up from your computer and read the book.
• What's misleading?
• The difficulty with "3rd party evidence" is that, in the conspiracy theorist's eyes, everyone involved in space exploration is connected to NASA in some way (it all being, by definition, a vast conspiracy). So practically no authority in the Western world would be good enough. Unless we limit sources to Soviet or Chinese, we've got nothing that would satisfy this particular paranoid criteria. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to point out funding of sources. A number of editors have added this sort of information, and it's well accepted. It's not reasonable to remove text and/or references without reading the actual reference to see if it supports the cited comment. For example, the "Sky and Telescope" from November 1969 can be found on-line. The cited pages (358-359) do in fact contain sightings of Apollo 11, as claimed. The page numbers seem odd, but the issue starts with page 283. It certainly appears you did not read the reference before removing it, which is bad faith towards the editor who put in the work to find and support the original text. LouScheffer (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From Sky and Telescope website" http://www.skyandtelescope.com/about-us/sky-and-telescope-index-1941-2013/

Year Month Page Title

---

1969 11 357 Observer's Page Sunspot Numbers
1969 11 358 Observer's Page Observations of Apollo 11
1969 11 360 Celestial Calendar Moon Phases and Distances


17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another proposal to change the title

I suggest changing the word landings to missions. Anyone can see that most of the evidence on the article has nothing to do with the actual landing on the moon. For example. sighting of the missile in space is evidence of the occurence of the mission in general, but not of the landing itself. If we would limit ourselves only to evidence of the landings and nothing else then we would have to remove most of the content. Jackkky22 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917234008/http://depletedcranium.com/apollo-15-confirmed-times-three/ to http://depletedcranium.com/apollo-15-confirmed-times-three/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527201104/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Van Allen Radiation Belt. No Pictures of the UNIVERSE from the moon perspective...

I take it that this is the site where you all are "Officially" trying to cover up the deal...

Look, None of this evidence on this page supports the Idea that a HUMAN landed on the moon. Okay? its just "Filler" b/c you know that most dumb Americans won't read it, they'll just google it, read the 1st couple lines, see that there is a WHOLE PAGE (seemingly) of "Proof" but really the bottom line is this...

Until you can explain HOW they were protected from the RADIATION in the Van Allen belt, AND tell us why there is NO PICTURES taken of the UNIVERSE from the moon perspective... AND explain the footage from a documentary Titled "Astronauts gone wild, the moon land hoax" that catches them red handed holding up a transparency and saying they were ??? miles out. when in fact they were still in earths orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.176.117 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whenever someone says astronauts should've taken pictures of the Universe from the Moon, I know that they haven't the slightest comprehension of what they're talking about. Earth and the Moon are both approximately equally distant from all the other objects in the Sky. The only thing which looks different from the Moon is Earth itself. The Sun, the Planets and the Stars all look the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

While Phil Plait and others have already addressed those concerns on multiple occasions, that's not what this page is about. This page is about the presentation of evidence from reliable 3rd-party sources that supports the moon landings...not to make conclusions or (dis)prove any hypotheses. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it's not the job of anyone here to explain, prove, or disprove anything (in fact, Wikipedia policy prohibits it). You have provided no evidence or sources or any information at all. If you have sources/suggestions to improve the article please make them known; otherwise assume good faith before making accusations toward editors. Amity Lane (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717021523/http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/multimedia/audio/luna15-apollo11.html to http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/multimedia/audio/luna15-apollo11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)