Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 8

message: This article has literally pages and pages of hoax debunking.  None of this debunking stuff needs to be in the article, titled APOLLO MOOX HOAX ACCUSATIONS.  It's annoying, difficult to read, and completely overshadows the mostly one-line hoax arguments (which is another problem).    There's already Wiki pages for NASA fans, they're titled PROJECT APOLLO and MOON LANDING.  Put one link at the bottom to Clavius and be done with it.  
The stridency of the debunkers is overwhelming. As such, I'm tempted to strip every bit of italic text out of this article.  And the hoax claims need to be lengthened with photo examples added.  Broodlinger 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest possibly having the page renamed to reflect the fact the page has both Accusations and Debunking Statements, rather then engaging in large scale edits and an edit-war? -th1rt3en 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One thing I'm not really happy about the current format is the "stars" arguement is listed under Kaysing (I think).  Just about all of them make the same arguements about stars, flags, shadows, blast craters, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that user (or his anon IP address) made the threatened mass changes, and I changed them back. Hang onto your space helmets, folks, here we go again. I guess they (or he) are back from their Kool-Aid camp. Wahkeenah 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Leaving the questions without answers leaves the false impression that they have no explanation. The user can decide whether the explanations hold water or not. Omitting them makes the article inherently POV. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out which of the recent ranters you're a sockpuppet of. Wahkeenah 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is completely biased

message: Carfiend, you have two choices. Eiher you help us make the page NPOV and then we can remove the tags, or you keep removing changes that are moving it towards NPOV and leave the tags on there. It's up to you, but you do not make changes pushing it even further away from NPOV and remove the tags at the same time. Mark Grant 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, we've been over this time and time again, a massive POV offensive by you doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. The way we will improve the article is by referenced facts, not abusive editorializing. Carfiend 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the way we will improve the article is by making it meet the NPOV policy. Which it doesn't even begin to do right now, but every time someone tries to improve it, you remove their changes. So long as you continue to do that, the NPOV-violation tag will stay on the page. Mark Grant 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. More abuse, with no concrete recommendations. No cookie for you! Carfiend 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carfiend's POV edits 

message: I think it is OK to archive.  You are right about new people coming in and bringing up the same old things.  You are right about there is too much arguing about the subject that is not directly related to editing the article.  I've complained about that before, but I've engaged in it some too.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Well done Ikanread - Two Tags are Better than Four, while not a very politically correct slogan, is one I can live with. All tags are equal, although some are more equal than others... Carfiend 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still say that one tag would be better than two though, and that those tagging should link the presence of the tags to specific issues that they have with the article, lest it become a matter of principle that the article should be tagged. Carfiend 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then move them, they usually say "this article or section" move them to the most appropriate sections. Cleanup should probably stay at the top though. i kan reed 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but to me, when you load a page and see no content without scrolling down, only tags, that's too many. Carfiend 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, and one of the wiki guidelines is to not be afraid of leaving an article unfinished. I think placing a tag is a way of honoring that sentiment, your duly noted aesthetic concerns aside  . . . Numskll 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and don't these tags mean that the editor has identified but not fixed a problem and, thus, defers it to others? Isn't that what the tags are supposed to do? Numskll 01:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: SA - stop reverting, and tell me which facts are disputed. Carfiend 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The world must be ending because I actually agree with Carfiend about something.  You can't post that without naming any facts - it just isn't useful to either side of the debate. Algr 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Will someone in favor of the factual dispute tag explain which facts are disputed? Carfiend 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SA - stop reverting, and tell me which facts are disputed. Carfiend 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The world must be ending because I actually agree with Carfiend about something.  You can't post that without naming any facts - it just isn't useful to either side of the debate. Algr 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which facts are disputed?

message: I've just noticed that that sentence ("In addition, ...") is both convoluted and (multiply) redundant - many of its parts are completely interchangeable. I haven't changed it yet, in case I'm missing some subtlety here, but doesn't the following contain everything?
:In addition, these hoax theories imply, or openly state, that a conspiracy to support and advance the official account of the Apollo missions exists to this day.
TeraBlight 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up a bit. Carfiend 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro, second paragraph

message: Latest news: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/130806missing.htm] --Striver 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until now, they have kept the story out of the press because, they say, they do not want to embarrass Nasa. They insist it is wrong to characterise the tapes as "missing". "They're not missing," Mr Lebar said, "we just haven't found them."" - Ha ha! Carfiend 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is news? Wahkeenah 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, just funny to hear these people getting twisted up in how they kept information from the media 'to avoid embarrassing NASA', and how 'they're not missing, we just don't know where they are'! Carfiend 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So write your congressman and tell him you want your tax dollars spent looking for data from 40-50 years ago, for a long-completed government project; that it's a high priority, never mind the War on Terror or on keeping the shuttle going; it's important to fulfill, so the hoaxster cons can move on to their next set of red herrings. I'm sure you'll get a positive response. Wahkeenah 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it's not me - it's people within the space community who are looking for this. Carfiend 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So let them look. It's their budget. Wahkeenah 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you as totally unconcerned about where the tapes are as you make out? Carfiend 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because as I have said many times, their presence or absence proves nothing. Wahkeenah 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But on a human level, are you not in the least bit interested? Besides, their presence would be powerful evidence for the landing. Carfiend 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be interested in it as further interesting stuff about Apollo, but not for the purpose of "proving" the Apollo flights occurred, since it's perfectly clear that they did. Wahkeenah 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested in the tapes being found.  With those tapes, and the slow-scan TV with better contrast and details, we could make a better video of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.  That's about it, though.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There ya go. It could be a nice nostalgia trip. Not worth spending more tax dollars on, though. Wahkeenah 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't that enough? You'd think it was some kind of commemorative stamp for the degree of disinterest you show. Carfiend 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You attach far more significance to it than is warranted. Wahkeenah 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carfiend, at the present people are looking for the missing slow-scan TV tapes of the Apollo 11 2.5 hour moonwalk.  If they show up, will you admit you are wrong about there being a hoax and shut up?  Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drumroll... (see my talk page for a prediction on what he'll say) Wahkeenah 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes - the original tapes with the slow-scan video and telemetry, subjected to independent analysis, would convince me. However, you should know that this page is not about my beliefs, it is about the views of the hoax proponents. Carfiend 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What have the hoaxsters in general had to say about it, if anything? Wahkeenah 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're so interested, do the research yourself. I'm fed up of NASA shills asking questions and expecting me to do the research. Carfiend 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny. I am not the least bit interested in what they have to say, since it's based on nothing. Wahkeenah 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell, you haven't researched a single fact in this whole discussion ever.  02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you are, your grasp on reality is very slim. Carfiend 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it civil, Carfiend.  If you disagree with a statement, attack the inaccuracy, not the poster. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And, to you, a copy of the original video is not good enough, right?  For instance, if you see a copy of the Zapruder film that doesn't prove that JFK was assissinated, but if you see the original, it does?  Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just the original, it's the original, with all the telemetry. That would be extremely difficult to fake. Not impossible, I grant you, but it would meet my personal standard, which is what you asked about. Carfiend 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What if the telemetry is on a separate tape? Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we're talking about over 700 tapes, so I suspect it is. I don't see that it makes a difference - there should be some kind of time signal on all the tapes. Perhaps it's taken them 50 years to make all 700 tapes! Carfiend 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have hit upon one of the core mistakes of the hoaxsters, and not for the first time: "suspect" and "should be". You might be right on this specific point, I don't know. But in general, the hoaxsters decide, in their personal opinion, how things "should have been" with Apollo, and when the facts don't square with that, they conclude that NASA is the one in the wrong. Wahkeenah 09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So what you're saying is that if NASA had an analog tape of telemetry and an analog tape of the video, it would not be feasible for them to play back both tapes at the same time and copy them onto a third 14-track analog tape, right?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I can't imagine what would make you think that was what I was saying. Although, having three tapes at the same time without loosing one of them does seem like it would be taxing for them, now you come to mention it. Carfiend 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said that it wouldn't be possible for them to get the video and telemetry onto one tape.  Only the original tape could have that.  Suppose I record something on TV with my VCR.  Then I copy that tape to another tape using my two VCRs. Then I hand you one of the tapes.  How can you tell which is the original and which is the copy?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that. Carfiend 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that you would accept an independent verification of the original tape with the slow-scan TV and telemetry on it.  If you will accept independent verification of that one item, why won't you accept the independent verification of the multitude of other items?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I said seven hundred tapes. Of course, it is seven hundred boxes of tapes. The issue is that this is a huge amount of detail to fake, and I don't personally believe that it could be faked without introducing 'continuity errors'. Of course, it doesn't look like they have to fake it - saying it is lost seems just as good. The other items are pretty unconvincing. Some odd rocks, some photos, some blurry video. It's inconclusive. Carfiend 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there are thousands of tapes that aren't missing.  Only a small portion is missing, and unfortunately that includes the tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk recorded in Australia.  The Apollo 11 moonwalk was only 2.5 hours long.  And there are many copies of the moonwalk video made after the scan conversion.  There are no continuity errors there.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As you know, I was talking about the matched telemetry data of the astronaught health and mechanical readouts. Masses of data that would be very difficult to fake. And actually, there don't appear to be any original tapes available. Sure - there are some grainy dvds without the telemetry, but that's not the same thing. Carfiend 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be too sure. Keep in mind that these guys can't even tell if a flag is waving. You could present them with old videotapes of Gomer Pyle, USMC, and they wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other. Wahkeenah 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah yes - when defeated by the facts, resort to abuse! Bravo! Carfiend 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where Kaysing is concerned, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Wahkeenah 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange that you never seem to hit any! I think you're shooting blanks! Carfiend 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got any evidence contradicting the accepted history of Apollo, bring it on. Wahkeenah 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is on the page - I know that you don't accept it. Carfiend 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one thing. Wahkeenah 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Houston, our tapes have gone missing

message: Stars!  click here.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Carfiend 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you examine it, it is an artist's conception, not a photograph.  Could things like this have put in the mind of people that they should see stars on the moon?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm sure this is the source of all the doubts! Carfiend 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you look closely, you can see a flag waving. Wahkeenah 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars! 

message: I've protected this page to stop edit wars.  Please discuss changes on this talk page and when you are ready please request unprotection. —Mets501 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - perhaps this will encourage users to discuss their issues on the talk page. Carfiend 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I hope so too. —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We're getting advice on science and history from baseball players now? Wahkeenah 04:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If not in that section, then it should at least be in the "Pop Culture" section Stoneice02 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, it could go there, for laughs. Carl Everett's opinion is every bit as informed as Homer Simpson's, I'm sure. Wahkeenah 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Let's at least settle on a name before making any name changes to the article.  Yesterday it seemed to be changing "with the frequency of a cheap ham radio".  Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a semi-strawpoll format.  Every potential name is given a subheading for commenting on.  I'll start with current name and my personal suggestion, and one other I've heard.  i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify? your response is too, well, vague, to tell what you mean. i kan reed 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't say what moon landings it is skeptical of.  Does it include Surveyor?  Luna?  Future moon landings?  "Apollo moon landing skepticism" would be better.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would submit that some people ARE doubtful of these.  Some think that it's a physical impossibility that anything could land on the moon, thus, apollo would be unnecessarily singled out where others have divergant beleifs. sincerely i kan reed 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of people would call themselves skeptics without going so far as to acuse NASA of perpetrating a hoax. Carfiend 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a group of thinkers get together, it's called a Think Tank. When a group of skeptics get together... Wahkeenah 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point. Numskll 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Upon further thought, I do not think that "conspiracy theory" needs to be in the title if it is made clear in the first paragraph that these are conspiracy theories."  Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about 'NASA is a bunch of thieving criminals'? Oh, POV, you say? Quite. Carfiend 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As compared to what, the Homeland Security Department? Wahkeenah 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. How about "They may be thieving criminals, but they're not the worst"? Carfiend 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is no one else feeling the creepiness here? They may be thieving criminals . . . you're talking about real people. Numskll 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You think thieving criminals are not real people? Take Enron, for instance. Carfiend 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I simply meant that in the light of no evidence that didn't anyone else think that calling the people behind the Apollo mission 'thieving criminals' with such vim was a little creepy? I'm sorry if you don't understand why I'd say that. It just seems rude and uncivil to me. 70.160.50.109 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slander is a normal tool for the hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm sure you have cases where they have been convicted of slander? No? Oh, more speculation? Carfiend 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have used your favorite expression "ad hominem attacks" instead of "slander". Wahkeenah 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: that's fair, I'm not trying to get an election for name, I'm trying to see what people think. i kan reed 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So assuming some people thought the name was "bad" and some other people didn't, what we be a method for figuring out what the new name should be, since polls are 'the wrong way to do it'?Numskll 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Reaching agreement through discussion. Or perhaps moving it repeatedly, why not even move it to badly spelled versions? Then sound irate when people get mad at you for it? I still don't understand why you dislike the current name. Frankly, I think that the content is more important, but you refuse to discuss that. Carfiend 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: *Oppose on grounds that it's too long and focuses on "accusations" which is not the true subject of the article. i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

message: *Support This was my idea, and I like it because it's short and to the point, without being insulting to anyone.  Addtionally, I support lowercasing "landing" i kan reed 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify? your response is too, well, vague, to tell what you mean. i kan reed 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't say what moon landings it is skeptical of.  Does it include Surveyor?  Luna?  Future moon landings?  "Apollo moon landing skepticism" would be better.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would submit that some people ARE doubtful of these.  Some think that it's a physical impossibility that anything could land on the moon, thus, apollo would be unnecessarily singled out where others have divergant beleifs. sincerely i kan reed 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of people would call themselves skeptics without going so far as to acuse NASA of perpetrating a hoax. Carfiend 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a group of thinkers get together, it's called a Think Tank. When a group of skeptics get together... Wahkeenah 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon landing skepticism

message: Support It is accurate and descriptive and places the topic in a larger context.Numskll 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. Numskll 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Upon further thought, I do not think that "conspiracy theory" needs to be in the title if it is made clear in the first paragraph that these are conspiracy theories."  Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about 'NASA is a bunch of thieving criminals'? Oh, POV, you say? Quite. Carfiend 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As compared to what, the Homeland Security Department? Wahkeenah 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. How about "They may be thieving criminals, but they're not the worst"? Carfiend 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is no one else feeling the creepiness here? They may be thieving criminals . . . you're talking about real people. Numskll 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You think thieving criminals are not real people? Take Enron, for instance. Carfiend 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I simply meant that in the light of no evidence that didn't anyone else think that calling the people behind the Apollo mission 'thieving criminals' with such vim was a little creepy? I'm sorry if you don't understand why I'd say that. It just seems rude and uncivil to me. 70.160.50.109 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slander is a normal tool for the hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm sure you have cases where they have been convicted of slander? No? Oh, more speculation? Carfiend 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have used your favorite expression "ad hominem attacks" instead of "slander". Wahkeenah 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories

message: support it is more precise and less POV than the current title. Numskll 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo Moon Landing Skepticism

message: support it is more precise and less POV than the current title. Numskll 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories

message: This was not my suggestion, but it made me laugh :) Well it is true, of course Axlalta 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA is a bunch of thieving criminals

message: *Duh oppose This kind of thing is not helping.  I was trying to get people to point out particular flaws and benifits of describing things certain ways.  This example here is a textbook case of WP:Point  All it does is take away from acheiving a useful improvement to wikipedia.  Honest to god, that's all I want out of this.  I wanted to make a change because "accusations" and "theories" and all the rest focus on a different aspect of this topic than is Most encyclopedic.  I'm not claiming these things don't deserve their own article, but what's most interesting, and most useful here, is information about the people, the channels of communication, and representation in other elements of culture.  The complaints and theories and accusations and hearsay and quotes should be given fair space in the article, but the very semantics of the title give the article a totally incorrect bent for the primary article on the subject.  Those of you trying to prove this point X and that point Y are really only hurting wikipedia.  I've never been one for unilateral action, but everytime I try to discuss a change I consider meaningful here, someone slips in and tells me one of the following things I get told that some side(which is really quite imaginary from what I've seen) or another is going to do X, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to do. (and if you post a reply here blaming the other side for this, it's your fault).  I want to help find a suitible title change that will reflect a few perceived shortcomings of the current one(such as the principle noun being the wrong type of thing).  So thanks, but no thanks. i kan reed 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How NASA Mooned America

message: *We've had lots of these, and they don't help. the name doesn't need changing, and, even if it did, polls are the wrong way to do it. Carfiend 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's fair, I'm not trying to get an election for name, I'm trying to see what people think. i kan reed 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So assuming some people thought the name was "bad" and some other people didn't, what we be a method for figuring out what the new name should be, since polls are 'the wrong way to do it'?Numskll 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Reaching agreement through discussion. Or perhaps moving it repeatedly, why not even move it to badly spelled versions? Then sound irate when people get mad at you for it? I still don't understand why you dislike the current name. Frankly, I think that the content is more important, but you refuse to discuss that. Carfiend 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose polls

message: :*"Apollo project". TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Moon landing it's unfair to ONLY describe the beleifs of those who just object to apollo, as I've said before.  Whether the current resources we have discuss it or not, people like flat earthers beleive that all moon landings must be fake because, for example, you'd fall off the moon.  Even VERY minority points of view should be considered for NPOV, even in how you title things. i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 - {Apollo, Project, Manned, Lunar, Moon, Landing}

message: e.g. "Doubts concerning the Moon landing"
:*General Oppose, awkward construction. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strong oppose for reasons I've argued many times recently, namely that it focuses on the ideas not the people, who are quite important to the encyclopedia entry. i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2a - {Doubts, Questions, Alternative views} {about/concerning/regarding} [...]

message: e.g. "Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations"
:*Oppose "accusations" and "theories", okay with rest. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose' on grounds as above i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2b - [...] hoax {accusations, allegations, claims, speculations, suspicions, theories}

message: e.g. "Lunar landing conspiracy theories"
:*Oppose. TeraBlight 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose per WP:SNOW i kan reed 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2d - [...] conspiracy theories

message: I have archived all sections up until the first one containing a change made on august 14 or later
:additionally, it appears we've lost our old archives due to page moves.  If someone knows where to find them, a move would be appreciated. i kan reed 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's 700 boxes of something right back here in this dusty closet - maybe they're in there somewhere? Carfiend 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you admit that the hoaxsters stole the tapes and hid them in various closets around the country? Wahkeenah 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn! Caught at last! Carfiend 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: That's pretty bogus. 66.109.99.18 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a little obtuse... Carfiend 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 43 

message: According to Forbes the number of original Apollo tapes missing is 13,000. They haven't found at least one of them.--Tequendamia 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I keep saying, it's not just Apollo 11, it's all of them that are missing. The True Believers are in denial though. Carfiend 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll have to take your word for it, since the page won't open up for me. In any case, how Forbes would be in a position to know about old NASA stuff is anybody's guess. I'm also guessing that the recent attendant publicity will result in spending some more of your tax dollars looking for something that was probably junked, or written over, decades ago. Whatever. It's only money. Maybe Steve Forbes could spring for it? Wahkeenah 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. it's getting soooooooooo pathetic now. the news media is reporting only about the apollo 11 tape missing. But in reality all 6 original high res vids are missing.  In addition, the only machine capable of viewing those tapes will be destroyed or retired in 2 months. how convenient.  It's unbelievable how the landing believers can continually come up with creative excuses for all of these coincidences.Noodle boy 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much non-Apollo stuff from that era is the government also missing? Wahkeenah 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: False. I have never seen a digitalized copy of the high quality original tapes. Nobody has!--tequendamia 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Algr is just wrong. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  The "high quality" tape that is missing is simply a better copy of the same television of the Apollo 11 moonwalk that was shown around the world, and still exists.  The quality is not "high" - it is 10 frames per second instead of 30 and it is black and white instead of color.  Even the "high quality" tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk is lower quality than the video of the later flights.  So was Apollo 11 fake and the rest real???? All of the television transmissions exist and are available.  All of the 16 mm film exists.  All of the still photography exists.  The only pictures that are missing is the slow-scan TV (SSTV version of the Apollo 11 moonwalk (before the scan conversion to standard TV).  You can't view SSTV on normal TVs, so the scan conversion was required to broadcast it to the world.  As you can see from the articles, the difference in quality is not overwhelming.  Bubba73 (talk), 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about your last statement? Considering that the conversion was done by displaying the SSTV on a screen with a sort of after-glow effect and then filming off that screen, if I understood that part correctly, I would assume that the difference in resolution and contrast would be quite considerable... TeraBlight 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page 9 of this shows some comparisons.  There is a distinct difference, but is it going to change anyone's mind?  Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bubba is wrong. It's not just the video, it's also the telemetry. That's important because it would be so difficult to fake. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It turns out that I have a copy of the telemetry.  Here is how it starts: 1001011101011010101101010001110101010101101010110.  That would be pretty hard to fake, wouldn't it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey! Wait a minute! That's a fake! It would be hard to fake the hours and hours and hours of human and machine data that was supposed to be on the tapes, to be consistent with all of the little pieces of information that have been 'published' by NASA over the years. People would spot all kinds of errors in them if they were released. Carfiend 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we got so far and everyone knows is a photcopy of the photocopy . --tequendamia 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With much missing from it. Carfiend 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 13,000 Apollo original tapes missing

message: Just thought I'd link to this photo, taken on Gemini 4, June 3, 1965, more than four years before Apollo 11.  Accorting to hoax proponents, the part of his suit and helment in shadow should be completely black, with no details visible.  (No stars either.) Bubba73 (talk), 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source that claim, or is it just random misinformation? Carfiend 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the Fox special, for an astronaut back-lit by the sun, visible details on the dark side of the lander, and astronauts in the shadow of the lander. 59.112.36.176 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in reference to this specific photo, presumably, but to photos taken on the moon, right? It's another example of the hoax proponents' ignorance of lighting and photography and/or willfull deception on the subject. The moon is not an especially bright object in the sky (although it appears that way to us, because we are close to it), but for someone actually standing on it, there would be a fair amount of reflected, diffuse light from the surface of the moon to illuminate somewhat the shady side of an object backlit by the sun. In fact, if there wasn't, then it could arouse suspicion. I suspect I'm repeating myself (see below) but it's worth repeating. :) Wahkeenah 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Philip Plait Bad Astronomy, page 167-169. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't have that book, but you're not sourcing a hoax proponent as saying it, your sourcing a detractor of the hoax proponents as saying that he thinks a hoax proponent said it. Carfiend 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this ring a bell: "you can see details in the shadow so there must have been two light sources." ? Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  How about this: Kaysing "We Never Went to the Moon", 2002, page 23 & 25.  68.71.91.98 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you - it shouldn't be like getting blood out of a stone to get you to source things. I don't think he was talking about that photo though, was he? Carfiend 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look it up in the book.  That's your bible, isn't it?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually have not read it. I don't believe that he was talking about that photo though. Carfiend 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The earth as a light source? That's ridiculous! You might as well claim that you can see by moonlight.TeraBlight 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: while you're trying to be ammusing in this statement, the earth has an albedo 10 times that of the moon on average, meaning it reflects 10x the ammount of diffuse light the moon does, and being diffuse, larger objects would emmit more.  Not really trying to prove anything here, I just thought I'd share. i kan reed 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the point here is that the comment Bubba is talking about refers to a different photo, under different conditions. Number two in my Typology of AstroNot Fallacies is Hasty generalization. "This, completely unrelated photo, exhibits these properties, therefore the one that Kaysing is talking about should too". Carfiend 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't got time to read Kaysing, you're too busy defending him. Maybe, if you get around to it, you could check and see what specific photo or photos he was talking about. However, it's a safe bet that it's yet another instance of hoaxsters' personal and ignorance-based opinions on how they think things "ought to be". Wahkeenah 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, we're back to Logical Error Number One again - ad hominem attacks when you're out of places to hide. Carfiend 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I'm not defending him, because mine is not an ad homiem defence. Carfiend 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, you're a Brit. Did you know that there is no independent evidence that the British Empire ever existed? Wahkeenah 04:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of the statements that you make is remotely true. There is plenty of evidence that the British Empire existed (and still does, in fact) all of it publicly available, and much of it from independent sources. Unlike your story, the British Empire happened on planet earth. Carfiend 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the British understood satire. Wahkeenah 04:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another logical error: You understand satire. The British understand satire. Therefore you are a Brit. You're too funny. Carfiend 04:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I quote you on that? Wahkeenah 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That you're funny? Of course. Carfiend 04:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details in shadow 

message: Bubba - you said "There already is that shot of tha Apollo 15 landing site. I'm not in favor of a section for independent evidence because it would run into thousands of pages. Bubba73 (talk), 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree that we need that section.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, presumably because it would be embarrasingly short. But do you have any other independent evidence? Carfiend 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on who you'd accept as independent, and what you'd accept as evidence.  Things like long range photography are hard to come by because that stuff was almost exclusively available to governments at the time.  Things like witness testimony is easier to get, but still difficult for time reasons(people died and moved, mention of who did what is lost over time, memories fade) but still fairly broadly available(but not rampantly published like some things are). things that are similar to what is used as evidence against NASA can be piled high.  Example: "No one saw buzz alrdrin while he was in space" "the skeptics could have doctored photos too".  Where should the line be drawn? i kan reed 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Evidence from a source that is not NASA. It's pretty clear. Carfiend 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're accepting testimony, apparently, how about this one (emphasis mine): (in regards to the moon) "We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind."-George W. Bush(not a member of NASA)  Or is testimony the wrong kind of evidence?  I did ask for a reason(and this was as specifically borderline case as i could think of in that he's not a member of NASA; he's above NASA, and he controls it.  Additionally he personally is not a credible source outside being the president of the USA). thanks,  i kan reed 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's the 'wrong kind of evidence' in the sense that it's not a first hand account, if that's what you mean, unless you're going to suggest that GWB somehow spent time on the moon while he was dodging the draft. WTF - try to keep your posts remotely relevant please. Carfiend 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also. FFS, 'Peace and hope for all mankind'? WTF?! Carfiend 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "FFS"? Another cryptic reference. Anyway, the stuff left behind by the Apollo 11 crew included a plaque that said "We came in peace for all mankind", so I suppose that's what Bushie is referring to. I'm not sure who they expected would be reading it. Maybe Gidney and Cloyd. Wahkeenah 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: FFS=For Fuck's Sake. I just find it ironic that GWB could even utter those words without lightning striking him. Carfiend 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remind me not to ask about any more of your abbreviations. Wahkeenah 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent evidence of human landing redux

message: The Apollo program missing tapes is an article waiting to be initiated. I invite you all to contribute to it.--tequendamia 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These tapes went missing 33 years ago. If I am an engineer or a scientist looking after such important recorded documentation I wouldn't miss it for one second. I would be looking after it, I would educate the public about their contain constantly, making the public feel proud about that. If I was a public leader I would've created a separate TV channel devoted only to this feat and to the entire space race. Instead the whole thing has been kept away from the public, like if there was something the people shouldn't see. It has been treated as if it was a comedy video clip.--tequendamia 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Others are as bad. Another logical error. As if that makes it ok. Carfiend 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical hoaxster con approach of applying one's personal opinion to how things "should have been". A theme repeated over and over in their approach. What evidence do you all have as to when they were last seen? Wahkeenah 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who doesn't want to see the originals? Who doesn't want to see the original evidence?--tequendamia 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hoaxster cons certainly don't, since it would invalidate their entire premise. That's why they are so happy this material is missing. Wahkeenah 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ad hominem errors again! You're a slow learner. I, for one, would love to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, there is no proof. Concern is not the same as happiness. Carfiend 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaysing, Sibrel, et al wouldn't, though. Meanwhile, I would love to be proven wrong also. I keep waiting for something resembling evidence contradicting the Apollo saga. There ain't any. Wahkeenah 04:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the moon hoaxters are actually the ones driving the search. As they are not allowed to work for NASA then they have to use the news and the internet to raise awareness.--tequendamia 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Driving the search to prove themselves wrong? Yeh, sure they are. Wahkeenah 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes - they are tireless crusaders for the truth - noble knights of virtue, striving to throw light onto the darkest schemes of evil scoundrels. The issue is - their quest for the truth has led them to conclusions that you cannot stomach - your beliefs are too rigid for their breathtaking deduction and proof. Quake and cower before them, poor, ignorant fool! Carfiend 04:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that it needs it's own article, but I would not oppose splitting it out as a sub-section, since the missing tapes is an issue in its own right, aside from the hoax issue. Of course, I agree that POV should be kept out, although I think that statistics about other govt projects, while helpful, would not be necessary. The first time on another celestial body should be treated a little differently. Carfiend 04:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the hoaxsters keep interjecting their personal opinion about how NASA "should have" handled the data. Wahkeenah 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, if you read the edit summary, it was the setup line for a joke. I was trying to play straight-guy to your smartass. Fat chance. Carfiend 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try not to take that vulgar comment as an "ad hominem attack". Wahkeenah 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ? First time on a celestial body? Never mind. Carfiend 04:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, the Guardian (part of a conspiracy against NASA, I'm sure), says "Up to 30% of Americans already believe the landing was faked in a desperate ploy to make good JFK's promise to get a man on the moon by the end of the decade and thus beat the Soviets. Thanks to Nasa's ineptitude, that number now looks sure to rise. Meanwhile, the advice offered to the searching scientists, who have asked the public for information on the missing tapes, is: look on eBay." The theory is so popular, I'm beginning to think it might not be true after all... Carfiend 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  The missing tapes are ones recorded of the Apollo 11 moonwalk that were recorded in Australia before the conversion from slow-scan TV to broadcast TV. (I think I've said this nearly 10 times.)  This video is from a broadcast from inside Apollo 11 on the way to the moon, starting at 10 hours 32 minutes after liftoff, not 190 hours into the mission that the website deceptively claims.  (See "classified ..." at the top.) Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated before - there is much confusion about what is missing. All of the original tapes with the telemetry are missing, from all Apollo missions. All of the slow-scan tv of the moon from 11 is missing. Some low quality video from Apollo 11 is present, and the video from subsequent missions is available, but without accompanying telemtry. Do you agree Bubba, or do you have a different view of what is available? Carfiend 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new article about the missing tapes is required

message: This relates a little to the old hardware that is in museums and documentation.  I post it for interest only, I don't think it needs to be in the article.  here Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very telling, I would say. "Smithsonian Institution and Space Center Houston, where exhibits manager Paul Spana said he has had about a dozen visits this year from young NASA engineers and contractors trying to figure out how their predecessors sent people to the moon." They can puzzle away, but it looks impossible... Carfiend 07:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that article seems to implicate the impossibility of going to the moon in 1969.  And they are right. Also, after watching the apollo astronots faking footage video, it should be clear to everybody why the tapes were requested back from the national archives. Nasa says the archiving was a low priority, so why was it such a priority to go through all the effort to get it back from the national archives?  Whole thing reeks of 31 day sashimi.Noodle boy 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical moon hoaxster misinterpretation. Since there is an apparent revival of interest in going back to the moon, it only makes sense to study the nuts and bolts of how it was done previously, for the sake of learning, to avoid having to totally "re-invent the wheel". If you are in the software development industry, for example, do you always write everything from scratch, or do you go back and see how someone else did a similar task, for your own knowledge and for better efficiency? Your characterization of "trying to figure out" as suggesting that they are skeptical or mystified, has no basis other than your own wishful thinking.Wahkeenah 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, you are not in the hoax inner circle, and have been set a task by a politician who is not also not in on the hoax, and you're trying to figure out something that looks impossible to you, scratching your head, going over old photos and mock-ups... 'No way this could work...' you think to yourself... Carfiend 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm beginning to find these misreadings of articles written at 6th grade reading level pretty funny. The article is all about how present day engineers are STILL studying Nasa's Apollo era tech in an effort to bootstrap their recently renewed efforts to go back to the moon. As an indicator of the difficulty and tenor of this article, it took me less than 2 minutes to read it, grok it and find that quote. It reads to me like a pro-NASA Human interest piece, the kind of thing some NASA marketer is getting kudos for having successfully pitched it to CBS. To wit: '"The mechanics of landing on the moon and getting off the moon to a large extent have been solved. That is the legacy that Apollo gave us," said Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation project for NASA."' Numskll 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it says that they have the documentation.  It says they went to look at the real thing.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It reports that they say they have the documentation, other reports say they threw it away. Either way, it is not verified. Carfiend 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice abuse, NumbSkull - the fact is there is no evidence for NASA's story except their word. Gravitor 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd cordially invite to read the text of the article that we're discussing. It does not refer to missing evidence as you evidentally  believe. My comments actually referred to the difficulty readers in this section are having rendering an accurate summary of this 4-5 paragraph fluff piece. Not difficulty in judging the bias of the article mind you, simply difficulting understanding the content. A cynical person might believe that this difficulty is feigned . . . the question of evidence or lack thereof has been discussed at length elsewhere. Numskll 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardware in museums, old documentation 

message: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1771119,0012.htm
"Holding on to historic footage is not rocket science — which may be exactly why Nasa officials were forced to say on Tuesday, “Houston, we have a problem”. The problem is that Nasa seems to have lost more than 13,000 original tapes recording the Apollo moon missions, including the historic 1969 Neil Armstrong-Buzz Aldrin first moonwalk. While Richard Nafzger, a senior Nasa engineer put in charge of the search-and-rescue operation, insists that the tapes are not lost (he simply “doesn’t know where they are”), there has been a sudden peak in activity among conspiracy theory circles, especially among those who maintain that the whole moon-landing business was a hoax.
A few years ago, matters got serious enough for Nasa to launch a point-by-point ‘explanation’ to refute claims that the moon missions were all conducted in a studio somewhere in the US." Noodle boy 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source connecting missing tapes to moon hoax 

message: This talk page is getting very long - and much of it seems to be taken up with claims and counter claims not stating much new.
Given that the events happened nearly 40 years ago, and nobody from any of the various sides involved (NASA, Soviet Union etc) has claimed "yes there was a hoax" or even "yes, some of the details were cleaned up" - can we assume that those who won't be convinced will stay that way, and concentrate on actual happenings - eg the misplaced tapes?
Jackiespeel 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive away. Carfiend 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: Stemming from edits on this article and behavior on this discussion page I've initiated a request for comment on the user Carfiend for what I perceive as obvious violations of the following wiki-policies:
#WP:CIVIL
#WP:AGF
#WP:NPA
#WP:OWN 
Here is a link to the RFC page: [| RFC]
Here is a link to the RFC on Carfiend: [| RFC - Carfiend] 
To minimize disruption to this article I will not respond to any posts in this space. If you have questions or comments please see the appropriate discussion page. I urge any interested parties to participate. Numskll 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on Carfiend 

message: In the hoax section the "Diamonds Are Forever" story is mentioned twice! Needs to be edited. ;) --89.54.157.193 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this should be mentioned only once. I agree that, if there are no other references, it should simply be mentioned that Moonhoax.com (I think) suggests it as an early reference. Could you live with that? Carfiend 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning it once is tolerable, but it would still be interesting to know if anyone verifiably made that connection at the time, or whether it was somebody looking at the film 20-30 years later and saying, "Oh, wow, dude!" Wahkeenah 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Diamonds Are Forever" 

message: What's going on in this picture? http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21370 . Thanks! Carfiend 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the forgot to put fresh dirt down after the rehersal? You agree that this is evidence of fakery? Carfiend 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really looks as if the photo was taken at night.--tequendamia 03:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny. That reminds me of the old joke about a group of astronauts planning to take a trip to the sun. One of them says it's really hot, and blindingly bright. Another says, "So, we'll go at night!" Wahkeenah 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, this site is an excellent resource. If you look at the photo preceding it, you will see that the rover was already deployed. Wahkeenah 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing this site illustrates is an answer to the complaint about supposedly few photos being produced. There are many that are very similar, like they were just going click-click-click with the camera, and a number that are, frankly, not very good. They wanted to take enough so that hopefully they would get a few useful ones. They say that the photogs at National Geographic take thousands, knowing only a handful will be in the magazine. I can tell you from my limited experience that you can shoot many rolls and find maybe only a few frames that are really worth reprinting. Wahkeenah 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the complaint is that few photos were available before the mid-90s, coincidentally when photo manipulation became much easier. Carfiend 01:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can see, from the poor quality of many of these, why they (allegedly) weren't made available. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to clarify, the other track is out of frame in the foreground. It's visible in the preceding photo, which also shows the rover. Part of that "package", or insulation or whatever it is, is also visible in the preceding photo, although a little darker, due to the contrast. For the entire photo set, look here  Wahkeenah 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think that is not the rover? What is it then? The 'one track' thing is obviously not a problem, but this is clearly an out of sequence photo, with a continuity error! Carfiend 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not out of sequence, the photo before it is a pan to the left that shows the rover and both tracks and part of that protective packing or whatever it was that was hanging open. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This photo shows only one footprint.  Did Aldrin have only one leg?  Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least, given that evidence, the hoaxsters can't claim he didn't have a leg to stand on. Wahkeenah 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It really looks like a step on a wet beach.--tequendamia 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That hoaxster red herring has been asked and answered. The nature of moon dust is such that the particles cling together when compressed, looking somewhat like wet sand and unlike dry sand. Dry sand particles are smooth and roll off each other, while moon dust particles are rough and jagged, because there is no erosive force (the ocean) to smooth them down as with sand. Thus, dry sand leaves a somewhat fuzzy outline of a footprint, whereas wet sand (with water as the binding agent) and moon dust (with the dust particles clinging to each other rather than rolling off each other) tend to look more distinct, and kind of similar. Wahkeenah 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you say, but, of course, no body knows, since the best moon footage we have comes from a NASA studio. Carfiend 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no evidence supporting that hypothesis. Wahkeenah 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is of course why we HAVE to include some accusation realted to it in this article.Numskll 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been pointed out to you many times, but there is no evidence (other than their word) for the NASA story either. Gravitor 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's been pointed out to you many times that there IS independent evidence. Wahkeenah 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there's been a lot of talk, but no independent evidence of a human landing presented. If you have any, post it here. When you don't, let's move on and stop pretending there is evidence. Gravitor 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're sounding more and more like that other user, making the same statements, skirting the fact that there is no evidence contradicting the conventional history of the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 12:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual, you avoid the point, making accusations instead. There's been a lot of talk, but no independent evidence of a human landing presented. If you have any, post it here. When you don't, let's move on and stop pretending there is evidence. Gravitor 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The tracks are already there, before the rover is unpacked!?

message: I found the * indentations a little difficult to read, because of the italics more than anything. There should be something to differentiate accusation from response of course. Can anyone suggest a better style?
By the way, I think this article is great, even if it's controversial and all. It's led me to make my own more informed conclusions. More importantly I believe that time will eventually prove or disprove the historical accuracy of the landings. After all, at the present there are either footprints on the moon or there aren't. (Or maybe there will always be conspiracy theories.)
A very minor point: For Number 12 below, isn't that what's in contention here? Seems odd to be listing it as supporting evidence, more like a cyclic argument.
:Most of the 'firsts' above were done by the US within a year afterwards (sometimes within weeks). The US started to achieve many 'firsts' which were important in a mission to the Moon, such as:
:...
:12. First manned landing on the Moon (1969, Apollo 11). 
Even more minor, the styling after "November 2002 Peter Jennings", toward the bottom of the article, seems to be out of whack. 59.112.36.176 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to suggest an alternative punctuation approach. The article has tried to be fair-and-balanced, but it has not been easy. It has been a tug-of-edit-war from time to time, which is why it's currently locked. The hoax proponents would readily acknowledge that the official story is that NASA orbitted the moon in 1968 and landed men on the moon in 1969. Some (though not all) would take issue with one or both reported events. A small minority of the small minority who think NASA bent the truth, think we landed men but that something else was going on that they wanted to hide from us (like finding moon men, or a monolith, or a "Kilroy was here", or something). I don't know about the Jennings styling. It does read a little awkwardly. Presumably, the point was to cite the news report as a reference. Wahkeenah 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax/response format 

message: Looking over the achieves, it appears both sides of this article are acting unprofessional. Also, because it's constantly the same group of people arguing with each other, it's very difficult for people to settle in an agreement with eachother.
Thus, from the my viewpoint as an random wikipedia user, maybe the best thing to do at this point is to simple start from scratch. I don't mean throwing out all the information that has already been gathered, but I mean bringing in new people and settling each point one by one. Here are some of the ideas I mean:
1) New editors
The people who are for NASA's version of events should elect one or more representatives. These representatives should be new to this article in that they have not edited it or partcipated in the disputes in the talk page. The current users on this side should no longer directly edit the article nor talk page, but can ask their representative(s) to act for them.
The same thing should apply to the people against NASA's version of events.
The goal of this is to remove the current angst between editors so that edits can be more constructive and more objective.
2) No edits to the content/nature of the article without a consensus on both parties
Hopefully with cooler heads and saner edits, a consensus can be reached. I don't want it to the extreme where one stuck up person opposes and nothing ever happens to the article. However, some kind of acknowledgement or confirmation from both sides is very powerful in cooling the sides down.
I know both side are going to have to make some sacrifices here.
3) Rework the article
Make a TODO list of things in the article that are disputed and keep it on the top of the talk page. Fix them one by one. Once they have been fixed, state so in the TODO list. This is so that some progress will actually happen. The purpose to state that it has been settled in the TODO list is so that the issue will not be brought up over and over again. Just because you want to argue over a detail again does not mean you should.
Just some side notes, I'm not really a wiki writer so please pardon my poor formatting. I'm just a wiki user. Also, I've tried to be as neutral as possible and I hope I didn't offend anyone. I want to see disputes go away and a consensus come about.
[edit]Oh yes, and everyone please read Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot :P
*So write a new article. Wahkeenah 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as one editor exercises ownership over this article there isn't much chance of or sense in that. Numskll 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. What I meant was that someone should write it here, on the talk page, and see if it flies. Maybe archiving the other clutter first would be good, though. Wahkeenah 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the dilemma: Sure, you can define what it is, and it will be a nice, short article. But the reader will think, there has to be some basis for it, right? Well, maybe you could list a link or two that present both arguments well. But if that's not enough, someone will want to list the arguments for the hoax in the article, to "clarify" matters, which will make the the page inherently biased, and then someone will have to list the counter-arguments, and there we'll be again. But give it a try here. What could it hurt? Wahkeenah 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would you list the counter-arguments? All you have to do is write that the overwhelming majority of Americans and scientists do not believe in the theories. Then you would list what they believe.  This is not a page for anybody to prove the moon landings are real. The moon landings are taken as gospel truth. This page is for documenting the social phenomena that is the moon hoax.  This is not a page to enforce a certain POV.  That's why we have the Apollo pages.24.7.34.99 02:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you list only the hoaxsters' claims, unchallenged, then you leave the casual reader with the false impression that there is no reasonable explanation for them, which is what the hoaxsters want in order to "recruit" more of the science-challenged citizenry into their little club. In short, you have a biased page, which runs counter to wikipedia policy. Wahkeenah 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I think that potentially many people will come to this article after hearing of hoax allegations, in order to see if there are responses to the charges and "evidence".  Bubba73 (talk), 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The user you are probably referring to has virtually disappeared from here, probably due to the warnings issued to him. But there are others ready to take up the disinformation flag. Wahkeenah 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm against not putting the responses in. If someone came to this page and just saw the accusations, they might think "But surely there are some responses to this?". Having the NASA crap alongside it demonstrates the lack of cred, and the lack of independent evidence. Also - there's no need to shorten the article. Just 'cos NASA has nothing to say doesn't mean there isn't an article to write. Gravitor 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual hoaxster claim, of lack of independent evidence, is false. Wahkeenah 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual, you're full of bluster, but, as usual, present no evidence. Because there is no independent evidence of a human landing. In fact, given how much they've 'lost', there's barely any evidence from NASA either. Gravitor 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would bother to read the talk page, you would see otherwise. And you would be well-advised to stay away from colloquial expressions that make you sound like that other user, lest you be accused of being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I don't think you are one. It's just that the hoaxsters all sound alike, as if they were Bill Kaysing clones. Wahkeenah 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Rubbish. As usual, you present no evidence. Because there is no independent evidence of a human landing. Anyone who argues with you is bound to end up sounding like anyone else who argues with you, since you never listen, and never move from your religious belief, even when you're obviously wrong. You can't even point to a specific place on the talk page where you think there is independent evidence cited. The fact is that there IS NONE. Gravitor 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to prove anything. You have to disprove the chronology, and you can't. Wahkeenah 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I love that you don't think that your (extraordinary) claims require any evidence, but people who are skeptical about your moon-nonsense must prove a negative! Gravitor 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redo 

message: A copy of a small portion of the missing tapes was found. Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehehe. Now, this DOES seem to be made-up. The lost tapes found as out takes to a long lost  pink floyd video . . . who comes up with this stuff? . . . ex-stoner engineers? Numskll 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A copy of a small part of the missing tapes was found 

message: I'm probably missing something here, but how could the David Attenborough quote come from a BBC special celebrating 40 years since the landings, when that's in 2009? BillyH 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense...what year would that be, though? The BBC was founded in 1922, so it can't be 1962 (they celebrated their 50th in 1972), although in 1986 they celebrated 50 years of the television service. Does that make it 1976? BillyH 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afraid you would ask that. The year of that special is not given, so presumably it's 1976 or so, but arguably it's an uncited reference that should be zapped... especially given the slightly peculiar stuff about a spare spacecraft, which was not true. I think that quote might have been posted by a hoaxster trying to prove something, and I think it has gotten watered down over time and editing. If someone could find a verifiable reference to it, it could be an interesting, if not necessarily useful, quotation. Wahkeenah 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, you have no evidence that it is not true. The point of the quote is to show how prevalent it was in the public's mind that there NASA had other plans in case something went wrong. Gravitor 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one can seem to come up with a specific date and time of when (or if) he actually said it, it could well be a phony "quote". That's one problem with it. Another is the question of how a British actor would be in any technological position to know how NASA was conducting the Apollo mission. Wahkeenah 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote is about common beliefs, not about NASA. It shows what the public thought. Gravitor 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it's not a "common belief". Second, it is uncertain whether the quote is genuine or not. Wahkeenah 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attenborough quote 

message: Let's delete it. I don't see what it adds. It smacks of original research in the wikipedia sense. However, If this is adopted from a  hoax critic we should directly attribute it. Failing that, the stuff on mirrors should be moved. Numskll 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mirror stuff is important because it shows how AstroNots abuse the scientific method to try to show evidence for the human landing that is not there. Gravitor 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll: Scientific method section 

message: Reading over this section I don't see how it applies (in the wiki sense) to the hoax as it is sourced and presented. I'm betting that some hoaxster source has similar language, i.e making the comparison. If that is the case let's attribute this argument to them and revise it to suit. If not, and its a topic raised on the talk page, let's delete it as more WP:OR Numskll 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone added most of the items in the first section, about USSR firsts, and the bit about how the USSR was ahead at one point.  I added the response, about the US later having a lot of firsts in things that are important as far as going to the Moon.  Later I added more "firsts" to both lists, and make wikilinks to the specific mission/rocket/spacecraft.  According to Bill Kaysing, one of his arguements was that the US didn't have the technology to do it, and this may relate to that.  But I haven't seen a pro-hoax reference for these lists of firsts being directly tied to the  "hoax".  Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually this does tie it in.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure that the first list of USSR firsts were put in by a pro-hoax editor.    The original list was either the same as the things listed at the Clavius site (above) or pretty close to it.  I replied and expanded both lists.  Claivius gives Siebel as the source.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section first appeared in an edit by Carfiend, July 21, 13:19 EDT, edit comment: "missing data".  The next edit gives the original title of that section in the comment.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That makes it a candidate for the point-counterpoint list, which it's already in, of course, as it's hoaxster Sibel who makes this charge, either misreading or lying about the facts of the case, as support for his "theory" that the U.S. just couldn't have done it, because he doesn't see how they could have. It's one of the backbones (pardon the irony) of the hoaxsters' credo. They decide how things "should have been" (or not been), and any fact that disagrees with their thesis, in their mind reflects on the fact rather than on their thesis (that's a point I would like to see included in the article, but I'm not sure how to do so without it being editorializing). In any case, I expect the list could be made more succinct, but I'm not quite sure how yet. Meanwhile, the hoaxsters seem to have disappeared. Maybe they're at a Kool-Aid retreat. Wahkeenah 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list of Soviet firsts could be cut down to the original ones by Siebel.  I added a few.  Also, the Siebel lists incorrectly claims that when the USSR had two spacecraft in orbit at the same time that they had a rendezvous.  Actually they were in separate orbits which passed about 5 kilometers from each other.  Neither did anything to rendezvous, although the USSR claim it was one at the time.  When Gemini 6 actually did a rendezvous, when they got that distance from Gemini 7, the ground jokingly told them that they had rendezvoused.  This can be heard on the Project Gemini DVD.  It must have been a fairly big issue at the time because in the press conference afterward, Wally Schirra gives a definition of rendezvous. Bubba73 (talk), 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS - in fairness, I listed about as many significant "firsts" for each country as I could think of.  I added the dates.  From the lists, it is pretty clear that the US started to pull ahead in 1965.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That justifies the detailed list, in the sense that it shows a clearer pattern. Kudos to the hoaxsters for opening yet another can of worms. I like the "rendezvous" joke. The guys had a sense of humor. It's kind of like if Raquel Welch drove past me in the left lane, I could say we were out driving together. :b Wahkeenah 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good!  I had thought of a similar analogy - if I passed the President on the highway, does that mean that we've met?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All things considered, I would rather rendezvous with Raquel than with George, even if it's only for fleeting seconds. Technically known as a "brush with greatness". :) Wahkeenah 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If people feel that this stuff shouldn't be in the article, perhapes it would be better to make a new article "Spaceflight firsts, 1957-1969" or something like that, and shorten the part of it in this article and refer to the other article as the main article about it.  In fact, I may make that page anyway.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. To really bring home the point, you could do a side-by-side of similar accomplishments (which is a much more tedious construct, I realize), which would show how the U.S. started from behind and then surpassed Russia in various ways, thus implicitly undercutting Sibel's ignorance-based theories without having to come right and say it and be accused of editorializing. It could be mentioned briefly in this article and then routed to the new article. However, this might also go back to the "content forking" issue that you've brought up before. Maybe for the point-by-point stuff, though, it makes some sense. With the photographs, for example: there could be a separate page that goes into great depth about the alleged photo issues, with again just a brief point-counterpoint here for those who don't want to wade through the minutia. I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be... but there could be separate articles. It's vaguely like articles about prolific songwriters, where there are spinoff articles about albums and then, for some songs, additional spinoff articles (unless that's something they shouldn't be doing - that's another story). Wahkeenah 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made the new article, and linked to it from this article.  I think that the list of USSR firsts should be reduced to the original ones cited by Siebel and that the list of USA firsts should be removed, and the text can state that starrting in 1965 the US achieved many firsts that are essential to a mission to the moon, and refer to the new article List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the list in chronological order, in tablular format, with the country of each item listed. A cursory examination shows that the US dominated from 1965 on.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Seems to me that valuable list could be linked from Project Apollo also, or at least some page that focuses on the chronologies of the space programs. Wahkeenah 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put it in three categories and I did link to it from two other articles.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos. What do you think about separating out some of the other minute details into other articles? Is there an article about how all the photographics were done in Apollo, for example? All the info in this article is a pretty good start on that one. The hoaxsters gripe that the point-counterpoint is redundant because Apollo is already well-covered. But I don't know that the specific areas of Apollo that the hoaxsters grouse about are necessarily well-covered. Wahkeenah 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be in favor of an article on how NASA faked the photos, and the most obvious errors in them. How about Evidence of fakery in Apollo photographs? Gravitor 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support an article dedicated to analyzing the photos.  Basically, it would be copying the text we already have, with some notes on what kind of photo manipulation was possible in the 1960s. Algr 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And in the 1990s, when most of the photos were faked. Gravitor 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it. Wahkeenah 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll : Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR 

message: On the sixth Mercury flight, Aurora 7, a slow-scan TV (SSTV) was on board, similar to the one used on the Apollo 11 moonwalk, except with a lower scan rate.  The TV broadcast was recorded on magnetic tape and 35-mm film.  But now both recordings are missing.  So it seems that Project Mercury was a fake too.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps! Gravitor 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since they keep postponing the next Shuttle launch, it's growing more and more likely that there never was a Shuttle in the first place. Wahkeenah 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They built a shuttle, but it never landed on the moon. Gravitor 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove they built a shuttle. Wahkeenah 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many, many, non-NASA sources. Photos, films etc of the shuttle. It would require almost everyone to be in conspiracy to deny they built the shuttle. The only people who saw the 'moon landing' were three NASA employees. That's the difference. Gravitor 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theories are like that. The further you get into them, the more people are required. For example, the Soviet government must have been in on the Apollo deal, otherwise they'd have spilled the beans about it. Oh, I forgot, it was that "secret" grain deal in the early 1970s, which, by the way, was well-covered in the news. But you weren't around then, so you wouldn't have remembered that. Wahkeenah 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you claim that the event happened on another world, and no one could ever verify it! Gravitor 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More missing tapes and film 

message: Nada. No evidence presented. Surprise surprise. Gravitor 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He he! Squirm! Wriggle! You HAVE NO EVIDENCE. It's clear. You're busted. If you had it, you'd show it. Gravitor 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perfectly satisfied with the evidence already in existence, and nothing your crowd (or are you just ONE GUY?) has presented has the ring of truth to it. Wahkeenah 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the history of the Apollo program. Then tell me where it's incorrect. While you're at it, instead of just parroting the "NASA is the only source" line, prove NASA is the only source. Wahkeenah 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once more. NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED. Admit there is none - you're just embarassing yourself by keeping on avoiding the question. Gravitor 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would bother to read the various posts, which I have no intention of restating, you would see otherwise. It is you that keeps dodging the question, which is that there is no evidence contradicting the Apollo story. There are "questions", all of which have been explained reasonably. Wahkeenah 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So your claim is that neither story has any independent evidence for it? Feeble. If you have proof, offer it. If not, you're just wasting everyone's time. Gravitor 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand total? Zip!