Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 7

message: What was Von Braun doing in Antarctica? What's the NASA story on this - I've looked, but can't find any explanation. Carfiend 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, he definitely went there: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/13.html : oh, except that's a NASA site, so his trip to Antarctica must have been a hoax! Mark Grant 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic, ain't it? The hoaxsters are relying on NASA evidence to demonstrate that Von Braun went to Antarctica, without any apparent independent verification. That's technically known as a paradox. Maybe he went to Antarctica to throw the hoaxsters off, when the rocks were actually being collected at Addis Abbiba. Wahkeenah 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, Wahkeenah, I love your witty sarcasm. I really do. It never fails to get me rolling on the floor laughing. You are insightful, each phrase a delicate epigram, change but one sylable, and the whole delicate joke falls apart. But please, just once, a straight answer? What does NASA say Von Braun was doing in Antarctica? Carfiend 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says he was exploring. Is there a law against that? Where's your evidence to the contrary? Sarcasm aside (which ain't easy), the hoaxsters have implied something sinister in his trip to the south pole, but they have no actual evidence there was anything sinister about it. They simply decided that was the reason for his trip (i.e. to gather ersatz moon rocks), so it became another false piece in their false puzzle. Wahkeenah 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: With what aim? Why would a rocket scientist working on a moon program go exploring at the south pole at a time when (presumably) there was a lot of work to do on the moon program? Does that really not interest you? "intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth" is enough of an explanation for NASA to send him there? Carfiend 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the hoaxsters are the ones questioning it, they are the ones who need to prove something sinister. Were ex-Nazis not allowed to either have hobbies or take vacations? I might be interested in it if you had some evidence that he was there for sinister purposes. If you've got it, bring it on. Wahkeenah 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a genuine interest, I'm not debating it with you, since I don't have any evidence about what he did there, I'm just intrigued, since it wasn't a hobby or a vacation, he was there on NASA time. They give no explanation, there's nothing to explain what he did there, or why he went, beyond the fact that he was intrigued. I can't prove he brought back 'moon rock', but it's odd that there is no story about him being there for some other purpose. Carfiend 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another example of one of the hoaxsters' tricks. They raise a question based on some minimal information, and then expect someone else to do the research. Since this is of concern to you, then you should research the question. Maybe he talks about it in his autobiography, In German Or English, I know How to Count Down. Wahkeenah 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Und I'm learning Chinese," says Verner Von Braun! Actually, I notice it was asked on the Von Braun page a year ago, with no response so far. It seems very few people know what he was doing there... Carfiend 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nearly 40 years ago. How much do *you* recall of what you were doing 40 years ago? Anyhow, I don't know why he was there beyond what it says, and unlike Kaysing, I'm not going to seriously speculate on why he was there. But it's the typical conspiracy theorist approach (not you) to jump on something like this as being sinister, without any evidence to that effect. Wahkeenah 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If I'd been in Antarctica, I think I'd remember why. Carfiend 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if you were dead, as Von Braun is, I think. Wahkeenah 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I'm not demanding that you research it for me, just enquiring whether you know. It's ok if it's a mystery to you too. Re Fox, mainstream media being in conspiracy against you is a sure sign of a conspiracy theorist! Carfiend 01:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox is a Ruppert Murdoch property, and as Chicago columnist Mike Royko once observed, "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in Murdoch newspaper." Wahkeenah 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your personal grudge against the mainstream media aside, we're no closer to getting an explanation to why the chief rocket scientist was awol in the only place where moon rocks are found on earth at a time when he should have been working overtime on the rockets. Unless, of course, the rockets wern't going to the moon, and the only problem was where to get moon rocks... Carfiend 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know that he was AWOL, and I don't know that it's been demonstrated that moon rocks can be found only (or even in) Antarctica. That might be true, but if Kaysing is the source, I would be skeptical. Meanwhile, it's a little hard to ask Von Braun, as I think he has gone to his Valhalla. Wahkeenah 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we don't know he was AWOL, but we don't have any explanation from NASA about why he was there at that crucial time. He's dead, for sure, which is convenient, but you'd think someone would be able to think up a real reason for him being there? Carfiend 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moon rocks are not found only in Antartica, but it is easier to find them there.  They are meteorites that are blasted off the Moon by large impacts.  The current (Aug 2006) issue of Astronomy Magazine has an article about the process.  The moon rocks found on the earth all show unmistakable signs of coming from a meteor, in direct contrast to the Apollo moon rocks.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. Interestingly, the first lunar meteorite recognized as such was in 1982. And more of them have been found in Oman than in Antartica. Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but again, your logic is weak. "Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, minerals, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions." you're using circular logic. We know they come from space, because NASA brought them back from space. 1982? Erm? No, you're wrong on that, it was 1912 iirc. In the 1960s, Antarctica was the place to go. You argue from circular logic - you only know what 'moon rocks' look like because NASA shows you what it claims are moon rocks. Everything you 'know' about moon rocks is based on a religious belief in what NASA feedds you. Carfiend 05:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, so go where it's easiest to find them. Rather than supervising the rocket program. Your comment about 'Apollo moon rocks' is flawed because the 'moon rocks' that you are being shown (except you're not being shown them) are the ones that NASA has given you. NASA controls the 'moon rocks', so they can look however NASA wants them to look. Carfiend 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: In any case, I thought everyone knew that von Braun was visiting the secret Nazi launch site in Antarctica to get some tips on travel to the Moon. After all, the Nazis had had a lunar base for years by that time. Mark Grant 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the subject? This thread is about trying to find out what VB was doing there. You continually try to drag the discussion off topic. I can't imagine why. Carfiend 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the only evidence we have that von Braun was in Antarctica is from NASA. And you claim that NASA lied about something as important as the Moon landings: so why should we believe them on something as minor as von Braun going to Antarctica? Or do NASA only lie when they say something you disagree with? Mark Grant 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A good point, but one that I have an answer for. Much of the evidence for a hoax or cover up comes from inconsistencies in NASA's account. When you have a big lie, sooner or later the details drift out of sync with each other. Von Braun spending time in Antarctica while he should have been in Houston is only one. To be fair, your point is well made. All that the hoax proponents can ever really show without unfettered access to NASA is that NASA is lying. The specific truth will not emerge until a full investigation is allowed. Carfiend 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hoaxsters have never demonstrated that NASA has lied about the Apollo program, and the assertion that Von Braun "should have been in Houston" is Kaysing's personal opinion. Speaking of which, what were the circumstances of Kaysing's 1963 departure? I have wondered whether he was canned (probably for incompetence), and whether his moon hoax fables were a way of getting revenge? That might give him more credit than he deserves, since the preponderance of evidence merely suggests that he doesn't know what he's talking about, technologically and otherwise. Wahkeenah 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron Miller claims Kaysing left Rocketdyne because of 'personal reasons'... which could be euphemism for anything, but probably nothing good. I'd guess, though, that Rocketdyne would be somewhat embarassed to employ someone who believed that the Apollo program was a hoax. And, as pointed out here on Wikipedia, he was apparently a graduate in English with no technical or scientific training. Hence an idea candidate for writing books about Moon hoaxes. Mark Grant 17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you're right that it is an assumption that two years before the first human trip to the moon the head of the rocket program should be on the job, but it seems a reasonable one. I'm open to other explanations about how he was prioritizing his time, but I'm not getting any. Your personal attacks on Kaysing are not something I'm interested in, I have no particular interest in defending him. Carfiend 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm sure that when you find the explanation, you will let us know. :) Wahkeenah 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: The search for the truth! Carfiend 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the hoaxsters claim. But do we have any independent verification of that assertion? Wahkeenah 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So back to the point (oh no!) what does NASA say VB was doing in Antarctica? Carfiend 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you pretend to care? We all know that if NASA has some perfectly sane reason for him travelling there, you'll claim they're lying, and we all know that no matter how much we point out that von Braun was a) well known and b) not an expert on geology you'll still claim that he was there on a secret mission looking for 'moon rocks'. So what's the point? Why don't you do some research for once and tell us? Mark Grant 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Typical - when you're out of places to run on facts, speculate over the motives of people who are looking for answers! Gravitor 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or looking to sell books. Wahkeenah 23:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or steal 30 billion dollars?! Carfiend 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, Mr. Lehrer. By the way, although my own grandparents used to complain that this was a waste of money (as Tom Lehrer did), but they never questioned that it happened, and they were much wiser than I in many ways. Wahkeenah 06:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I would love to find a way to get a Tom L ref into this article! Carfiend 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be out of scope, unless he ever said something suggesting that Apollo was a hoax. He was mostly making points about the expenditure, and about Von Braun's WWII role. Listening to that record is a nice window into what was going on politically in 1965. He talked about LBJ practicing "escallatio" on the Vietnamese. If only he knew how much worse it would get. Then there's one song where he mentions Helen Gahagan and... Ronald Reagan??? Little did he know how that would turn out. However, his comments about George Murphy's attitude on immigrant near-slave labor seem surprisingly current, as does his song "Send the Marines". Speaking of out-of-scope, I reckon this entire paragraph is such. Bedtime! :) Wahkeenah 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Whether the comparison is reasonable or not, it is inappropriate to over-discuss this point UNLESS there is a source external to wikipedia that makes this argument to cite, in which case it can safely be discussed in an NPOV manner.  until then lay off the holocaust denial stuff.
i kan reed
you fail to see the point of the comparison which is carefully and repeatedly ariculated above. I'd suggest you read the archive more carefully. Lay off the selective reading comprehesion stuff. Numskll 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: innappropriate

message: 1. One of their senior staff was an SS Officer, and was involved in slave labor camps.
2. Neo Nazis have no independent evidnce for their claim, neither does NASA.
3. NAZIs were accused of killing people who disagree with them. So is NASA.
4. Do I need to go on?
This is offensive, stupid and wrong. It prevents real debate by inflaming the dialogue. It is a troll tactic, and should stop. Carfiend 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I was doing it to prove a point, which I should not have done, but your insistance on poisoning the well with your offensive suggestions is getting beyond tollerance. Carfiend 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:POINT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, as I just said above, in my irritation, I sunk to those same tactics to prove a point. I should not have done that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Carfiend 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat, my aim is to improve the article. I think the parallels I and others have drawn could be productive in revising this article to be more encyclopedia like and less fan page like. Please consider how your POV might be causing you to take offense where none was intended. Please consider how your direct persona attacks against those who disagree with you might be causing some offense of there own. Please consider that that others may also hold sincere opinions that may not agree with your own. Please consider that your insistence that a thing is true/fasle does not make it so and that otthers may not be convinced by your assertations but lack of being convinced doesn't make them a troll. please try to remain civil Numskll 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am remaining civil. I don't think we have anything more to say on the whole NAZI thing. You have your POV, which seems unshakable by actual fact, and I have drawn my conclusions, having looked at your suggestions. We are not in agreement, and I do not see this discussion going anywhere positive. Thank you. Carfiend 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some wiki writers are touchier than others here. I've occasionally had some of them run to "mommy" when my own comments went over the line. That's something I typically won't do; I would rather settle it face-to-face (or technically keyboard to keyboard), if possible, unless someone gets into an obnoxious revert war, which does happen here from time to time, but it's been far worse on some other pages. However, be very careful about labeling someone a sockpuppet, as that is apparently considered a very offensive charge on this website, unless you can prove it. I don't take it personally, but many do. Wahkeenah 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, while you didn't point that out to SA, you did speak up when you did not have to when he was acusing people. Kudos. Carfiend 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you're the only person calling anyone Nazis, and your POV certainly doesn't seem to have been changed in the slightest by the rebuttal of pretty much every claim you've made of 'evidence' of lunar landings being hoaxed. But then if someone was interested in facts, why would they be an Apollo-denier? Mark Grant 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The only person I am calling a NAZI is Verner Von Braun, and he was a NAZI, so I don't see that as a problem. You claim rebuttal, but I don't accept that - I don't find your explanations convincing. Carfiend 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought the Tom Lehrer song was a little unfair, though it was certainly funny. I don't know that Wernher Von Braun was ever accused of war crimes (that peculiar distinction between "fair" and "unfair" killing in wartime), he was just doing what he was told to do, flying his Vergeltungswaffe rockets (a.k.a V-rockets; ya gotta love them German words). He and his cohorts were both snapped up by the Americans and the Soviets, so those countries were being just as "expedient" as those men were. In reviewing the article, it occurred to me that his death at a relatively young age, apparently following a vehicular accident, is something the hoaxsters overlooked. Given their tendency to read between the lines, I'm surprised they missed the chance to claim he was threatening to speak out. Wahkeenah 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is, perhaps, unfair to treat him as a NAZI, since he was, in many ways just doing his job. However, he was involved with slave labor camps, and his apparent willingness to work for the NAZIs and then the west shows what I think is a chillingly mercenary streak (just my opinion). He was never accused of war crimes. He designed weapons that could only really be used to attack large civilian populations, but did not make the decision to use them, and in any case, was far more useful as a scientist alive and free. Re his death, it is mentioned by some theorists, I just don't think anyone has got around to writing about it here. Carfiend 01:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes... so many conspiracies, so little time. Wahkeenah 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things that NASA has in common with Neo Nazis

message: If you want a structure guide, this is pretty good John F. Kennedy assassination. Carfiend 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - although I would say that most people have resigned themselves to the fact that key evidence has been destroyed at this point, and we will probably never know the truth, rather than accepting the govt's story at face value. Carfiend 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same was said of the Lincoln assassination. Wahkeenah 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Carfiend 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Intelligent Design' may be another. Mark Grant 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the level of Revert Wars on that page and/or the Evolution page (which I obviously have not checked lately). If the editors have found a way to keep things relatively calm, it would be worth a look. Wahkeenah 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Intelligent design is a little different, it is an overtly religious campaign to take control of education and create a wedge on separation of church and state, it's not really an argument about creation. Carfiend 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  but not Kennedy assassination theories - there is no critical examination of most of the theories.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many, and contradictory, it's hard for a debunker to know where to begin. I used to wonder about it also, although I was convinced from Day 1 that Oswald was involved, due to the attitude he copped to the press while under custody (can you believe they allowed a brief, live interview with the accused assassin? Things were different then) and I remain convinced that he was a triggerman if not necessarily the only triggerman. But the parallel with the Apollo hoax story is not all that parallel, although I'm fairly certain that a fair number of JFK conspiracists turned their attention to Apollo once the JFK story began to run out of steam. Wahkeenah 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, as with most cover-ups, many theories are proposed - without full access to the information, th truth may never be known. In the case of the JFK killing, things like the 'magic bullet' indicate something is wrong, but not who perpetrated the killing. It's similar with the NASA hoax - the evidence points to a cover-up, but the details cannot be known without more information. Obviously that will not be forthcoming until a full and independent review can be undertaken. Carfiend 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see a parallel in the theories.  In JFK there are many "theories", but there are no alternative theories that are (1) consistent with the facts (2) have evidence to support them, and (3) are detailed enough to be verifiable.  By that, I mean that they are all vague: "the Cubans did it", "the Mafia did it", "the CIA did it", "the Russians did it",  "the federal reserve did it", etc.  The "theories" listed in this article are similarly vague. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly general common ground: (1) many and varied and contradictory theories, each based on a list of "evidence" that is chosen for the purpose of fitting the theory; and (2) no actual evidence, the absence of which is also claimed as "evidence" by the dissenters. Wahkeenah 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - all we need to do is to say it leads to child mollestation and terrorism, and we'll be in good shape! Carfiend 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Nazism. Wahkeenah 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (That sarcastic remark assumes I have any clue what you're getting at, which I don't.) Wahkeenah 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like you do! Just list a lot of irrelevant, unrelated bad things, and you're done with your counterarguments! Carfiend 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for clearing that up. Wahkeenah 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, they are in outline form here, so of course they are vague. You don't want to reproduce the books here do you? Carfiend 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I complain, but I'm actually beginning to like you! Carfiend 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get used to it. >:) Wahkeenah 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFK

message: Just there, the Apollo deniers' methodology once again stands revealed as indistinguishable from certain other types of 'alternative theorists' whose identity we dare not mention. The relationship between conviction and arbitrary evidence (sorry, 'theory' and 'hypthesis') is identical. Adhib
::As I said, the Apollo saga is not a "theory", it's a set of events. The converse of the first "If", which you would like to use to imply fakery due to their absence, is not logically valid. The second "If" does not preclude fakery (or allegations thereof). To put it a little more tartly, they can't even tell if a flag is waving, so how easy would it be to fake some data for them? Therefore, the presence or absence of such data is irrelevant. The third "If" implies inconsistencies, which have been alleged but not demonstrated beyond doubt. Obviously, some people see things differently than others do. Therefore, the alleged inconsistencies are insufficient. Wahkeenah 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You assert the claim that it's not a theory again, with no evidence. Then you go into whether or not you agree with the theory. We're not talking about whether you believe the flag is being shaken by Buzz or blown by a fan, we're talking about whether it's a theory. Carfiend 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't really need evidence beyond knowledge of the language we all share (to varying degrees) to 'prove' the Apollo landings are not NASA's theory. Either they happened, in which case it is a historical fact, or they didn't happen, in which case it is a lie, a hoax, or a conspiracy. The hoax proponents do a have a theory or theories, even if they are not fully articulated (I don't know whether they are not); That elements witihn NASA faked the moon landings to varying degrees for various reasons. The fact that they don't accept or recognize or value the evidence that NASA and others have produced is another matter entirely. Numskll 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously, to the extent that NASA is practicing religion rather than science, it does not have a theory, but to the extent that we are trying to determine the truth, we have two theories, the hoax theory, and the landing theory. NASA promotes one, the landing skeptics the other. Various data is available, and which theory most closely fits the data is contested. Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Carfiend], your response fails to engage the topic athand  and seems designedto be offensive and absurd. Please review the topic and revise your tone. Numskll 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I see. I am trying to impose the notion of "scientific theory" on this conspiracy theory, whereas it's more like "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". That follows. And it follows that the Great Unwashed dismiss Evolution as "just a theory", because they think it's "just conjecture", "just speculation", or "just opinion" rather than what it is, which is a "scientific theory". Wahkeenah 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. Again, slurs without evidence. What features of a theory does the hoax theory not have, in your opinion? Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Two separate, but related languages Numskll 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "English", and "NASAshillish"? Carfiend 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or "English" and "Kaysinglish". Wahkeenah 02:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review my post dated, 19:08, 27 July 2006, for a meaningful treatment of the 'two separate languages' (and try to remember that it is a metaphor) issue and cease the meaningless and immature bickering. This is not a school yard.  Numskll 13:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodology, redux

message: If you were head of a _real_ space program, how would you arrange for independent confirmation of a moon landing?   Algr 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take Bill Kaysing along, and leave him there, so he can spend the rest of his days looking for the exit door on the "movie set". Wahkeenah 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For the other side of the coin, how about independent examination of some of the pro-hoax claims.  For instance, the "C" rock photo. Take that photo and crop it so you can't tell that it is from the Moon.  Then ask 100 photo experts what that C-shaped thing is.  Don't tell them why you are asking, and see what they say.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. NASA has not provided any independent evidence for the claim that they landed on the moon, and have lost much of the most convincing evidence. Their extraordinary claim is not, so far, substantiated. The "C" rock claims are subject to third party scrutiny. Carfiend 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That we landed on the moon is not an "extraordinary claim".  Claiming that there was a hoax is an extraordinary claim.  Prove it.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: NASA has never "claimed" anything. They and all their observers around the world merely reported the events as they happened. Wahkeenah 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what they claim. No one but NASA saw what went on. Conveniently, there's no way to verify their claims. Carfiend 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. As has been stated here many times, there was plenty of independent confirmation. That doesn't square with the hoaxsters' premise, so they won't accept it. The assertion that they have "lost most of the convincing evidence" is a blanket statement with no arithmetic behind it. If you could go back to 1969, and were running NASA, how would you have demonstrated during the flights that they were actually occurring and were not being faked? What would you have done differently? Wahkeenah 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was not any. No one but three NASA employees (it is claimed) saw the 'moon landings'. Everyone else say video provided by NASA, or tracked objects that they were not able to confirm the nature of. Carfiend 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposing you are the head of NASA in 1969, how do you demonstrate, while it's happening, that the moon landings are for real? Wahkeenah 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope I'd have the integrity to blow the whistle, rather than try to cook evidence that it's real. Carfiend 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstand. You are assuming it's a hoax. Assume, for a second, that it's real, and you are the head of NASA. Then, how do you demonstrate, while it's happening, that it really is happening? Wahkeenah 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the blueprints and the development information is key. The testing and design work is a big part of it. That's the test between a mock-up for a movie, that has to look right, and a machine that really has to work. Examining how it was designed, and the itterative testing would be powerful proof. I'd say that testamony under oath from the people claiming to be on the moon would help, a sealed video unit and camera examined by a third party without tampering would help. Full telemetry data, and the hi-res video would be good. Off the top of my head, that's what springs to mind, but I'm sure we can add to it. Carfiend 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's all after the fact. I mean while it's happening; while the vehicles are (presumably) on the way to the moon, how do you prove it's actually happening? Wahkeenah 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the sealed camera unit, the telemetry data, they could have taken a copy of the day's newspaper with them, and recorded it with the sealed camera, a specific stunt or code word given by a third party to the moon crew to perform or say on the sealed camera on the moon. I'll think on it though. Carfiend 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that everything you mention there could easily be faked. But I will say no more about this one question, and let you ponder the matter. Wahkeenah 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: Rubbish. Please do some basic research. The hi quality video was relayed to the telemetry tapes. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "high quality" video they are talking about is simply somewhat higher quality than what was broadcast.  And it is for the Apollo 11 moonwalk only - nothing else.  If you read the links about it, you can see some Polaroid shots of that video.  The contrast and detail is better.  However, due to technical reasons (the antenna used), the actual video from Apollo 11 moon walk was transmitted at 10 frames per second.  Normal television in most of the world uses 30 frames per second.  10 frames per second is very jerky.  They put the 10 fps video on a monitor with long-persestance phosphors and used another TV camera to capture that monitor, at 30 fps to be broadcast, a live scan conversion (and recorded).  The original 10 fps was also recorded on telemetry tapes (1 inch, 14 track analog tape).  If that 10 fps tape is found, and can be played back, with modern technology a better quality video can be made than the old copy after the live scan conversion that we currently have.  I contacted one of the people involved, and they are looking for the tape.  If it turns up, will that convince you?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: No, you didn't - you asked what I would have done if I were head of NASA at the time of the Apollo program. Carfiend 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me. I didn't post these other points. I know it's hard to tell one of us NASA retirees from another. :) Wahkeenah 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to make of that remark. Nothing that I 'asked for' exists. For example, where are the third party sealed cameras? You clearly did not read what I wrote. You comment is ridiculous fiction, "defending the faith" against overwhelming evedence. Please try to answer actual issues, rather than behave as if you're having a completely different conversation. Carfiend 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More to the point, if anything does exist, Carfiend will claim it's a fake (like LM-13). It's pointless to even discuss anything with a 'true believer', as they have no interest in reality. Mark Grant 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the "true believer" behavior of landing believers is the real problem. When the fact that they have no evidence for the landing is exposed, they repeatedly fall back on the explanation that it doesn't matter, because even if they had evidence, they also have prescience about what their accusers would say. Of course, evidence for this telepathy is never presented. Carfiend 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the evidence contradicting the established history of the Apollo flights? Wahkeenah 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been pointed out. Time. And time. Again. There is no 'established record' of the moon landin, except for NASA's account. You know there isn't, and yet you continue to behave as if this were not true. That's true believer syndrome, right there. Gravitor 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're merely offering further reason for people to believe that you have no interest in improving the article here, only in pushing your own point of view, no matter how often people point out that you're wrong. Mark Grant 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. This is definately the boldest blatant dishonesty I've seen from the pro-NASA camp. A list of things that are obviously not true on their face ("hi-res video would have meant lots of tapes in the lander") and then everyone else cheering on this ignorance, as if it's a sports game, not an attempt to establish the facts. When the obvious facts are pointed out, the only response is "even if we were right, you would ignore it", a false and stupid slander. The NASA case is debunked, and it's supporters shown to be intellectually and morally bancrupt. Evidence above. Gravitor 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing "debunked" is every piece of so-called "evidence" the moon hoaxster cons have tried to claim. The hoaxster cons have proven time and time again to be a combination of ignoranimouses and liars. The famous Fox special is all you need to see to know that's true. Wahkeenah 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That mainstream media. I can't believe it's part of the conspiracy against NASA too... Carfiend 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 01:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - when you've got nowhere to hide on the facts, change the subject, avoid the question, parrot nonsense. Carfiend 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, review WP:CIVIL.  While I won't do anything directly because of my involvement in this thread, other admins will if you don't start treating the people with whom you disagree with respect.  Your consistent incivility is uncalled for, please examine your tone.  Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just having a lively discussion. I can't speak for anyone else here, though. :) Wahkeenah 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be powerful evidence that would show serious development of the program, rather than just a model in a museum. On it's own, it would not provide proof, but it would certainly be nice to have some evidence for the landings. Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't. It would be too easy to fake such evidence... even easier now than it would have been then. It would prove nothing to those who already accept the historical record, and it would immediately be claimed as a fraud by those who don't believe the historical record, as they would point out that NASA was its source. It would be a nice set of historical artifacts to have, but is otherwise irrelevant. Wahkeenah 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A second question for Carfiend: Can you briefly (one or two sentences) describe the difference between the Lunar Module and the Lunar Rover?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? The module is the 'lander' and the rover is a car. What do you mean? Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent confirmation 

message: Everything you ask for, Carfiend, already exists.  Detailed blueprints for the moon landers are already sited in the article.
:Not true. They are simply not. There is a technical manual, that has some drawing, but that is not the same thing. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Rubbish. Please do some basic research. The hi quality video was relayed to the telemetry tapes. Carfiend 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "high quality" video they are talking about is simply somewhat higher quality than what was broadcast.  And it is for the Apollo 11 moonwalk only - nothing else.  If you read the links about it, you can see some Polaroid shots of that video.  The contrast and detail is better.  However, due to technical reasons (the antenna used), the actual video from Apollo 11 moon walk was transmitted at 10 frames per second.  Normal television in most of the world uses 30 frames per second.  10 frames per second is very jerky.  They put the 10 fps video on a monitor with long-persestance phosphors and used another TV camera to capture that monitor, at 30 fps to be broadcast, a live scan conversion (and recorded).  The original 10 fps was also recorded on telemetry tapes (1 inch, 14 track analog tape).  If that 10 fps tape is found, and can be played back, with modern technology a better quality video can be made than the old copy after the live scan conversion that we currently have.  I contacted one of the people involved, and they are looking for the tape.  If it turns up, will that convince you?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: No, you didn't - you asked what I would have done if I were head of NASA at the time of the Apollo program. Carfiend 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me. I didn't post these other points. I know it's hard to tell one of us NASA retirees from another. :) Wahkeenah 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to make of that remark. Nothing that I 'asked for' exists. For example, where are the third party sealed cameras? You clearly did not read what I wrote. You comment is ridiculous fiction, "defending the faith" against overwhelming evedence. Please try to answer actual issues, rather than behave as if you're having a completely different conversation. Carfiend 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More to the point, if anything does exist, Carfiend will claim it's a fake (like LM-13). It's pointless to even discuss anything with a 'true believer', as they have no interest in reality. Mark Grant 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the "true believer" behavior of landing believers is the real problem. When the fact that they have no evidence for the landing is exposed, they repeatedly fall back on the explanation that it doesn't matter, because even if they had evidence, they also have prescience about what their accusers would say. Of course, evidence for this telepathy is never presented. Carfiend 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the evidence contradicting the established history of the Apollo flights? Wahkeenah 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been pointed out. Time. And time. Again. There is no 'established record' of the moon landin, except for NASA's account. You know there isn't, and yet you continue to behave as if this were not true. That's true believer syndrome, right there. Gravitor 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're merely offering further reason for people to believe that you have no interest in improving the article here, only in pushing your own point of view, no matter how often people point out that you're wrong. Mark Grant 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. This is definately the boldest blatant dishonesty I've seen from the pro-NASA camp. A list of things that are obviously not true on their face ("hi-res video would have meant lots of tapes in the lander") and then everyone else cheering on this ignorance, as if it's a sports game, not an attempt to establish the facts. When the obvious facts are pointed out, the only response is "even if we were right, you would ignore it", a false and stupid slander. The NASA case is debunked, and it's supporters shown to be intellectually and morally bancrupt. Evidence above. Gravitor 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing "debunked" is every piece of so-called "evidence" the moon hoaxster cons have tried to claim. The hoaxster cons have proven time and time again to be a combination of ignoranimouses and liars. The famous Fox special is all you need to see to know that's true. Wahkeenah 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That mainstream media. I can't believe it's part of the conspiracy against NASA too... Carfiend 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 01:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Way to change the topic from how dishonest the NASA shills have been. Carfiend 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the doubters should take NASA to court and see how it turns out. Wahkeenah 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - when you've got nowhere to hide on the facts, change the subject, avoid the question, parrot nonsense. Carfiend 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, review WP:CIVIL.  While I won't do anything directly because of my involvement in this thread, other admins will if you don't start treating the people with whom you disagree with respect.  Your consistent incivility is uncalled for, please examine your tone.  Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just having a lively discussion. I can't speak for anyone else here, though. :) Wahkeenah 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be powerful evidence that would show serious development of the program, rather than just a model in a museum. On it's own, it would not provide proof, but it would certainly be nice to have some evidence for the landings. Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't. It would be too easy to fake such evidence... even easier now than it would have been then. It would prove nothing to those who already accept the historical record, and it would immediately be claimed as a fraud by those who don't believe the historical record, as they would point out that NASA was its source. It would be a nice set of historical artifacts to have, but is otherwise irrelevant. Wahkeenah 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A second question for Carfiend: Can you briefly (one or two sentences) describe the difference between the Lunar Module and the Lunar Rover?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? The module is the 'lander' and the rover is a car. What do you mean? Carfiend 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything Carfiend asks for exists 

message: A quick question.  It's not copyright violation, or plagarism, to copy and paste what someone's title is, is it?
i kan reed 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mean the job title, thanks i kan reed 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I lifted exact text from the article(his(the ESA guy) name and title), because I assumed that no variations are really acceptable when describing a job title.  i kan reed 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using someone's correct job title is not a copyright vio. Carfiend 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless their job title happens to be the lyrics of a song written since 1923. Wahkeenah 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Contrary to the comments that I dropped in here out of nowhere, I reiterate what I said in early June:
:Every believer in any hoax theory I've ever run across has been woefully ignorant of basic science (especially that science disputed by the conspiracy theorists), math, politics, economics, etc. Were they not, they'd not make such glaring mistakes in developing their "proofs" of a hoax. -- For example, one of the earliest boners in the Apollo hoax theory was, "there are no stars in the background!" Duh, it's daytime! (Besides, given even the modest special effects used on Star Trek, the assumption that NASA would have been too dumb to put stars in the picture, if they were supposed to be there argues against a hoax as one cannot say, "they were too dumb to do a simple thing" and "they were really smart and could pull the wool over everyone's eyes".)
:Re the former USSR of course adds another nail (or twenty) in the coffin of this conspiracy theory. As they were able to track, via radar, the entire mission, one thinks they'd've noticed, and commented upon, anything that was at variance with the Apollo missions landing on the moon. After all, this battle to land a man on the moon was a competition betwen the two countries, with national pride at stake. To think that they would just clam up if they knew  that the mission was bogus (as they would have known) is to show a complete misunderstanding of the dynamic between the two nations. (As would including them in an ever-widening conspiracy).
:Expected rejoinder: "But that they tracked the spacecraft to the moon doesn't mean humans were on board, so there!". Alas, the Russians also tracked the conversations between mission control and the men on the moon, and could very easily determine whence the source of those radio signals (it's a simple matter of triangulation). 
:Finally, all of the other nonsensical "evidence", if it were true, would have been noticed and pounced upon by the Russians. Alas, that they did not is an excellent indication that the "evidence" purporting to "prove" that man did not land on the moon, is bogus. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, let's open another broadside of mudslinging. Your post contains no facts, or reference. It is a hand grenade tossed into the page to cause disruption. Again, please, if you are interested in improving this page, help work on factual issues. Carfiend 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   •Jim62sch• 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah yes. Someone calls you on your playground mudslinging, and asks for help in identifying pertinant facts, and you respond by calling them a troll. Please try to be civil, and try to find ways to contribute, rather than disrupt. Carfiend 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no stars in Project Gemini photos either.  I wonder why?  "If it were real there would be stars visible in the jet-black sky." (Kaysing 2002:24).Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent point that should or could be added to the explanation in the article. It then puts the hoaxsters in the awkward position of having the say the hoax was planned from Day 1, and that earth orbit was not possible either, which pretty much collapses most of their alternate "theories". Wahkeenah 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you've seen the video of this, I think you see the straps in the back flapping - but there is supposed to be no wind in space.  Hmmmm.....  I think most conspiracy theories think the hoax started a couple of years after this flight.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have something to do with "inertia", which the hoaxsters probably know nothing about, having evidently played hooky during 8th grade science class. In any case, it looks like you've unveiled a whole new tunnel for the hoaxsters to mine: the concept that none of it happened. Not Apollo, not Gemini, not Mercury... nor the Shuttle. Oops. Wahkeenah 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as putting this on the main page, I think there are already three non-Apollo photos showing no stars, so if you add it, I think some of the others should be taken out.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might work to have a simple response saying "no stars show in the other NASA space photos either", and have a postage-stamp sized gallery of examples. The lack of stars is consistent across the board, and easily rubs out this ignorance-based argument of the hoaxsters. Wahkeenah 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  But this "inertia" thing.  We only have Newton as a source for that.  No independent verification.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The 'evidence' on this page seems to focus on perceived gaps in the historical record and bits of unconnected trivia that seek to negate the 'truth'  around the various Apollo landings. My question is this: Is there any evidence that actually points to the hoax? Any evidence of action/actors taking part in a cover-up? Any evidence of a conspiracy? I'm not asking for 'questions' about  the completenesss of NASA's records or uninformed speculation on various pieces of hair or bits of dust in the photos, or the ridiculous questions about why stars don't show up in the photos -- we've seen enough of that. I'm asking for a single piece of semi-credible evidence that indicates, directly or indirectly, the conspiracy occured. Please be specific as possible.  Numskll 11:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The evidence that I have seen is of tampering, inconsistencies and errors within NASA's account, including impossible claims. In terms of a 'smoking gun', a tape of a confession, a memo about the hoax, then no, I have not seen it. Carfiend 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  actual evidence of tampering would qualify, please expand. 'Impossible claims' too were they really impossible.Numskll 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's on the page. I'm not going to feed you with more discussion of things we've already been over. How about posing some questions of fact that we can use to improve the article? Oh, right.  Carfiend 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it was and is a sincere question. Please regulate your tone. If such evidence did exist it should be noted prominently in the article.  If it does not that should be noted too. Numskll 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep saying this (NASA is the only source (which is untrue on its face)) which part of the statement that NASA is the only source for evidence of a human landing is not true? What other evidence for a human landing do you have? Carfiend 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stick to the topic. You've just begun another section that discusses NASA evidence below. Why try to hijack this topic too? I've replied to your concerns below. Let's try and keep this discussion orderly so new eyes will be able to make sense of it.Numskll 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Evidence for the hoax 

message: As a change of pace, here is an interesting question for everyone:  Which of the following pieces of evidence was the one that actually convinced Bill Kaysing that the Moon landing was a hoax:
:1. no stars in the photos
:2. questions about shadows in the photos
:3. flag waving in the photos
:4. "moon" rocks could come from Antarctica
:5. missing Moon Buggy blueprints
:6. lack of a blast crater under the Lunar Module
:7. the moving "coke bottle" in the Apollo 11 moonwalk video
The answer may surprise you! Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the Moon Hoax trivia quiz! I'll play! I guess that it was... the flag waving? Carfiend 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing it had to do with whatever he was smoking at the time; hence the expression, "Kaysing the joint". Wahkeenah 23:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe he came upon that discovery the same way that General Jack D. Ripper arrived at his theory of "Purity Of Essence". Wahkeenah 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's got possibilities.  •Jim62sch• 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is often stated that he was fired, but on page 80 of his book, he prints a letter from Rockwell/Rocketdyne that indicates that he quit for personal reasons.  His employment history with Rockwell (as stated in the letter) is summarized at Bill Kaysing. The letter says he was "Publications Analyst", and I don't know if that is the same thing as "head of technical publications" so often cited. Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That phraseology is often used as face-saving (on both sides) when someone gets fired. However, in the absence of firm evidence, I will accept that statement. It's possible he didn't lie all the time. :) Wahkeenah 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Publications Analyst" could mean anything. It could mean his job was to look for spelling errors and to make sure the pages weren't printed upside-down. Wahkeenah 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elsewhere in his book, he said that the VP and Head of PR at Rocketdyne said that he "had been fired and was a disgruntled employee grinding a personal axe".  (This was in the 1970s, I think.)  He uses the letter saying that he quit for personal reasons to coutner that.  So I'm not sure what the facts are.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting question 

message: Surely the subject of the article is (very simplified) "there are some people who believe that the 1969 Apollo landing was a hoax; these are the reasons they present; here are the counter arguments."  Are similar arguments presented against some of the other space activities - and if not why not?
It is getting on for 40 years since the event: has anyone come up with even a photograph that has been tidied up? Surely it would have been much easier for NASA to have said that "for technical reasons we are sending an inhabited rocket to the moon to place a number of locator/marker beacons before the 1960s are out, and actual men on the moon by (say) mid 1972 using those beacons" - would remain within the spirit of JFKs remark, and would involve far less hassle than a global cover-up. Jackiespeel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question  "has anyone come up with even a photograph that has been tidied up?"  Yes - there is one. The only one to my knowledge that has been tidied up is the famous one of Buzz Aldrin, in the "photographs" section of the main article.  It was tidied up by adding black area at the top because the original frame cut off at the top of his helmet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject of the article

message: *User numskll posted those banners at 00:59 on the 11th, no doubt in exasperation at that point in time. Now that you've raised this logical question again, I'm waiting for the hoaxsters to go on yet another rant that comparing the arguments of the Holocaust deniers, or even merely the structure of the article, with those of the Apollo deniers, somehow equates to comparing Apollo deniers with Nazis themselves. But the hoaxsters often put a parallel-universe spin on things that are obvious to the rest of us. Wahkeenah 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point of clarification: I replaced the tags ScienceApologist posted and Carfiend, I believe innapropriately, removed. I did it because I think the tags are valid, not out of some overwhelming emotion, please WP:AGF. I also put a heading over your comments Wahkeenah on the tags to try and keep the straw poll section on topic.  I'm sorry if that is agianst your wishes and will completely understand if you feel the need to return them to the Straw Poll section or I'll do so myself if you wish. I simply belive a small amount of topic discipline may help new readers grok the issues being discussed . Numskll 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sehr gut. Wahkeenah 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, et al tags part 3

message: This talk page repeatedly has subsections where someone says "Side X does not address claim Y." I have noticed no helpful article development resulting from these sorts of subsections.  Particularly, there have been no true documented debates on this issue, which makes specific oppurtunities for anyone to address those concerns specifically as those concerns quite rare.  The article, as it stands, expects a format where all claims are expected to be addressed.  As I mentioned, there is no NPOV way of managing that.
This is where I think all the "undue weight" concerns stem from. My reconmendation is the "complete list of claims" type sections be changed into "characteristic" or  "common" claims, to help address the Notion of types of concerns, which would give the reader a more concise and clear understanding of the objections. I'm basing this off the fact that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article should focus on helping clarify things from a reader's perspective.  I'd like some feedback on whether this would actually address the tension found in the article and whether it would improve the quality of wikipedia(and keep in the spirit of the wikipedia project).  This would result in some NPOV concerns if done blindly so careful examination of the article should be done first.  i kan reed 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, strangely, with W. The article is improved through removing editorialising and focussing on the facts. It is unusual to find a page that simply treats the claims of both sides in terms of the facts of what they say without adding (much) of a layer of polemic. Carfiend 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the theoretical strengths of wikipedia. Some have ridiculed it as "knowledge by consensus" or some such, but that's the way it is with all reference books in general, it's just that this one has a potentially much broader editorial base. And unlike many of those other sites which are pushing a personal agenda or whatever, this one at least has the chance to avoid that trap. Wahkeenah 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A pat on the back, my good man. A pat on the back. Carfiend 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might have been true 10 hours ago, until the Johnstown Edit Flood was unleashed again. >:( Wahkeenah 01:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I knew I should have been suspicious. It's like a bit I've alluded to before, where Groucho Marx is expounding at length on some concept, and some vaccuous audience member jumps up and says, "I think that is a wonderful idea!" Groucho comes back with, "Oh, you do, eh? Well, then there can't be much to it. Forget about it!" Wahkeenah 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A difficulty of this article in particular

message: In the section "Major proponents of the moon hoax" is a redlink to David Percy's film "What Happened On the Moon?" (note the capital O in "On"). However, there exists an article named What happened on the Moon (with a lower case H), created last April, that isn't very well written. It's tagged as a stub. I couldn't verify the correct title using IMDb. If the title contains a question mark, it must be encoded correctly. Could someone fix that page (NPOV) and link it here correctly? Wipe 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry - Wahkeenah is just naturally hostile to anyone who looks like they are trying to get the facts straight. He doesn't mean anything by it. Carfiend 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: carfiend: WP:NPA is a non-negotiable policy. i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Wahkeenah knows it's not personal. ;) Carfiend 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm "hostile" to folks who post something here and then expect someone else to do the work. Wahkeenah 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said he came here looking for someone who knew something about the subject.  assume that he means it. i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty then. Wahkeenah 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wipe, the best you can do for that article is tag it with   i kan reed 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''What Happened on the Moon?''

message: I don't see any mentions to REM's album and song "Man On The Moon", where the chrous goes like this:
"Hey Andy, did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey Andy, are you goofing on Elvis? Hey baby, are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool"
I'm not putting it in myself, not quite comfortable with wiki-editing yet :)
Cheers Trubadurix 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in there at one point, but was taken out to cut the size down. Put it back if you like. Carfiend 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would obviously be a powerful addition to the prose in this article. Wahkeenah 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you've lost nothing of your dryness these few days. Carfiend 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is dry here in the Great North. Wahkeenah 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture  

message: A few days ago I started adding my edits to this piece and find it very interesting, and I have noticed that it actually DOES present both sides of the issue, so why is that Neutrality Box hovering over the text like a Moon lander? Can I shoot it down with my laser ray NOW, or will somebody else do it?
Sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. Please look over the several sections in talk about it. I'd note that there is a redraft of the article in the works. Numskll 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's part fo an ongoing campaign by landing believers to move the article to conform to their POV. I advocate removing it. Carfiend 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be that the hoaxsters were the ones posting it. But in this case, the original poster posted it and then walked away, so I don't see a problem with removing it. We'll see if that assessment holds true or not. Wahkeenah 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I contradicted myself in the space of two days. Forsooth. However, the distinction is that George Louis' reason for taking it down has to do with whether it presents both sides, and that is apparently not the criterion. However, the one who posted it has done nothing to try and improve the alleged problems with the article, so I'm OK with Mr. Hoaxster taking it down, as the lightning bolts will accrue to him instead. Wahkeenah 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ;) Carfiend 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no fact disputes, the tags are just there to disrupt. Carfiend 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As has been discussed ad naseum above it is the structure, composition and tone of the article that violate NPOV and quality standards. The tags are useful because they bring new eyes to these issues. Seemingly naive questions like these make the idea of never archiving anything on these pages relatively appealing. Please consult any one of the three or four discussions labeled NPOV.n Numskll 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Rid of That Neutrality Tag

message: One of the rebukes in section 6.4.3 claimed that stellar parallax is undetectable with an Earth-Moon baseline. While this is most likely true for the technology in question, it is not true in principle. I tentatively changed the paragraph to incorporate this. TeraBlight 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. No evidence is presented for the inability to make parallax deteriminations, as usual. Carfiend 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely at the posting, it does not contradict the practical answer given. No human is going to be able to just look at the photos and see a difference in parallax. Wahkeenah 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But the claim that is made is that an astronomer could detect the parallax mistakes. Carfiend 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, where you bin, boy? On vacation? :) Wahkeenah 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one - not even astronomers - would be able to detect that tiny parallax in the Apollo photos.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  The resolution of camera lenses are more than a factor of 1,000 from what is needed to capture a parallax that small, and film has considerably less resolving power than the lenses.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  To put it in perspective (no pun intended), suppose you were taking a photo of something one mile away, in front of very distant objects.  Now you move the camera 1/100,000,000 of a mile to the side (about 6/10,000 of an inch) and took another photo.  Would you be able to that the position of the object one mile away had shifted?  And that is for the nearest star, and almost all stars are much farther away than that.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And this is also assuming that the astronauts are rock steady when taking the photos.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend repairing your nonsense. Carfiend 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should require no time at all on your part. 0:) Wahkeenah 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! Carfiend 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallax argument

message: *Case closed: now stop your petty bickering!--152.163.100.69 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no moon!