Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 3

message: Why can a man's boot kick the dust on the moon and it only fall a few inches in front of him? Wouldn't the dirt fly 6 times the distance it would have on Earth? Also if a man can kick the dirt so easily why isn't there even a little bit of dirt on the landing gear? Why if sped up 2x does the video look like a man moving in regular gravity? What about the lunar rover, wouldn't there be a cloud of dust a dirt taking 6x the length of time to fall to the ground?
These questions haven't been addressed. Gravity alone would cause matter to behave quite differently on the moon with its 1/6 gravity of Earth.
:Think back to your junior high school science class, when they demonstrated how a feather and a marble fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Lightweight objects such as feathers... and dust... are actually suspended in air to a notable degree by the mass of the air. The moon is not quite a vacuum, but it's close. In a vacuum or near-vacuum, you don't get a "cloud" that causes the atmosphere to slow and disperse dust. The dust would fall immediately, both faster and likely at a shorter distance, on the moon than it would on the earth. Ironically, your astute observations about the behavior of the dust lend further support to the credibility of the lunar voyage. Kudos! Wahkeenah 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, consider kicking dust in a space suit.  It is more confining than ordinary clothes.    Also, consider that if you rip it, you'll probably die, so the astronauts might not have been kicking the dust with their full force.  Second, if you speed up the film 2X, it DOESN'T look regular. Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, playing it 2X and trying to make something of it. That's a good one. It vaguely reminds me of a George Carlin line: "The Beatles' latest record, when played backwards at slow speed, says, 'Hey, dummy, you're playing it backwards at slow speed!'" As I recall, they "undercranked" the filmmaking on that first flight, at least, to conserve filmstock. Unfortunately, that unwittingly led to the "waving flag" misinterpretation, and at another speed it looks like Charlie Chaplin. On later trips, they did better with the filming. Obviously, had they known what the Kaysing looneys were going to do, they might have been more self-conscious about the way they did things. Wahkeenah 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were runing at around 10 fps due to bandwidth limits on apollo 11 since they used the transmitter on the lander itself for that mission.Geni 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did not manage to fake the 1/6 gravity when it comes to the distance the dust flew. The driving looks at it does on earth on exactly double speed. There should be dust on the landing gear. And a lot of other detaljs. I mean, you can see the strings, people :) As Stanley Kubric named his last movie: "Eyes wide shut". (Axlalta 11:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are failing to take into account the issue of vaccume.Geni 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Just a thought, but this article seems to be made up of a simplistic accusation followed by a long winded explanation as to why the accusation is incorrect. I would have thought there would be more argument from the conspiracy theorists point of view?
: Well, Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) says A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community., and that should apply here.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One sided? 

message: trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amateur over here)--Matt D 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proper place for conspiracies to run free 

message: I once copied a transcript from a webpage and I didn't record which website it came from (silly me). I can't find the webpage anymore. Does anyone know where this transcript came from and also if there is anything in the official Apollo 11 transcript that has anything close to this in it?
Armstrong & Aldrin: Those are giant things. No, no, no - this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this! 
Houston (Christopher Craft): What ... what ... what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you? 
Armstrong & Aldrin: They're here under the surface. 
Houston: What's there? (muffled noise) Emission interrupted; interference control calling 'Apollo 11'. 
Armstrong & Aldrin: We saw some visitors. They were here for a while, observing the instruments. 
Houston: Repeat your last information! 
Armstrong & Aldrin: I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up in the other side of the crater! 
Houston: Repeat, repeat! 
Armstrong & Aldrin: Let us sound this orbita ... in 625 to 5 ... Automatic relay connected ... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything - what then? 
Houston: Have you picked up anything? 
Armstrong & Aldrin: I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film 
Houston: Control, control here. Are you on your way? What is the uproar with the UFOs over? 
Armstrong & Aldrin: They've landed here. There they are and they're watching us. 
Houston: The mirrors, the mirrors - have you set them up? 
Armstrong & Aldrin: Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those spaceships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out. 
DarthVader 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is listed at this website.  It is fake. I recorded the entire Apollo moonwalk, except for about 5 seconds that it took me flip the reels.  The entire actual transcript is available and the entire video of the moonwalk is available, and there is nothing remotely like that in any of them.   Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, ja? And I'm guessing there was nothing about Mr. Gorsky, either. >:) Wahkeenah 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, answer me one question, though, if you can... right after the famous "one giant leap for mankind", did Armstrong say something about being able to kick up the surface dust easily with his boot, or something along those lines? I don't recall it at all, I just read it someplace once, and whoever wrote about it said it was a much more interesting comment, a more spontaneous and human comment, than the rehearsed sentence he spoke initially. Wahkeenah 04:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual Apollo 11 transcript is here, and here is that part (skip down to 109:24:48), 20 seconds after the "one small step",  he said "Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles."  Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Yes, that's the quote I recall. Armstrong threw the obligatory bone to the headline writers, then began the job of exploration and reporting details. And, of course, one of them took a photo of a footprint, to reinforce the verbal description. As I recall, there were some fears about how thick the dust might be. The LEM had something like footpads, but until the guys actually got there and stepped into it, no one could be sure what its consistency was. Regarding Mr. Gorsky, I'm surprised none of the moonbats has cited that... which apparently came from the fertile mind of Buddy Hackett, or someone like that. Wahkeenah 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The famous photo of a footprint is not the first footprint.  Aldrin took it of one of his footprints later.  Before Apollo 11, I think four unmanned Surveyor program craft landed there, with footbads, so it wasn't completely unknown.   Bubba73 (talk), 05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right on all counts. Unless the Surveyors were faked also. I wonder what the moonbats have to say about that? Here's something I would like for the doubters to ponder, if it's within their meager capability. Their doubt seems to spring in part from the fact that they weren't around during the 50s and 60s and early 70s. It's easier to disbelieve a news event that occurred outside of one's lifetime, because there is no personal frame of reference. Now, they should think of some current news event, to which they have no personal connection, i.e. no verifiability, but do not doubt that it is true. I must then ask them, "How do they know it's true? Well, the answer is common sense tells them so. Wahkeenah 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) where he claims Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa? Surely that's true, after all, the government said so! 67.40.249.122 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a spurious analogy. Wahkeenah 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript from Conspiracy supporting website 

message: The article as it stood said that Nasa had announced the cancellation of a book never mentioned elswhere in the article. I added the fact that they had previously announced it's publication. 67.40.249.122 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In James Oberg I just added an external link to an article by jim on this subject.  As far as I know, the book has not been written, and NASA didn't anounce its publication, just that it was planning to be published.  Some of this information might be put in this article, but not too much, since it is long.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - my edit was simply to add the fact that NASA announced the book. The article previously only menitoned that they announced that they would cancel it - leaving the reader to wonder when, if at all, they had announced their intention to publish it. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a short note to the James Oberg article - I hope you feel it reflects the facts! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nasa's rebuttal

message: The article mentions several people whose names were not wikified. I wikified them. 67.40.249.122 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to go out on a limb and "speak for everyone" - I see no opposition to this.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Great! Progress! 67.40.249.122 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREEMENT - Wikification of names

message: The article claims that a 'vast' number of people would need to be complicit, but does not give a reference for this. I changed it to 'substantial'. The figure 'vast' is not based on any claim I have ever seen. 67.40.249.122 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A vast number, or a substantial number

message: The article notes 'the flurry of conspiracy theories that arose during the Vietnam era, in part due to a loss of trust and rise in cynicism in reaction to the Johnson and Nixon administrations'. I added 'partly as a result of the discovery of a flurry of government conspiracies'. The distrust partly arose from the discovery of secret government conspiracies. It did. That's a fact! 67.40.249.122 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it is reasonable to point out that Watergate and others were, in fact, secret government conspiracies to decieve the public. I do not beleive that that lends undue credence to the Moon hoax, but it does place the resiliance of the idea that the government might be lying in some kind of context. 67.40.249.122 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  For one thing, Watergate was never a conspiracy theory - it was known to be a conspiracy from the moment the burglars were caught.  Secondly, it was not a widespread conspiracy throughout the government.  It wasn't started by the government, it was started by the Committee to Reelect the President.  Of course, this type of thing probably did lead to people believing in government conspiracies.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So do you agree that we should mention it as a contributing factor to the climate of distrust of government, or do you want to exclude it altogether? 67.40.249.122 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A flurry of conspiracy theories

message: I replaced this:
Where critics accuse hoax proponents of unscientific or unfalsifiable beliefs, hoax proponents have sought to demonstrate that experiments could be designed to test their theory, for example, by making observations of the landing sites. This would require the diversion of astronomical resources to a task of uncertain scientific value. It is also unclear as to why this would be considered convincing evidence when other material items of evidence are not. There is little reason to believe that hoax believers would be convinced by images taken of a landing site. At scope resolutions soon to be available, only outlines of landers might be glimpsed, leaving the possibility that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are robot spoofs; if a revolutionary telescope was in the future able to resolve footprints, etc, its print-outs could easily be dismissed as more NASA 'fakery'.
with this:
In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have designed experiments that could be used to test their theory, for example, by making observations of the landing sites. The main reason that these experiments have not been carried out seem to be the the accusations are not taken seriously, and a scepticism that hoax believers would be convinced by further evidence gathered that could also be falsified.
It's more factually correct, shorter, and reads better. 67.40.249.122 05:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for your claim that it's more factually correct? It contradicts what little I know of current resolving power of scopes, as rehearsed earlier in the talk, here. Pending your cite, I have replaced your 'improvement' with a third version. Adhib 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy with your text - the parts that I objected to were the bits speculating about what hoax proponents might do. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm delighted that you're happy with my text, and thus deem it fit to stand. However, my question here was: where is your cite for the 'improvement' you made? "The main reason .. seem to be" - text you inserted to 'fix' a speculative claim - looks like it was purely speculative (not to mention factually incorrect). Can we now establish some agreement that your edits are not as down-the-middle as you initially represented them to be? Adhib 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREEMENT - Copyedit

message: I removed this "That attempted explanation ironically undercuts much of the conspiracists' premise that a lunar mission was technologically impossible" It's POV and not true. 67.40.249.122 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: I replaced : likely to be dismissed by hoax enthusiasts as artifacts from an unmanned mission. with any pictures of the lander remains are unlikely to provide better evidence for human landing than currently exists.,less POV, and true, without speculating on behavior of a vague group of people. 67.40.249.122 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The article says that 'authorities' do not like to comment on baseless conspiracy theories. I added that they don't like to comment on actual conspiracies either. This is true, and less POV. Govts behave similarly to conspiracy theories as to actual conspiracies. 67.40.249.122 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an actual conspiricy, it is a conspiricy theory - pure unfounded speculation.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit demonstrates that the 'authorities' would behave the same towards unfounded speculation as to a genuine conspiracy. It adds no undue credance, merely removes an unfounded implicit claim that because the authorities don't respond to it we know it is a conspiracy theory. Sure we know it is, but not because the authorities deny it. Arguing from logical falacy undermines our credability. 67.40.249.122 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: credibility. First spell it, then claim it. Adhib 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting my typo - you don't, I presume, argue in favor of arguing from logical falacy? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I do not know what a falacy might be, you must be presuming correctly. Adhib 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: More importantly, it (whether true or not) it sounds like an editors opinion. WP required verifiability in the form of cites. Ashmoo 07:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not dignifying a response

message: I replaced "Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous" with "Landing believers explain these deaths by pointing out that spacecraft..." It attributes the comment, which is otherwise unreferenced. 67.40.249.122 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spacecraft testing

message: Wikified US government as one phrase, rather than two. Someone is unlikely to want to click two links to get 'US' and 'govt' - they want 'US Government'. 67.40.249.122 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume not. Feel free to correct me... 67.40.249.122 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, no opposition.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREEMENT - Wikification

message: I replaced :They argue that despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easy for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success." with "They argue that despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success, than to actually go." It's true, and closer to the actual claim made. 67.40.249.122 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if it might have been easier to fake it?  You're assuming that everybody always does the easy thing.  JFK said "We choose to go to the Moon, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " No one said that it was going to be easy to go to the moon - and it wasn't - but we did it.   Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not me who's assuming it, this is in the context of the article having raise Occams' Razor (and then mis-defining it), and claiming that one thing is easy, while the other is hard. I did not write this segment, just copy edited it to make it a little more reasonable. Hoax proponents are not quoted as saying that faking the landing was 'easy' - it undermines our case to claim that they are. They do argue that pretending to go to the moon was easier than going to the moon. I don't need to agree with them to represent what they say without distortion. 67.40.249.122 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but it helps. Adhib 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's relevant. I don't think you are arguing that we should misquote hoax proponents to make their case look more flimsy are you? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes relevant if your 'corrections' bend the stick too far the other way. Which, in part, they did. But as below, the filip you gave to the debate has resulted in a stouter article, so this is just some meta-kvetching on my part you're welcome to ignore. Adhib 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviets

message: I replaced "a documentary confronting nine Apollo astronauts with his accusations that the moon landings were not authentic. Includes footage of the verbal assault on Mr. Aldrin and his response." (note that Sibrel is reported as 'assaulting' Aldrin, while Aldrin 'responds', with "a documentary confronting nine Apollo astronauts with his accusations that the moon landings were not authentic. Includes footage of the verbal assault on Mr. Aldrin and his physical assault on Mr. Sibrel" Which makes clear that while Sibrel verbally assaults Aldrin, Aldrin physically assaults Sibrel. I don't see how you can say that is not more npov. 67.40.249.122 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone who feels that this somehow misrepresents what happened? 67.40.249.122 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sibrel

message: Original version read " – are the "proofs" offered for the alternative story constructed with scientifically sound methodology?" I removed the word 'alternative' - both proffered stories must be held to the same criteria for these standards to be meaningful. 67.40.249.122 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsifiability

message: The word explanation is more neutral than story, without lending undue credence. 67.40.249.122 06:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: changed 'story' to 'explanation'

message: The quote from gallup appears to show that 6% is too low to give any credence to, and yet,
"According to a 1999 Gallup poll, about 6% of the population of the U.S. has doubts that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon. "Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals," Gallup said of this, "it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them -- so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread." To place this figure in perspective, in 1997 Gallup found that 10% of the population agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."
Only 4% more beleived in non-theistic evolution. It is npov to compare like with like when describing public belief in theories. 67.40.249.122 06:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A small minority of people will believe anything, no matter how wrong it is.  But just because a small percentage of the public belueves something, doesn't mean it is wrong.  The people that don't believe in evolution do that for religious reasons, not rational reasons.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The Gallup poll result, and the explanation from Gallup, and the poll showing how many people believe in evolution, tell us nothing about the truth values of those things. Both merely place belief in this in the context of belief in other things. If we're going to show how many people believe one thing, it is helpful to have a comparison of how many people believe in another as a reference point. 67.40.249.122 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're putting words in their mouth.  The poll is about "non-theistic" evolution particurlary.  Many people believe believe that god caused evolution.  Also, there is evidence to be condidered, for both evolution and the moon landing.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm really not putting words into anyone's mouth. The poll is about non-theistic evolution, that's very clear. The evidence is considered at length in the article - this section is about public belief - it's helpful to compare belief in this with belief in other things, to get a picture of the kinds of things that have this sort of level of public belief. The claim is made that the number is so low that it can be assumed to result from people saying yes to anything that they are asked - it undermines our case to apply that criteria selectively.
If you think it would help, we could put in the numbers for theistic evolution - off the top of my head they are about 40%, but I'd want to check that, we'd then be saying something like -'the number of people who believe in the moon hoax theory is vastly smaller than those who believe in mainstream theories such as evolution, although it is comparable to the number of people who beleive in non-theistic evolution.'
67.40.249.122 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom - it looks like, after having asked me to discuss this on the talk page, you are returning to reverting without discussion. Could you please explain why you are doing that? Thanks! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallup polling

message: "The scan coversion for this was done in Sydney."? Surely, it was scan conversion? 67.40.249.122 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! 67.40.249.122 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREEMENT - Scan coversion?

message: Mooved brackets to make the sentence make sense. It used to say: It has been claimed, without any evidence, that in early 1968 (while 2001: A Space Odyssey, which includes scenes taking place on the Moon, was in post-production), NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. In this scenario the launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would have remained in earth orbit while the fake footage was broadcast as "live" from the lunar journey.
Now the brackets contain only that it was in post production. 67.40.249.122 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see your proof.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That 2001 was in post production in 1968?! 67.40.249.122 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please provide a source for the Kubrick claims.  "It has been claimed" is not enough, where was it claimed? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry - I think you misunderstand. I did not add the Kubrik section, I changed the bracketting so that it made sense. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bill Wood also claims that NASA heavily subsidized Kubrick when he produced 2001, and that 2001 was used to develop the special effects needed to fake a lunar landing and its purpose. Wood claims Kubrick worked on 2001 with the help of NASA experts Fred Ordway and Harry Lange. Please don't ask me to defend this - I don't believe it, I just think we have a responsibility to accurately quote what is claimed. 67.40.249.122 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the 'documentary' Dark Side of the Moon also claims this. 67.40.249.122 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're supposed to use reliable sources.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think books by conspiracy theorists are reliable sources for the purposes of discovering what conspiracy theorists claim. We're not saying it happened, we're saying that the authors claimed it. That seems a pretty reliable thing. 67.40.249.122 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone disagree with the change in the position of the brackets that I made? I'm in no way speaking for the rest of the section - I don't care what you do with it! 67.40.249.122 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kubrik

message: The article mentions that the Flat Earth Society objected to a particular photo. I added that photo. 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the photo to be alongside the toc - it takes up less room, and can be bigger. 67.40.249.122 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What does the Flat Earth Society's claim that the Earth is flat have to do with the claim that the moon landing was a hoax?  Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They claim that the landings were faked, because the photos show a round earth. From their perspective, if we had really gone into space, we would have come back with photos of a flat earth, ergo, the space program must have been faked. 67.40.249.122 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some flat-earthers claim that the Earth is a flat disc.  So it could look round in a photo from space.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but the Flat Earth Society make the claim that the photos showing what looks like a globe proove the moon mission was faked. If you want to source that claim about the disc, I certianly wouldn't oppose putting it in. 67.40.249.122 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone oppose this? It's hard to tell, but I would like to remove it from the list of potentially controversial edits and count it as one that has agreement. 67.40.249.122 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthrise photo

message: I re-worded this to:
Falsifiability
In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments that could be used to test their theory; for example, by making observations of the landing sites. Telescopes currently available lack the resolving power to perform this experiment. At telescope resolutions soon to be available, only outlines of landers might be glimpsed, leaving the possibility that these, like the retroreflectors mentioned below, are the result of robot missions. Many hoax sceptics believe that, even if future telescopes or missions were able to resolve footprints, etc, these results might also be considered 'fakery'.
:I think this preserves your intention, and reads better, without the unsourced claim. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More falsifiability

message: I wikified the first instance of Apollo 8. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to this? I feel like we should be able to agree that this should be wikified? 67.40.249.122 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objection.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREEMENT - Apollo 8

message: I added this explanatory note "The general issue here is that mechanical remains on the moon cannot, strictly, be used as evidence for human landing." to the discussion of reflective mirrors by manned and robot missions - it seemed not to be placed in any real context. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone who is claiming that the sighting of mechanical remains on the moon would be evidence of human landing, rather than indestinguishable from robot missions? If not, we can quickly reach agreement on this one I think. 67.40.249.122 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mechanical remains

message: Changed:"In response to criticism that the hoax theory is unscientific or unfalsifiable, hoax proponents have proposed experiments they say could be used to test their theory" to read that this could be used to test the theory. I don't think anyone denies that getting a photo of a footprint would be a test of whether the apollo mission went to the moon, do they? User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to it as it stands? 67.40.249.122 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is that the believers in the hoax haven't presented any experiment or observation that would convince them, as far as I know.  I don't think the telescope proposal counts, because telescopes simply aren't anywhere near that powerful.  A telescope even half the size of Hubble in orbit around the moon would be powerful enough, but that isn't going to happen.  For one thing, something in low orbit around the moon is moving at nearly a mile per second relative to the ground, and anything zooming in that close to the surface would have to do a very fast exposure to keep from being blurred from the motion.  Secondly, it probably isn't going to happen because there is no need to study large portions of the Moon's surface in that detail. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How is that different from what's above? 67.40.249.122 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: claims

message: I have, as requested, layed out what I beleive is the totality of my edits to this page here, on the talk page. I have done this as a gesture of good faith, and to facilitate those wishing to check their veracity. I beleive I have removed some flagrant pov, corrected factual errors, made the article look better, and corrected spelling errors and typos, while adding relevant information. I would ask, in return, that anyone who disagrees take up their issue first here, before reverting without explanation. Yours, 67.40.249.122 07:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have one question...do you think there was a government coverup that lied to the world about the lunar landings?--MONGO 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, I don't, but that doesn't mean we should write an article that sounds like propaganda. We should avoid loaded terms, weasle words, wild unsourced speculation and putting words in people's mouths and misrepresenting them, even when we disagree with them. Perhaps especially when we disagree with them. That's not giving anything undue credence, it's just doing duediligence on writing the article. 67.40.249.122 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the NASA official story inaccurate or propaganda? How is it propaganda?--MONGO 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The writing style of the article sounded like propaganda. It used leading and weasel words along with unsourced and vague attributions. I make no representations about the NASA story. 67.40.249.122 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did this propaganda support the Official NASA details of the event?--MONGO 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to tell, it was pretty badly written, and unclear in many places. Regardless, we should not editorialise needlessly, we say this is a fringe theory, that hardly anyone beleives it, we don't then need to go an make up unsourced claims - it undermines our case. 67.40.249.122 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said: "We should avoid ... wild unsourced speculation" . It seems to me that the whole hoax allegations are the wild specuation.  It is "sourced", but not from reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose that's why the title is 'hoax accusations'. I didn't write the article though. The source for the accusations seem to be pretty reliable. Some folks made some accusations, we reference the books and interviews etc where they made them. What's unreliable about that? We're not claiming that they're true. 67.40.249.122 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is "unreliable" about showing that the claims are wrong?  Can you show an instance where the counterarguements are "wild speculation"?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes - as above - the claim that the hoax would require the complicity of 'thosands of people'. Perhaps, but no source or calculations are given for this. Is this a random authors' guess? Or does it come from someone who has made a reliable estimate? We don't know, because it's not sourced. 67.40.249.122 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just ordered Bad Astronomy, When I get the book, I'll try to give page numbers, if that will make you happy.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be delighted to put it in if a hoax proponent, or a sceptic who has made some reasoned calculations, can be quoted. I hope you understand my discomfort with just plucking these figures out of the air. 67.40.249.122 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when you say "skeptic", do you mean a skeptic of the moon landing or a skeptic of the hoax specuations?  Bubba73 (talk), 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter - they should both be held to the same criteria. In this case I am reffering to a skeptic of the hoax claims - a landing believer if you like. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you deny that there were thousands of people working on the Apollo project? Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that my views of the Apollo project, or my original research about how many people I think would have had to have been complicit are relevant. I don't think yours are either - we must reference the claim. To entertain this line of argument for a moment though, I think what  you're saying is that if X people worked on the project, X must be complicit. It just doesn't follow. Many of the people involved worked on tiny parts - the ones who built the lander, for example, might have built what they thought was a lander, it might even have been designed to work to the best of their knowledge - it might have sat on the launch pad, or even have been launched, without depositing people on the moon. The argument would be that only a relatively small number of people would actually have to have been complicit, the rest would be doing their job, building parts for a space program that looked like it was going to the moon. Please don't ask me to defend this position, I don't believe it, I'm just pointing out why we need to source claims. 67.40.249.122 19:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP guidelines say that we don't have to source common knowledge (i.e. thousands of people worked on Apollo).  However, [this], which was already in the references addresses it.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser -- Tom Harrison Talk 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at this, and now realise the accusation that you're making. Do you consider my cleaning up this article to be vandalism? If so, I would ask you to highlight which edits you have a problem with. I find it hard to find edits I have made that could by any stretch of the imagination be called vandalism. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep your hair on, old fruit. I make no accusation of vandalism here. It was simply that, in the short time I had available for the 'pedia yesterday, I found that in answering your deluge in two small places, on both occasions I found myself referring back to previous debates with a particular hoax-booster - your edits mapped his concerns more closely than coincidence would immediately suggest. Then I realised that there were some funny regularities in the types of spelling mistake you both make. It might simply be that you are both talking sense, and thus have very similar concerns; and that you were both educated in a way that prioritised content over form. But I thought I'd check if there might not be a more intimate relationship between the two contributions. Adhib 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polite request

message: Thanks to whoever protected this page - it's important that folks discuss changes on the talk page, not simply revert without discussion. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Quid pro quo.--MONGO 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that you can accuse me of not discussing in good faith - the only things that I have reverted are reversions without comment on the talk page. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm the Wikipedian who protected the page - it seems that only one single sentence has been added to the article so far despite 20 hours of editing: . I don't plan to get involved with the eidting itself, but I'll promise to check back in a few hours and see how things are going. --HappyCamper 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - can you please check which version you protected though - the picture appears to have vanished, and I don't think anyone opposes it - it just got caught in the crossfire! User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "it's important that folks discuss changes on the talk page, not simply revert without discussion" Should we then go back to the version of yesterday, before 67.40.249.122 rewrote the article without visiting the talk page? Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea - I think the important thing is not the protected version, but the proposed edits on the talk page. The version yesterday contains many factual errors that I've listed here - you seem pretty reluctant to engage on most of them - if I can make a suggestion, could you go through the list of edits on the talk page, and let me know which ones you oppose, and why? A couple of your changes in the article (made without discussion) were just plain wrong, so I think discussion is important! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's start with the recent reverts you made without discussion, and we can go from there! 67.40.249.122 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my idea: Why don't we instead start with the page as it was here, and you can explain the changes you want to make. As we achieve consensus for each change, it can be added with everyone's support. Tom Harrison Talk 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my idea. Why don't you stop trying to revert (it's protected now anyway) and discuss the changes that I have already proposed on this page? I don't know why you are not interested in doing that. They are the changes that are in the live version anyway. Rather than re-introduce typos, factual errors and pov, just let me know which ones are offensive, and when we reach concensus, we can put them back. I've already done what you asked, and I'm waiting for a response. Don't worry about it being on the m:The Wrong Version, the changes are on the talk page. 67.40.249.122 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me it would be more useful to start with the last version that enjoyed consensus, and make changes to that version. I can't see why you would object to that. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I sympathise - the version right now is not the one I would prefer either, but I feel that you need to make a gesture of good faith and address which of the changes you object to - I assume that you don't want to put typos and factual errors back in. Please, stop complaining about the m:The Wrong Version, and let's get down to the task of improving the article - all the changes are listed on the talk page. I'm finding it frustrating that you show such little interest in discussing the issues, and such overwhelming interest in the version that's protected. The sooner we figure out which edits you object to, the sooner we will have a version we both agree with. 67.40.249.122 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go through them in order. For example. First on the list. Do you want to replace the incorrect definition of Occam's Razor? 67.40.249.122 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We seem to be talking past each other, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. There's no point in both of us repeating ourselves. Maybe someone else has some ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for removing that. Still, I think taking a break from the discussion is the best thing I can do now. Tom Harrison Talk 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but sooner or later, if we're going to make progress on this, you're going to have to let us know which edits you don't like. See you later, 67.40.249.122 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: After having used powers I don't have to make sure it's their prefered version that's protected (after the protection is in place) there's no reason for them to explain themselves. I guess it's just a case of might makes right. User previously know as 67.40.249.122 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! m:The Wrong Version! Protection isn't an endorsement of any certain version. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Katefan0 - please feel free to weigh in, my complaint was not with the version, but with admins changing it to their preffered version after it had been protected. It seemed against the spirit of HappyCamper's attempt to bring them to the discussion table. 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't notice that two other administrators edited the page after I protected it. This does not seem quite right. Well, in the interests of fairness, I will revert back to the version that I protected - and this will be the only edit I'll make in the article. I will come back to this page in a few hours or so, as this seems to be a brewing edit war. I think I'm going to drop a note on WP:AN too, as it has made me feel a bit uncomfortable at the moment to have come across this. --HappyCamper 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That page is one of the funniest pages I've ever read. Thanks for making me feel happier today. :-) DarthVader 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you - I hold out hope, but frankly they seem not to be interested in discussing the edits, only in reverting them. After having asked me to list the edits on the talk page, most go unanswered while the reverting goes on. Thanks for your help though! 67.40.249.122 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to post it, HC, but I was watching this edit warring brewing and had thought myself about protecting the page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't know that. Well, nothing much to say on AN/I - everything seems to be good. Katefan0, have we met before on Wikipedia? Your name sounds so familiar...and the fact that you knew that I'm also known as HC for short...O Wikipedia! Sometimes I just have to wonder!! :-) --HappyCamper 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 67.40.249.122: the sheer number of your edits are hard to keep up with. I was trying to reestablish a base point and I saw your edits as attempts to minimalize the mainstream view of these events. If you can take the points a bit slower, I think most folks will be glad to address your concerns.--MONGO 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why I listed them on the talk page - I was hoping that people who had issues might list them there, so far, little interest, and little in the way of coherence from people who did respond. Now that it's protected, I'll be certain to be slower (in fact, if anyone had asked, I would have, I didn't realise that was an issue). Why don't you have a look at the edits listed on the talk page, and tell me whether you agree with them or not, and, if not, why not? My frustration so far is that nobody has been able to explain what is wrong with the edits, simply that they want to revert them! Thanks! 67.40.249.122 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a productive exchange of comments. Everyone seems to be willing to listen to each other. In light of this, I'm going to get rid of the protection, and we'll take it from there? That sounds good I think. --HappyCamper 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, I guess that's the last we'll see of the reversion crew until it's de-protected

message: I dislike long sub-headers, for example:
:Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program
can be changed to
:Deaths of key Apollo personnel
and External links headers could use a good tweaking. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would not oppose this. 67.40.249.122 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  refactoring - fine - but the list above is no longer 'mine', it contains the items that we agree should be integrated into the article when it is un-protected. If you want to keep it separate, that's fine, but I'm worried about it becoming confusing. 67.40.249.122 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but if there isn't any objections I'll do it tomorrow whether its protected or not. And if other things have been added to the RC header, now I'm the one who is confused :"D. - RoyBoy 800 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm removing the protection now. Just see the comments above? I haven't seen such honest and clear comments on a talk page in a very long time. I'm actually excited to remove page protection now! --HappyCamper 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be nothing wrong with implementing changes which have been agreed upon. - RoyBoy 800 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For sure, which reminds me I should check on another conspiracy article I've been meaning to wikify, but so far I've been staying away from it given the passion good faith editor is showing to the subject. But he ends up making the Kennedy assassination theories read like an essay or police report. - RoyBoy 800 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last time I looked in on that (several months ago) it was in pretty good shape.  The last time I looked at Roswell UFO incident (two months ago) it was in terrible shape.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dislike long sub-headers 

message: For all the nitpicking, User_of_unsettled_identity's intervention - and the resultant fine tuning - has licked this article into pretty good shape. I'm taking a few deep breaths and standing back to admire the piece. Suddenly, it ain't so bad.Adhib 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strangely enough ... 

message: Personally, I think that my paragraph (after several edits) is ready to replace the original one. The original was factually incorrect in a couple of areas:
1. The accusation is simply wrong: apart from the first few seconds, in which they decided that the US-sourced feed was poor, the entire Australian broadcast came from PKS and HSK.
2. "Later images of the descent to the surface were normal television signals" - this is wrong, according to my reading. The entire EVA was transmitted from the moon in SSTV.
3. "NASA Facilities" - The Padington facility, if I read it correctly, was an ABC shop, although NASA probably took it over. Importantly, US standard television was sent to US, and the original reads like the the conversion was done in America.
OK to go ahead? Any more experienced wikipaedian like to do it?Robbak 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and be bold. --ScienceApologist 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission Issues #5 

message: it's the funniest thing I've read all day--IworkforNASA 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I love this article

message: I don't see any reason for this link to be in the article.  It wouldn't make any difference if it was launched because (1) its photo resolution is 30 meters, so it would show at most one pixel, not enough to show anything, (2) even if it did, it wouldn't convince the true-believer syndrome people.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link Japans fails to launch hi-res mapping satellite for moon mission.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link: Japan fails to launch hi-res... 

message: Have a look at this video, it'll be a note-worthy addition to the page:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280164630927881599&q=apollo
--vex5 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the claim in there about showing the Earth from low orbit through a curcular window can be disproven by comparing the geographical features.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be too difficult finding a cloud ridden piece of land on the entire world's geography, althought you are right about it disproving the original idea. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There looked like there was a piece of land in the photo to me.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing - if they were in low earth orbit, you would see the view of the earth changing.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true. Low Earth Orbit. --vex5 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, true.  Compare that to video taken from low earth orbit.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Video 

message: Does this really belong in :Category:Hoaxes? I mean, it hasn't been officially proven it is a hoax. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What hoax has ever been disproven to it's believers?  The controversy will maybe be over when all humans are replaced with machines. Algr 08:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax

message: Concerning the suggestions about rebuilding Saturn, you couldn't build a Saturn class rocket today.  The design calls for too many parts that were standard issue in the 1960's, but would be difficult to find or reproduce today.  Replacing such items with modern equivalents would alter system interaction in difficult to foresee ways.  For example, suppose you need a reel-to reel data recorder.  If you try to replace it with flash ram or a hard drive, the data IO or latency might be too fast for other systems to handle.  Flash ram might be damaged by voltage fluctuations that the older tech would ignore.  And the reduced weight of many such substitutions could throw the rocket off balance.
Of course none of these issues alone are unsolvable, but if you add up thousands of them, you would have to do so much testing and redesign that you would be better off starting with a clean slate.  As for the increased time, in the absence of soviet competition, the project is probably expected to be much cheaper, as well as having higher expectations of safety.  Algr 08:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why you can't rebuild Saturn rockets 

message: The "falsifiability" section has gotten messed up.  The first sentence is currently "For a claim to be regarded as scientific, there must be testable means by which it could be determined to be true or false. This criterion is called falsifiability."  Falsifiability is not whether something can be proven true or false - it means that if it is false it is possible to prove that it is false.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give specific examples. The problem was the previous version gave way too much credit to hoax conspiracy theorists and not enough credit to the points that the conspiracy defies falisifiability and that the lunar reflectors are an excellent counter to the hoaxers' claims. --ScienceApologist 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I reviewed your changes and accept them. I am definitely on your side in this btw, but had to take some time out there as I was enraged by IWorkforNASA's rudeness. Guinnog 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I copyedited this since it is now misleading the other way! For great justice. 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just beware -- always remember to never say "always" or "never"... or "ALL". Wahkeenah 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the relevance of this section anyway? I mean, this isn't a scientific experiment, it's a conspiracy theory. We don't note that the JFK assasination is not falsifiable - beyond the observation that the experiment to go look for footprints has not been done, what's the point? For great justice. 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability 

message: An edit on March 27, 2006 listed the article saying that common sense are used against the "scientific" evidence for the moon landings.  I have doubts as to whether or not "common sense" is the right term.  The common sense article says 
is what people in common would agree; that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common".    The percentage of people that believe the landings were hoaxed is quite small, so how "common" is that?  To me, common sense cuts the other way.  The article says that "common sense" tells you that the reflectors (used as evidence of a landing) could have been put there by machines.  But I think that common sense tells me that they are evidence for the landing, since no non-manned landings have taken place in those areas (except for Apollo 12, and Apollo 12 didn't leave a reflector).  In the reasoning of the article, if we eventually see footprints on the moon, "common sense" would say that they could have been put there by a machine, but my common sense would say that they would be put there by people. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, my common sense tells me something different about the reflectors than what is in the article:  If they were going to fake the landings then they would not have even bothered with the reflectors.  How convincing would that be to the average person - very few people can shoot a laser beam at the Moon and detect its reflection.  So to me, common sense says that they would not even have bothered with the reflectors to use as a proof of a landing.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying, but unsure what to do with it. The entire concept of "common sense" I think refers to easily confused and incorrect assumptions made regarding this issue, under the guise of "common sense". Perhaps we could put a caveat, one man's "common sense" is another's "common folly". But regarding the footsteps, it is a matter of what would be easier. Putting a robot up there to do it is easier, that's the kind of common sense its referring to. - RoyBoy 800 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "... but unsure what to do with it" - me too.  As far as it being easier to do it with robots - there is no evidence of that.  The only reason to think that robots might have made the footprints is because you can't accept that people made the footprints.  And that is going about it backwards.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense? 

message: RoyBoy, when I added two side-by side photos today, I wanted to make them as large as possoble but still show them side-by-side at 800x600.  They are 320 pixels wide.  Is that the best size?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  800 

message: The two Buzz photos look identical to me - the caption says he is saluting on one, but he;s not - so I removed one. For great justice. 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the photos.  It is clearer in the higher resolution versions that you can get if you click on the photo.  The caption for the first one from the source says that Aldrin is saluting.  In the higher resolution version of it, you can clearly see two fingers of the glove of his right hand up at his helmet.  In the second photo, it is clear that he has turned slightly toward the camera, and facial features of a person facing the camera are visible.  If you compare the two photos, it is also clear that they are framed slightly differently.  I'm going to restore the photos.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the thing that looks like his right hand in each frame? For great justice. 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it must be a hose or strap.  In the photo where you can see his fingers at the helment visor, you can also see part of his arm at the bottom of the visor.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the front view at Apollo 11.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this? For great justice. 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that great!  The only thing is that you need to state the origin of the photos and copyright information.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've done that. For great justice. 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buzz

message: I'm not happy with the paragraph about the laser reflectors. If hoax beleivers think that they weren't carried by manned Apollo missions, then how did they get there?  It is true that they can be put there by unmanned missions, but I know of no evidence that there were any such missions that could have put the reflectors there.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is simply that the presence of laser reflectors does not proove a manned landing. For great justice. 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to stop by now and then, and see what stage this hoax nonsense is in. Surely you must realize that no fact or set of facts is going the change the moonbats' minds. The JFK assassination-conspiracy industry has pretty well run its course, so they had to turn elsewhere for their entertainment. The argument that we might have sent a rocket to the moon (successfully, yet) to plant a laser reflector, just so we could pretend we sent men there, is one of their more desperate notions. Wahkeenah 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, either the reflectors got there on the (A) manned Apollo missions or (B) by robots.  And there is no evidence of robot missions to the moon that took the reflectors.  If it is either A or B and it is not B then it must be A.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, it's not at all clear that not having evidence of unmanned missions counts as evidence of manned missions. No being able to proove B does not proove A. I agree with you, but your logic is faulty I'm afraid. For great justice. 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even things that are scientifically proven aren't absolutely certain.  You have to look at the evidence and then draw your conclusion.  There is a lot of evidence that the reflectors were left there my Apollo astronauts.  There is no evidence that the ones at the claimed Apollo landing sites were left there by robotic missions.  People who claim that already have their conclusion, which is not based onevidence.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is overwhelming evidence for one and none for the other.  Use common sense and Occam's razor. The only reason some people think that the reflectors were put there by robots is because they have already made up their mind that the manned landings didn't happen, regardless of the evidence.   It is also "possible" that aliens put the reflectors on the Moon, but I haven't seen any evidence for that.  Also, some people claim that the Germans went to the Moon in the early 1940s, even before the V2.  It is possible they left the reflectors there (even though lasers hadn't been invented yet), but I don't see any evidence of that either. Bubba73 (talk), 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser reflectors 

message: You want make the hoax rebuttals easy by only mentioning those theories that are just worth a laugh. See Percy's videos an try to rebut that. That's the real work. That's the challenge.--tequendamia 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea here is that everyone who claims there was a Moon hoax belongs to the Flat Earth Society. User:Tequendamia 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just that the mentality is similar. As far as the ease of rebuttals, this is technically known as "shooting fish in a barrel". :) Wahkeenah 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughable theories are easy to rebut

message: Has anyone considered the queerness of the fact that the flag is blowing as if there were wind, which there isn't on the moon? --195.229.242.54 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the flag isn't blowing.  For instance, look at the video of the flag when the astronauts aren't handling it.  And look at the two photos in the article taken a few seconds apart, when the flag doesn't change.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: you people still crack me up, just keep on fearing the big bad government who has nothing better to do that fake a moon landing--IworkforNASA 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ha

message: A probe similar to Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in low orbit around the Moon would have enough resolving power to see the lander and some other large things.  It wouldn't be enough to see footprints.  Such a mission could happen.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: telescopes and satelites

message: Where's the flagpole's shadow? And the flag's? (are you thick or are you tired...) Anon2 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - he's right, it's a continuity error, plus, if you look closely on this frame, you can see the wires that Buzz is suspended from coming out of his backpack! For great justice. 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are basing your discusion on one photograph, when in reality there was video footage and thousands of photographs. The choice of the photo, demonstrates on which side you stand.--tequendamia 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah - there are are camera and lighting cabels all over, and a sound boom in the top of frame! For great justice. 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't put all of the photos in this article.  Here's a different view (from the LM 16mm movie camera) taken at about the same time, and it shows the flag's shadow.  (talk), 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba73, let me repeat: are you thick or are you tired? Or a NASA-shill? Anon2 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the soil look wet?  Do you think it looks "wet" because it is darker?  If so, look at the new link to a video clip Aldrih hopping, mocie camera and use your slider to go from the front to the back (and back and fourth) and look to the left, "behind" the flag.  You can see that as dust is kicked up, the soil looks darker.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag II

message: If we are to discuss quirks in the nasa photos, it would be appropriate to discuss photography itself - specifically the question of what sort of quirks and unexpected results would you expect to occur by accident in real photos.  I notice that hoax supporters have no knowledge of photography, beyond pointing at anything they don't understand as proof of their belief.  I recall seeing a news photo of two women at the airport hugging as they greeted each other. (I think one of them was Jacqueline Kennedy - it was 1960's fashions)  Because of the angle of the pose, and one woman's head being exactly behind the other, it looked like one smiling head attached to two bodies!  You really couldn't tell which body the head was supposed to be on!  This is the sort of thing that can happen by pure chance without anyone faking anything.  Algr 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful comparison to odd photos. 

message: This is a minor point, but the article says "Due to a malfuntion on the Lunokhod mission, its mirrors are not as accurately placed as the Apollo mirrors."  Reading Lunokhod 2 and elsewhere, it seems that Lunokhod 1 never returned any laser reflections and Lunokhod 2 only returned them for a while and then quit.  Lunokhod 2 seems to have suddenly failed and left the mirror in the wrong position.  In the picture, the thing on the arm in front (on the left of the photo) looks like a reflector attached to the Lunokhod.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make the changes! For great justice. 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No lunokhod 1 return signals in it's manovering phase. Lunokhond 2 is still used.Geni 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I had changed it based on info on Wikipedia.  It needs to be changed again.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunokhod 

message: What was the reason behind the speedy deletion of the counterargument to that it would have been necessary to take one picture every 15th second?
Should not things that are mentioned also have the reason for rejecting that line of reasoning mentioned? It is trivial to see the error J. White does by looking at his webpage. (He does not take into acocunt that there are two, and not one, astronauts on the surface.)Mossig 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't you know that they shot JFK because he knew that the moon landing was going to be hoaxed?  :-)  Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to take pictures 

message: There are some statements about the time between photos being "implausibly high", without offering any convincing evidence to that effect. However, where Apollo 11 is concerned anyway, virtually all the photos were taken by Armstrong, hence he appears in very few of them. As one user suggested, many were taken in rapid succession (the two similar side views with the flag indicate this) and the timing seems perfectly plausible to me. Armstrong holding the camera all the time presumably made the photo-taking go faster, as there was no trading off, no fumbling with it, just Armstrong clicking away. After they got back to the earth, maybe someone thought, "Gee, it would have been nice to get Neil in a few of the shots. Too late!" As National Geographic pointed out, "The trouble with holding the camera is that you don't get into the picture!" Wahkeenah 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They also took some panaromas - where you take a picture, change the angle slightly to the left or right, take another one, etc.  This can be done fairly quickly, which increases the photo count fairly repidly.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not question that. Anybody can today make a test with a digital camera (which are most often slower than mechanical ones) and see for themselves how many pictures per minute can be judged reasonable. What I wanted to add was that the main premise on the argument is built upon a fault caclulation by J. White. As a scientist I think this is interesting, and how arguments should be rebuked. But the hasty deletion by somebody who did not even bother to read up on the issue has made me decide that this article will have to live without my input.Mossig 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I deleted it was the assertion that there were two astronauts, and by implication two of them taking photos, which in the case of Apollo 11 was incorrect and misleading. You don't want to be adding fuel to the moonbats' smoldering. Just be more specific. Wahkeenah 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  J. White's reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.  He doesn't know how much time was taken up by the other activities.  He is implying that you couldn't take that many phtotos because of other activities.  Well, there are eight shots taken while Aldrin came down the ladder, and that took maybe three minutes, during which time Armstrong's only other duty was to watch out for Aldrin coming down the ladder.  There are about that many shots of Aldrin carrying and setting up an experiment package, and Armstrong had no other duty then.  There are several panoramas taken, where several shots are taken in quick succession.  I think on all future landings both astronauts had cameras.  It isn't like every 74 seconds the astronaut stops what he is doing to take one photo - they are bunched up, with a longer time in between.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if you assume White's 15 seconds per photo for the time when they were taking photos, I don't see a problem.  The camera was mounted on their spacesuit so if they were looking straight forward, that is where the camera was looking too.  Most cameras have continuous focusing, but the cameras they used had a simplified focusing - four focusing "stops": for near, medium distance, far, and infinity (I think it was).  I think the f/stops were simplified too, so you wouldn't have to change them very often.  So to take a photo, you might have to set the rough distance stop, probably rarely have to set the f/stop, look at what you want to photograh, press the shutter (by squeezing a pistol grip), <S>and then wind the crank to the next frame</S>.    Even fifteen seconds seems like plenty of time to do that.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did npt have to wind a crank.  The film advance was motorized.  And the shutter release was a pistol grop, so they didn't have a normal finger-sized shutter release, they only had to squeeze the pistol grip.  they thought about these things in advance. Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything. They should have taken Kaysing along. And left him there. Wahkeenah 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I knew you would come up with some real facts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (!) to figure that the astronauts would have done an activity, taken a bunch of photos in quick succession, done another activity, taken a bunch more photos in quick succession, etc. That's especially obvious in Apollo 11 where many of the photos seem to be of just somebody standing there... like on your family vacation. Wahkeenah 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo timing 

message: I was visiting this page April 9 2006. There was two links to the documentary "What Happened on the Moon?" free on Google. Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107&q=moon+duration%3Along  Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451&pl=true These movies show the hoax view in an excellent way, and I feel those should still be here. Why was those removed? (Axlalta 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They is farely typical of what causes a lots of peoples to believe in the hoax.  Also, in it we learn that the Yuri Gargain flight was also hoaxed.  The parallels with the 1927 Fritz Lang film are too strong to ignore!  On the other hand, it does show an astronaut taking a set of panorama photos, and it took only a few seconds to take each one.  Go figure.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main proponent of the Moon Hoax are Bill Kaysing, David Percy, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel. Sombody removed the link to the videos under the excuse that these guys are nobodies. The problem in reality is that they do not want to give any credit to well supported theoris. Instead they claim that the Moon Hoax proponents are like the Flat Earth Society. Well, if you ignore the big guys of the Moon hoax, who are you rebutting instead?--tequendamia 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main proponent? Sounds like they are sockpuppets of each other, which would figure. However, the reason I deleted it in the first place is that there was a red link to David Percy, so I assumed it was a red herring. I see it has since been filled in with the enlightening information that he produced a video claiming the moon landing was a hoax. Yeh, he sounds authoritative. Wahkeenah 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google videos: What Happened on the Moon? 

message: ::Here a link to the videos again (Warning, you need a broadband connection)
*NASA- Apollo 11 How did they do it? 8 Min
*What happened on the Moon? Part 1 2hr 11 min
*What happened on the Moon? Part 2 & 3 1hr 29 min
* Did we really land Men on the Moon? 51 min
You cannot rebut a two hrs video with a single photograph. That's ridiculous!--tequendamia 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then at least let people se what you are trying to rebut. If they are junk what are you trying to rebut? They are the main proponents's and their work.--tequendamia 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think links to the videos should be in there, under external links/ hoax allegations.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Guinnog 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that guy fixed that red link, he may as well go ahead and re-post them. A couple more flies in the soup shouldn't make any difference. Wahkeenah 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the videos are ludicrous, we should have them here as they are a prime example of the sort of reality denial this article deals with. Guinnog 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunatelly we do not have a free link to "Apollo 11 - Monkey Business" where they show footage of NASA using a huge transparency of the Moon and a scale model of the LEM  to simulate the moon landing. There is also footage of astronauts removing some whistleblowing footprints with their boots, and etc, etc.--tequendamia 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's too bad. Those "documentaries" and their makers have no credibility, but it is admittedly funny stuff. It's always entertaining to look inside the mind of a looney toon. Wahkeenah 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is really funny indeed.--tequendamia 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaysing was head of technical publishing at Rocketdyne at the time the F-1 engine was being developed.  (The first stage of the Saturn V used five of these engines.)  In What Happened on the Moon, part 2 we get a glimpse of Kaysing's technical expertise.  He said that the F-1 was too unreliable to use and that a different engine (I forgot the name) which was more reliable but had lower thrust should have been used.  However, critics might point out that (1) they seemed to be reliable enough on the 13 Saturn V flights, and (2) if a lower-thrust engine was used, it might not have gotten off the ground. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but maybe that explains his motivation - he might have been "dissed" by NASA (even though they were right and he was wrong) so he cooked up this hoax to try to get even, or at least to be a thorn in their side (more like a mosquito bite, at worst). His off-kilter take on things at both NASA and in his (possibly purposeful) mis-readings of photos and data, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, reminds me of something Will Rogers said, along the lines of, It's not what folks don't know that's the problem; it's what folks know for sure and which ain't so! Wahkeenah 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have noticed that most Moon Hoax rebuttal sites engage in personal attacks and disacreditation of the messangers, rather than the evidence they show. It is the same thing happening here in this discussion.--tequendamia 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, it's that many people who actually know something about rocketry, photography and science have ALREADY discredited their so-called evidence, and now we're just interested in their psychology: What motivates them to make up this stuff? Do they really believe it? Or are they like the guy who promoted putting pants on animals: Just putting a dumb "theory" out there to see who bites? Wahkeenah 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I keep mentioning that guy without giving him proper credit. His name is Alan Abel, and this site goes into some detail about his "Society for the Indecency of Naked Animals".  Wahkeenah 04:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Videos

message: The article says "To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewers field of view.(Plait 2002:158-60)", although this image seems to disprove the claim. What gives? For great justice. 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  He says that a shuttle astronaut said that you have to turn out the lights in the shuttle to see stars.  I assume that those are stars and not particles floating about.  If the cockpit were lit up by sunlight, you definitely wouldn't be seeing stars.  However, the Earth does appear to be in sunlight.  On the other hand, I can't be certain about that since it is not overexposed compared to the cockpit.  It might be a relatively long exposure and the Earth is lit by moonlight, but I don't know.   Bubba73 (talk), 18:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we, the Enlightened Ones, don't fall into the same trap the moonbats did, by not quite understanding what they were seeing, and guess-working a conclusion about it to connect the dots, without investigating it thoroughly. Wahkeenah 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are other images taken from the cockpit *including that one).  It might be taken in a simulator, since no seats are visible.  It is possible that it is a composite photo.  Another possibility is that it is a digital photo and either the camera was able to compensate for different brightnesses or it was done later.  These are just some possibilities, but I don't know what the answer is. (I've written to NASA.)Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: NASA explains the lack of stars in the photographs on Moon on the basis of film exposure and contrast. One of the links given below, but hasn't addressed the issue that the astronauts of the Apollo 11 said during the press conference that they didn't see stars. Neil Armstrong couldn't recall if he saw stars, and Buzz Aldrin said he definetelly didn't see any stars at all. Whereas NASA current explanation about the stars is true, it doesn't solve the issue of why 30 years ago they instructed the Apollo 11 crew to say they didn't see stars. -tequendamia 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who said that they were "instructed" to say they saw no stars?  Are you aware that seeing something with your eye and photographing it are not the same thing?   Also, your eye has an iris that opens up wide in low light and gets small in bright light.  They were out in daylight, so their irises were small, not letting in much light.  Some night stare into a bright light for 10 minutes and then step outside and see if you can see any stars.Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they had known the moonbats were going to make a big deal out of them not seeing stars, maybe they would have lied and said they did see them. But then the moonbats would have argued that you can't see them. There's no hope with some of those characters. Wahkeenah 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In order to see stars, the astronauts would have to turn from the sun and hold their hands in front of their eyes so as to block the view of the ground, other sunlit objects, and possibly even the Earth in the sky.  The design of the suit might have made this impossible. (But standing in the shadow of the lander would have helped.)  If it could be done, it would take time for their eyes to adjust to the darkness.  Then they would then see exactly the same stars that anyone could see on Earth, except without the twinkle.  This is not something that could have happened by accident, they would have had to stop what they were doing for a bit and work at it.  My guess is they just had better things to do.  Algr 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The moonbats seem to forget that the Apollo 11 guys were on a mission, not a sightseeing trip. They had a lengthy checklist they had to get through as quickly as possible and get out of there. They were only the surface a few hours. Now, in future missions, as confidence in the equipment grew, as the lunar excursion time was lengthened, and the lunar rover was made available, they had a little more discretionary time (as with Alan Shepard and his golf ball experiment), but on the first mission the driving philosophy was "get 'er done!" Wahkeenah 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one aspect of the "stars" problem (as well as some other things) is our Earth bias.  On the Earth, when the sky is black we can see stars (if it isn't overcast) - because it is nighttime then.  This bias may cause people to expect stars whenever the sky is black.  On the Moon and in space, the sky is black all of the time - day or night.  If the Earth had no atmosphere, stars would be visible only at night.  In daylight, your eyes adjust to the brightness, making it difficult or impossible to see dim objects.  If you are properly exposing a photo a similar thing happens.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me of this old one: A couple of characters are planning to send their own rocket into space... on a voyage to the sun. Someone reminds them how bright and hot the sun is. Their answer: "So, we'll go at night!" Wahkeenah 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At source material we have "Seeing stars in space". David Latchman, B.Sc. Physics, University of the West Indies, says that the astronauts can see the stars if they look away from the sun. That is the hoax view anyway, and the astronauts choosed the wrong answer at the press conference. (Axlalta 11:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So, wait a minute. This is a photo, faked by NASA, and not clearly labeled, that shows stars? I think the issue of confusion around this needs a little more explanation in the article, especially given the different reports by Gagarin and the americans on the visibility. Currently, there is no very convincing explanation of why sometimes people see them, other times they don't, and why NASA chose to fake photos with stars in sometimes... For great justice. 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the reason for sometimes seeing stars and sometimes not depends on the conditions - are there bright things in the field of view and are your eyes adapted for the dark.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think NASA likely "chose" to take star photos, or not, most of the time anyway. Sometimes the stars show, and sometimes they don't, depending on the lighting situation at the time. Wahkeenah 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you misread - I said that NASA chose to put fake stars in this composite, and not in others. 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know that this photo is a composite?  I haven't seen that demonstrated anywhere.  I wrote to NASA yesterday, but I haven't gotten a reply.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone changed the article to say this, so I thought it had been demonstrated. I don't know. I would be pretty disturbed if NASA was releasing doctored photos that were not clearly distinguished from non-doctored ones though. It would affect their credibility significantly. For great justice. 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Algr did that on April 18 - I hadn't noticed it.  I speculated that it might be digitally altered, but I don't know.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The text with the photo is a little revealing too: "During STS-101 Atlantis will fly as the most updated shuttle ever".  The photo is from March 2000, STS 101 flew in May 2000.  I thought the seats should have been visible, so the photo must have been taken on the ground, and altered. Perhaps they put stars in there beacause people expect stars!  Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Err? Great. Where does that leave us with the rest of the photos? Perhaps they put the non-waving flag in because people don't expect the flag to wave with no wind? For great justice. 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mystery solved, I do believe. Look at the whole site  where the large group of photos is implicitly in chronological order, and you will see that this photo is in the ground-based sequence. It just happens they didn't explain this particular photo very well. Whoever changed the caption to say "publicity photo" was right on. Now, look farther along in the sequence, at some of the EVA stuff on the actual mission (such as this one on page 11 ) and... guess what... NO STARS! Are the moonbats going to tell us the shuttle missions have been faked also? I think NOT. Wahkeenah 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is solved too.  Thanks Algr.  Where does that leave us with the flag photos?  In 1969 Photoshop was still an in-house beta.  :-)  Seriously, there is no indication that the flag photos are fake.  They were taken on 70mm transparency film, so they're like that on the original.  Also, there is the triple check - there is also the confirming TV video and the 16mm film taken from the LM window, and I put links to short clips to them on the bottom of the article yesterday.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Gargarin made only one orbit around the Earth.  How much time did he have for looking out the window? Did he see stars on the daylight side of the Earth or on the night side?  (He made only one pass through the night side, for about 40 minutes or so.) Was his cabin dark enough to see stars?  Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know - these are the kinds of questions that we should find sourced answers to. For great justice. 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it is obvious to me that the image out the window of the cockpit is an inset, I agree with For great justice that we need documentation.  Thanks for writing them, Bubba73.  It is believable that someone would forget to mark an image on a web site as promotional and not authentic, but it is still a mistake that they should fix. Algr 06:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey thanks for researching this! For great justice. 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars

message: The Flat Earth Society is a parody and it is used that way in this article.--tequendamia 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flat Earth Society isn't a parody - it really happened.  I remember it from the time.  We need to look for a reference.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a link to a website about the Flat Earth Society and the Moon, but I'd rather have a paper reference.  Martin Garder's "Fads and Fallacies" has a chapter about "flat earthers" in general, but not the Society.  And it was before Apollo. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, (ed: William F. Williams) page 114-15 discusses the FES and their belief that the Earth is flat, but it doesn't mention the moon.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it really boils down to is that I would have to go through my newspaper clippings and see if I have one from 1968 or 1969 or whenever it was that they made their comments... and then still wonder if they really believed it, or if they were just publicity seekers (as I suspect the Kaysings of the world are also). Wahkeenah 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saved quite a few newspaper clippings and magazines from the time too.  I'll try to look, but it won't be easy to find a reference.  Well, actually that 1980 Science Digest article serves as a reference.  It was 12 years after the fact, but it was before the current generation of hoax proponents. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The external link provided leads to a forum. Don't think is valid as a reference. On the other hand, your read their articles and they really make you laugh, they say that claiming that the earth is round is an attack on Jesus. C;mon.I don't want to remove it. I'd like to see it under in a section for parodies. There are more parodies, like the guys who believe the moon is a hologram.--tequendamia 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that these guys were the first organisation to claim that the moon landings did not happen. All others since are following in their footsteps. This isn't parody; this is who you ally yourself with if you choose these tendentious beliefs. History, not parody. Keep and expand. Guinnog 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the point. If you cannot rebut, then make the whole thing look ridiculous. That's seems to be the debunkers strategy.--tequendamia 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you moved it into the Parody section again. What evidence do you have that the Flat Earthers, as they were in the late 60s, were not sincere in their beliefs? Wahkeenah 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing is ridiculous. Provide some evidence that the Flat Earth Society was intended as a hoax. I think people really believed in it, rather like the whole moon hoax conspiracy thing nowadays, which is why it's such a good comparison. Guinnog 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Flat Earth society hoax accusations? Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the links provided, they just make you laugh mate. The whole thing is hilarious. Flat Earth? C'mon you are taking them more seriously than you take your own president.--tequendamia 13:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a UK citizen I don't have a president, though Mr Blair may not always realise this it seems. I take the (loony) flat earthers exactly as seriously as the (loony) moon hoax believers. Both are more to be pitied than scolded. Guinnog 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you just stated your personal POV.--tequendamia 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. What is yours? Guinnog 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is not whether we took the Flat Earthers seriously, it's whether they took themselves seriously. They sounded like they did, but who can say for sure? As I've said before, maybe Kaysing put forth his looney ideas just to see who would be gullible enough to buy into it. For comparison, I know someone who says that all major sporting events are fixed. He acts like he believes it, but I'm not sure if he really believes it, or if he just says that because he knows it will evoke a reaction. Wahkeenah 15:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking in Google for a little bit, it is easy to find references to people who recall the Flat Earthers trying to debunk the Apollo missions, such as this sermon from sometime last year . What I had forgotten was that this complaint by Flat Earthers actually preceded the moon landings. The "earthrise" video and photos from Apollo 8, which circled the moon around Christmastime in 1968, was immediately denounced by the Flat Earthers, on the grounds that since the earth was flat, it had to be a fake; a classic case of (pardon the expression) circular reasoning, akin to the "logic" used by the moonbats nowadays. I saw one site in which it was reported that one of the Apollo astronauts once said during a mission, "Eureka, Houston, the world is round!" in an obvious shot at the Flat Earthers, who had gotten their names in the papers by publicizing their viewpoint. No doubt the press picked up on the Flat Earthers largely because of their entertainment value. Wahkeenah 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The objection of the flat-earthers was essentially the same as of the people who are trying to find fault with the photos today.  The photos disagree with what they believe, therefore they must be fake.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Wahkeenah 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used to [[parody]] the hoax claims 

message: How to pull your head out of your %$&.
There needs to be some major head-from-rear-removal going on here. STOP investing your emotions into what YOU think about the moon. STOP trying to run an agenda. STOP bullying and twisting every nuance in this article because you think you are on a mission to save people from bad science. 
This article is an atempt at reporting people, places, and events in a non-biased manner. This is not a forum to promote the moon hoax. This is also not the place to go all McCarthy-istic and see a hoax promotion around every bend. Seriously, you need to wrap your noodle around this simple point: The Moon Hoax exists as an entity, an event if you will, unto its self. True, false, or indifferent; it doesn't matter.The moment the event was "born" and took hold it became a reportable entity. Why don't you stop trying to tear down fair and accurate accounts of the moon hoax and instead work on producing a good article ABOUT THE HOAX????
Example of fair and unbiased: "Jehovah's Witnessess are of a christian denomination that believes Jesus is the son of God the Father, Jehovah."
NOT fair and very biased: "Jehovah's Witnessess are a pseudo-christian religion because they don't think Jesus is God like it clearly says He is in the bible. All major religions(like my daddies) think they are a false religeon because they added the word "a" in John 1-1.  And the flag in Psalms 102-12 isn't really waving." 
(Then one would need to add 3-4 times the volume of anti- Witness propaganda for every acurate description of witnesses. All this in an article that is suposed to be about Jehovah's Witnessess.)
The same thing is happening here in the moon hoax article: 1 sentence on the hoax = an entire paragrph on trying to prove the one sentence wrong. Another sentence on what the hoax is = another whole paragragh on how it's wrong.
This is no longer an article on "The Moon Hoax." This is, instead, a private web page by people who seem scared that maybe it was a hoax and they are now hell bent on proving it wasn't. What are they so afraid of?? 
Should this article promote the moon hoax? No, it shouldn't. Should this article be about how stupid the Hoax is? No, it shouldn't. Should this article be about the Moon Hoax? Uhhhhh, yeah. That's why it's named "THE MOON HOAX". Otherwise it would be something like "How the Moon Hoax is thouroughly and utterly wrong."
You want to hotdog on about all the counter arguments? Pick one of the debunkers, write an article on him, and go hog wild. But don't drone on about how supply side economics is a load of crap in an article that is suposed to be about supply side economics. Don't go on about how Mozart was better than Debusy in an article about Debusy or carry on about how Jews are devious little money grubbing thieves and had it coming when you write about Auschwitz and so on. KEEP THE ARTICLES ON POINT.DartFrog 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) WP policy says that we don't have to give equal weight to fringe ideas. (2) To make another article with rebuttals to the hoax theory would be forking, which we're not supposed to do.  (3) it is easy to say "there are no stars in the photographs", but it takes a paragraph to explain why that isn't a problem.  It isn't sufficient to simply reply "there shouldn't be any stars in the photos". Bubba73 (talk), 22:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points. I was just checking the writeup on Creationism for comparison. There is a lengthy explanation of various world religions' views of the subject, along with a writeup (roughly 1/3 of the article) of science-based challenges. It is safe to say that a much larger percentage of the world believe in Creationism than believe we did not go to the moon. While I strongly disagree with the notion of Creationism, I readily concede that it is by no means a fringe idea; yet there is the rebuttal, right on the same page. Believing we did not go to the moon is more in the realm of believing in Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle... in fact, it is likely that a lot more people believe in those oddities than that we didn't go to the moon; yet their rebuttals are also in those articles. So there's no reason to give any special preference to this fringe "moon hoax" viewpoint. Wahkeenah 23:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, this conversation is exactly what's wrong. The article should be nothing more than reporting the moon hoax. That's it. The moon hoax is: Blah, blah, blah. The End.
This should be a 5 paragrahp article, tops.
DartFrog 04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: POV policy says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories".  Surely the hoax proponents are in the minority.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, the new National Geographic has this editorial comment: "In almost any debate that incorporates science, they [journalists] tend to give equal time to both sides of every argument, which is like giving 5 minutes to those who say the world is round and 5 minutes to those who say it's flat." Wahkeenah 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it is gives far too much space to NASA shills who are still desparately trying to prop up this creaking hoax. There should be a couple of paragraphs tops given over to the fact that NASA and those in the pay of USG science grants still trot out the old lies, the rest should be a debunking of the NASA hoax. 165.254.38.126 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article gives far too much space to this fringe notion that the moon voyages did not occur. No one is "desparate" at NASA, that's a fantasy on the part of the moonbats. The desparation is on the part of those like yourself who keep pushing the real hoax, the one perpetrated by Kaysing and his crowd, which has been proven over and over again to have no credibility whatsoever. Wahkeenah 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're funny! Of course NASA's desparate! The whole 'do we publish a book to try to prop it up, or would that make us look too desparate' issue is just the tip of the iceberg! 'Moonbats' is just a cheap ad hominem attack - the last resort of the intellectually bancrupt. Face facts - the landing hoax is becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate. It's ok. You can admit it. 165.254.38.126 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Face facts: There is no evidence that the moon flights did not occur. The idea that NASA is desperate about Apollo is a moonbat fantasy. NASA couldn't care less what the moonbats think, other than the few occasions when they assault people like they did to Buzz Aldrin. The only thing NASA is desparate about is getting the shuttle flying again so they don't get their funding cut. Wahkeenah 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to pull your head out of your @$#. 

message: Where does one look to when concerning subjects linked to LunarAnomalies.com and how, according to an alternative conspiracy theory, the reason why we stopped going to the Moon was due to the ancient ruins found thereon? 
This has been frequently propounded by Coast to Coast AM scientific advisor, Richard C. Hoagland, who believes the many of the Apollo astronauts were conditioned not to release their "true" findings and that NASA's theory on how the Moon formed by collision based on misinterpretations on Moon rocks which, according to him, is more analoguous to remains of an atomic-annihilated 10,000 year-olde New York..
Also, according to Ken Klein and John Lear, it seems that the Moon was towed into orbit in order for surface-dwelling life to originate and a lot of this ends up being tied into the Pyramids but that's a different storey..
Anyways, I'm simply curious since this other conspiracy theory deserves an article as some people believe this article itself is merely a cover-up to derail others from focusing on other details.. DrWho42 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth Tom Harrison Talk 12:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh that's the site that ripped off redzero way back. I've seen hoax proponents claim those kind of sites are part of a NASA dissinformation campain.Geni 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well known that NASA and its shill like to take the most extreme claims (that serious whistle blowers don't even clam) and then 'debunk' them, to try to make people think that they have answered the acusations. A little research shows how hollow these claims are. It's over. We're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. 165.254.38.126 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concluded that the 2001 "documentary" was actually made by NASA in order to make your hoax stories look silly. Wahkeenah 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LunarAnomalies.com, &c. 

message: The US Library of Congress gives this list of references to the flat earth society, which may be useful.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to try to go by the library tomorrow and see if I can get it.  I checked my Newsweek for Dec 30, 1968 and Business Week for Jan 4, 1969 and didn't find it in those.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could scan it or xerox it and post it here? At least for a day or so, being careful of copyright issues. Wahkeenah 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went by the library today, and they have it on microfilm.  However, the film was on that reel backwards so I couldn't get it today.  They said that they would probably have to manually transfer the film to another reel, flip the reel, and transfer it back.  I didn't have time to wait, I'll try to go back tomorrow.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would have had them copy it anyway, then scan it and flip the picture. However, if it was on backwards just when you needed it, I'm thinking it was another conspiracy. >:) Wahkeenah 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here it is, scanned from a photocopy made from microfilm: 500px.  It won't last but a few days before being deleted because of copyright reasons.  (Click on it for a larger view.)  The FES said that the photos are "a fraud, fake, trick, or deceipt".  But read the whole thing.  Can we remove the FES from "Parody" now?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting article! --tequendamia 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry it is such a large file.  I cropped it and told Photoshop to make it the smallest possible file, but it is still about 1/2 megabyte.  MAybe the resolution could be reduced.  But it should be gone in a week, because of copyright restrictions.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. The scary part is, he sounds sane compared to Kaysing's ramblings. Wahkeenah 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Flat Earth Society says that Shenton is "a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society".  The article says that he is a retired sign painter.  I'm going to ask for a citation on that.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He could have been both. Keep in mind that Hitler was supposedly a house painter or some such prior to devoting full time to other hobbies, such as invading Poland. Wahkeenah 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've written the thr RAS asking.  I found this link to a chapter of a book Patrick Moore book about this stuff.  I added it as an external link at Flat Earth Society, but I'm not sure it needs to be here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably don't want too much FES stuff here, since it infers a connection between them and the Kaysing crowd, which is yet to be demonstrated with certainty. Wahkeenah 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really. You are less likely to be blocked from napster for uploading copyvio material. Please don't do it again. User:Geni 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, I hear Newsweek is going to sue wikipedia for posting a grainy clipping from an article from 37 years ago. They're also going after the folks caught tearing the tags off mattresses. Wahkeenah 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flat Earth Society

message: I don't see the relevance of the following passage to this article "The Lander used in the film was an identical copy to a Apollo Lunar lander. The Lunar lander was designed as a true spacecraft, no aerodynamic design was needed to land on the Moon since the Moon does not have an atmosphere. A lander designed for Mars would have to cope with a substantial atmosphere and would therefore look drastically different than that portrayed in the film".  (Also, the atmosphere on Mars is less than 1% that of Earth, so I don't know how aerodynamic it would have to be.)  Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance of Mars lander in the film? 

message: "despite the many errors of fact and presentation in the program" if not, I think it is just your POV, and should go. For great justice. 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should quote that website as claiming that the program was in error. For great justice. 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. We report, you decide, as Foxy News likes to say. Wahkeenah 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - the current version looks good! For great justice. 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can you source this opinion?

message: *What's stopping you from doing it? Wahkeenah 17:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone feel like cutting this list down?

message: Bubba - I changed 'rebuttals' to counter claims, because, in the case of the faked photo from moon-shot, there is no 'rebuttal' - the landing believers admit that it was faked. In addition, landing believers do not follow scientific skepticism methodology. Their claims are not independently verifiability and falsifiabile, and they accept claims on faith or rely on unfalsifiable claims. For great justice. 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus dude. Just because you can repeat back the exact critique that applies to your own contributions, doesn't lend it any credence. - Reaverdrop 23:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm? Abuse is your response? I should not have expected more.  For great justice. 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims and responses would be the best way to put it. Wahkeenah 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. For great justice. 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims and counter claims 

message: An Apollo 16 photo with stars: here
Either this photo is real (and therefore proves that the landing was fake) or the photo is fake and proves that the landing is fake! ;-) Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny! We all need to lighten up a bit! Thanks! For great justice. 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all have reached the conclusion that either we went to the moon or we didn't. That should settle it. Wahkeenah 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I mention these photos? 

message: Was problematic. I have reverted wholesale because of the problematic nature of the edits. If the person who made the edits wants to, I will discuss each edit one-by-one, but the previous version was not NPOV. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead - your edits were pretty extreme, I NPOVed it a bit - why don't you suggest yor edits here? For great justice. 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I was being bold, and the article was horrible on those points. Let's start with the point you find problematic. Why don't you list them here: --ScienceApologist 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Suggest them here  -I don't have the time or inclination to give you an NPOV tutorial. For great justice. 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits are easily seen in the history page, and I don't know which ones you have issues with. So please list what your major problems are. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mostly your unsourced POV pushing. For great justice. 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is on you. I wait eagerly for your response. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, you were the one who started rewriting the prose on this page. Please read the archives before making declarations. --ScienceApologist 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Every one of the last edits

message: "the derisive neologism "moonbat" has been applied to such believers in some corners of the internet)." This typifies the type of snide, unsourced smear you seem intent on applying to this article. It's not helpful. Please stop it. For great justice. 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you want to be taken seriously? 

message: Can everyone please calm down on this article. Yes this is an article representing a certain POV, but the article must still be treated as representing it in a NPOV. ScienceApologist I must say that looking through your recent edits to the page you do seem intent on portraying those who believe it was a hoax as a small group of nutters who are most definitely wrong, and you make edits to that effect. Unfortunately I feel on this you are pushing your own beliefs on this. The topic needs treating more delicately that this especially when you consider that the number of people who believe it was a hoax isn't a small number of people hiding in the corner somewhere but the number is extremely high for conspiracy theories. It is well known that a sizable portion of the population believes there was some kind of coverup or conspiracy regarding the landings and you making edits specifically deriding that portion is not NPOV making. Both parties please leave it as it is for now and go away and calm down. Ben W Bell 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice - I'm going to lay off this article for a while and come back to it in a few days. For great justice. 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm Down 

message: I rewrote the section on moon rocks to make it more clear what the points are: 1) moon rocks were brought back from Apollo, 2) moonbats claim that WvB went to Antarctica to get moon rocks, 3) There are moon rocks in Antartica but not nearly enough. Let's at least accurately report the points. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon rocks

message: I changed the wording of conspiracy theory. By definition, this is a conspiracy theory. Even hoax advocates admit to that. Qualification is unnecessary since there is no one who claims that this isn't a conspiracy theory. The point about falsifiability is also a plain fact -- and the issues surrounding the placement of the Lunokhold reflectors are now adequately dealt with in the last sentence rather than the rather obtuse prose that was in place before. --ScienceApologist 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theory

message: Hi. I think the line 'space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement' is NOT an obvious reference to the supposed moon landing hoax, but to the Star Trek series, which called space "the final frontier" in its intro and was, likely, shot in a "Hollywood basement", meaning it was a second-class production or something like it. --DrMilton 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Californication 

message: The most damning bit of evidence that the landings were faked is missing from this article.  That is the notable absence of any unmanned moon missions or verified tests of the lunar lander.  The risk of stranding astronauts on the moon, on live television, would have had dramatic PR implications.  And yet the lunar lander never completed an unmanned landing and liftoff?
Wiki's own apollo page says that Apollo 10 tested the lunar lander to within 10 kilometers of the surface.  Other sites say "orbit and return."  From an engineering and risk-management standpoint, either scenario is patently unacceptable as the precursor to a manned mission. Broodlinger 02:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Did they test the landing? Noodle boy 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Testing of the Lunar Lander 

message: The article survived AfD on 5/21/06 here.  The result was Speedy Keep due to overwhelming consensus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: Noodleboy, at this point, I'm going to have to say that your rambling has gone on long enough. If you want to discuss the article you may, but bringing up unrelated points is not going to be tolerated any longer. I'm removing all of this discussion to your talkpage. I encourage other users to follow WP:NOT and remove any future distracting points NoodleBoy raises to his talkpage. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL at your insecurity. You are truly unbelievable.  Seriously grow a thicker skin and stop censoring relevant points. This is a hoax allegations page, remember and this is evidence of a hoax. Also we are in the discussion page. You are just afraid people will swing by and see this discussion because I have so thoroughly owned you all that you used the last resort of deleting this whole discussion.  LMFAO @ your lack of self confidence in your beliefs.Noodle boy 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is the talk/discussion page for Apollo moon landing hoax accusations not Apollo 13 or NASA hoaxes. -th1rt3en 02:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Careful, User:Noodle boy, we have both a civility and a no personal attacks policy. You're getting dangerously close to violating them. Talkpages are not for general discussion, they are for discussion about the article not the general subject. Wikipedia is not a chatroom nor a message board. If you want to debate, there are plenty of other places you can go to do this. --ScienceApologist 02:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL. You moved all my posts because they are threatening to your position.  I have never seen such censorship.  I would post my hoax allegations on the main page but they would be deleted quickly by nasa sychophants such as yourself.  These actions just make me believe that much more that the Nasa missions were faked. You guys are not open about discussing the issues, you guys consistently delete valid and cogent hoax allegations links and now finally you have deleted my posts from this page. This is unbelievable.Noodle boy 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are serious about wanting to write prose for the article, please present that as such. Copying and pasting, and not framing your discussion with regards to the article itself is not what the talkpage is for. Proposing items for inclusion is fine, but none of the sections that were moved to your talkpage seemed to indicate you were interested in anything of the sort. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant talk