Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 5

message: Nice to see someone else contributing here, but you might want to add sources for some of your additions. Mark Grant 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I thought I did - which ones don't? Gravitor 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  although NASA states that only a couple of pounds were actually picked up by astronauts, the rest being collected automatically for example. Mark Grant 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I wonder what, exactly, that is supposed to mean.  "Collected automatically" by what? An arm on the lunar rover? Also, the issue of the neutral point has been debated here before. It would either be on this page or on one of the archives. I think Bubba concluded that the so-called "facts" about it were out of whack. Wahkeenah 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would that be during his original research? Let's have a genuine scientist, not 'Bubba'. Gravitor 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read that website a few weeks ago and it was so ridiculous, I didn't see the need to respond to it.  I did comment about it on the talk page here - how the neutral point has nothing to do with the surface gravity.  The surface gravity of the moon is almost exactly 1/6 of the surface gravity on earth.  It is 0.1654 of earth, 1/6 = 0.1667. Bubba73 (talk), 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The accusation is being made by a hoax investigation website. It's not your job, but rather someone independent to respond to it. If we do the research that is original research, which is not allowed. Find someone from NASA or one of their friends who has looked into it. Gravitor 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we should take care not to post "info" that we either don't understand or do know to be false. Wahkeenah 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know it to be false. I havn't seen any refutation of it. If you have one, please post it. Gravitor 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you don't know it to be true, either. Why would you post something here (or anywhere) if you don't have at least some intuition as to its truth value? Wahkeenah 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More to the point, what exactly is that paragraph trying to prove? That there's some notable disagreement about where the "neutral point" is? Any grade schooler could tell you that the moon is nowhere near 64 percent of the earth's gravity, so any calculation that suggests that is obviously wrong. Also, the "neutral point" is not a "point", it's a range. According to my World Almanac, the perigee and apogee vary from 225,744 miles to 251,966 miles. So the neutral point is also going to vary by over 10 percent. Wahkeenah 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: According to one page I saw where a guy did some math, based on the inverse-square law, the neutral point should be about 9/10 of the way to the moon, or between 22,500 and 25,000 miles or some such. Also, now I see what you're getting at, that every measurement taken by astronomers that demonstrated the relative masses of the moon and earth are now to be considered invalid because of something that someone supposedly reported in 1969. I'm seeing that assertion parroted all over the Internet. Someone needs to go back to the source and see if they really said that, or if this is just another lie by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see where Bubba73 made his initial comments, still on this page, and quoting that same statement that many have parroted about 43,000 miles or whatever. His comment reminded me that the path to the moon was not a straight line, but rather a curved trajectory, so it is perfectly obvious that there is no mystery about this at all, it's just another example of the ignorance and/or deception constantly practiced by the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In short, it's false. I can either take it out or post the explanation. Which would you prefer? Wahkeenah 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and posted the explanation. Since it is effectively now in the typical question-and-answer format, it could theoretically be moved to the question-and-answer section. The one missing piece is the 1973 E.B. statement. I would like to know whether that's true, or if it's just another hoaxster con fabrication; and what the E.B. says currently. (Maybe you get the idea I don't believe a word they say. Their 2001 Fox TV special destroyed whatever credibility they might have had.) Wahkeenah 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fox, BBC, EB, they're all in conspiracy against you... Actually, if you could attribute the claims you make, that would be great - at the moment it looks like original research by a Wikipedian. Gravitor 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so.  >:) It's documented in many places that the flights took a curved path toward the moon. Also notice that the Time reference did not use the term "neutral point", it merely indicated the distance from the moon that the Apollo craft would be when it fell under the moon's influence. The misuse of that quote is a typical hoaxsters trick. As for what the 1973 EB said, maybe someone could find it, scan it, and post it here (along with what it says now), since you can't trust anything the hoaxsters claim as facts. They have a long track record of ignorance and/or willful distortion. Wahkeenah 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, where did Gravitor go? He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, you should pardon the metaphor. Wahkeenah 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps he got tired of harrassment and decided to take a break? Carfiend 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitor 

message: Now you're engaging in out-and-out slander. You need to remove that stuff from this page, or someone will do it for you. Just because some con website accuses someone of something, don't make it so. Wahkeenah 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It exactly makes it so. That they are accused of involvement in the hoax, that is. I quoted the people who accuse them. That's what this page is about, isn't it? Gravitor 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's their source? Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't make it true, and if we repeat it, we are party to the slander, and to potential lawsuits. Wahkeenah 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We are simply stating that they say it, we are not 'repeating it' in the sense that you mean, of asserting that it's true. If George Bush says that John Kerry is a drug dealer, and we quote that he said it, it's not the same as if we simply say that he is. Gravitor 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the distinction you're making. Wahkeenah 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point - I will attribute these accusations more closely. I think it is important to document exactly what the accusations are though. Gravitor 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could also document why these "accusers" have any credibility. Any fool can put up a website and say any fool thing he wants to. Wahkeenah 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, I was the one who faked the moon landing, while the NASA personal were carefully removed from flight control, I was hurried onto a sound stage wearing a space suite, the result was so unconvincing that they actually sent me to their super top secret sound stage on the moon to reshoot, and then they brought in the "crew" of the Apollo to do the voiceovers--205.188.116.134 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! At last the truth comes out. So that was your bottle of Coca-Cola some Aussie saw on TV after downing a few too many Fosters. Wahkeenah 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "People accused of involvement in the hoax"

message: The bulk of this piece should be about details of hoax theories and related information, not a history lesson, not a rebuttal and not a demonstration of the powers of rationality and common sense. Certainly the information should be laced with disclaimors and asides that point to the improbability and lack of 'authoratative' support for the hoax claims, but for the bulk of this article to be a seemingly heartfelt rant about how wrong the hoax theories are wrong is just silly. I believe the theories could be presented fairly and completed ( with refuting evidence added as counterpoints if you really feel the need) without the necessity of 'proving' that the apollo missions happened. That is after all what the Apollo mission pages are for. This page should be about hoax theories. Link to the histories if you need to. The wikipedia is big enough to be contain them  both. Finally, If wikipedia has a page about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, I hope you pro-NASA killjoys don't know about it.Numskll 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Numskull, this is currently a pro-NASA rant. It needs to change substantially to conform to NPOV policy. Gravitor 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that it is a pretty balanced look at the topic of the article.  There is no listing of the evidence that the landings took place, only a detailed look at major claims of the hoax proponents.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the usual general whining about NPOV, without offering any concrete suggestions on improvements. Wahkeenah 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have a concrete, if general, suggestion: remove the bulk of the information refuting the hoax theories and replace it with a series of disclaimors (This element of the theory like all Apollo hoax theories is widely disputed and  wholly debunked in mainstream culture) and links to content that supports these refutations. Perhaps there should be a separate page for refutations of Apollo hoax theories. My point is not to bolster the hoax theoriest's claims (I'm as sure as I can be without having actually gone that the apollo missions happened)but to make this particular article more focused on it's stated topic: 'apollo hoax theories' which are american  pop CULT/ural artifacts and deserve pointed attention as such. The idea that by including all the refutations you're somehow preventing innocents from being preverted by these theories is silly and a little insulting to us laymen. Also, seriously engaging hoax theorists in debate is a waste of time. You're talking two different languages -- one faith-based(broadly defined), one data-based. This is the place for the faith-based content. BTW: it is the Burden of proof section specifically that prompted me to write here. That section seems ridiculous in context, akin to a discussion of gavity proplulsion and aerodynamics to 'prove' that eight flying reindeer could not if fact power a flying sleigh. Numskll 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to me that the current page subscribes well enough to the pseudoscience policy, though I haven't compared it to any other pages in that category. I'm sure we all know that debates with CTs are a waste of time in convincing the CTs that they are mistaken, but such debates allow the CTs an opportunity to make themselves look silly in the eyes of less devoted readers. And, frankly, I'd love to see the Apollo-deniers produce a list of actual, verifiable and disprovable claims about the 'Apollo hoax' so they could be disproved... they won't, of course. Mark Grant 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Perhaps there should be a separate page for refutations of Apollo hoax theories." - this is called "forking", and we are not supposed to do that.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, most of the pro-NASA stuff is faith based. For example, look at the missing telemetry data. We are constantly being asked to believe on faith that it existed, and stop asking NASA to produce it as evidence. Gravitor 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting Apollo, and nothing to counter it except the imaginations of the moon hoaxster conspiracists. Wahkeenah 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep saying that, while never providing it. Gravitor 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every question they have raised has a reasonable explanation. It's not up to me to prove that the historical record is true. Go visit your library, study the subject in print and visual media, go visit the museums. There is tons of stuff about the Apollo flights. The hoaxsters have no evidence, only their fantasies. Wahkeenah 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More bluster. Still no evidence. Ho hum. Gravitor 19:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean there is no evidence that Apollo was faked, you're right. Wahkeenah 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and direction of article

message: I think it looks very weak to have this section in:
# Despite the questions concerning the existance or location of the LEM blueprints, what is said to be a flight-worthy LEM is on exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum. LM-13 would have landed on the moon during the Apollo 18 mission, but was instead put into storage when the mission was cancelled: it has since been restored and put on display. Four flight-worthy Lunar Rovers were built, but three flew to the Moon and the other was used for spares after Apollo 18 was cancelled: the only Lunar Rovers on display are test articles and replicas.[19]
:Basically you're saying - yes - all the documentation 'disapeared', but there are replicas available in a museum! Look at those instead of asking awkward questions! We should focus on the point, which is why are there no blueprints or tapes? Gravitor 05:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that section is weak, maybe you shouldn't have edited it to make it so. You are the one claiming that LM-13 is not a real, actual, flight-worthy LEM that would have flown to the Moon. I suppose I should have guessed that even when presented with an actual, real LEM capable of a lunar landing that Apollo-deniers would stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and claim it didn't exist. I'd imagine that anyone who would focus on blueprints and ignore the actual, real existence of an actual, real LEM is probably beyond salvation. Mark Grant 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited it to make it factually correct. It's weak because it misses the point. How do you know it's real? Oh, right. NASA says so. Gravitor 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No you didn't. You edited it in such a way that it's pedantically correct, yet ignores the fact that pretty much the entire world accepts that it's real. The only reasons I haven't removed that change are because it _is_ pedantically correct and because it helps to show the wacky extremes that Apollo-deniers have to go to with their 'theories'. I really don't think you're helping your case by claiming that the Apollo 18 LEM doesn't exist. Now you want to remove it because you claim it's 'weak', after you deliberately made it so... why don't you want people to know there's an actual flight-worthy LEM they can go look at any time they choose? Mark Grant 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure - we can put it in the models and replicas section - this section is about missing blueprints and tapes. It's a smokescreen. Gravitor 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of these aren't "replicas" - they are the real thing, but weren't used.  That is what is meant by "flight-worthy".  The lunar rover is pretty much irrelevant, though.  That wasn't instrumental in getting to the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I must ask you (and whoever else), yet yet yet again, what does the presence or absence of blueprints prove, to either side of the issue? I say it proves nothing, either in support or contradiction of either side. What say y'all? Wahkeenah 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I answered above - the point is that the telemetry and documentation are the side effects of producing an actual vehicle. If you just make a model for a museum, you don't typically have all of the masses of technical drawings etc that go alongside actually testing and developing a vehicle. While the absense of the blueprints is not a smoking gun, their presence would pretty much proove the landings took place, or at least that a good-faith effort was made. The lack of them is dissapointing for those of us who want to see proof of the landing, since, at the very least, it indicates negligence in the archivists. It's pretty suspicious that these are the ones missing, frankly, and is circumstantial evidence of a hoax. Gravitor 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me put it this way. A factory shows you what looks like a car. They refuse to start it, or let you drive it, but show you a video of it being driven. How do you tell whether they made the car, or a mock-up, and a fake video? Well, one way would be to ask to see the development documentation and the transcripts of the test. If they had all of that, you'd feel better, if not, it would further raise your suspicions. Gravitor 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many cars from the 1960s can you find the technical drawings for? --ScienceApologist 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm sure that if you offer to buy LM-13 and fly it to the Moon then the museum will let you do so. I'm equally sure they won't let you 'test drive' it on Earth where it can't even function, what with being designed to land on the Moon and all. Mark Grant 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is sarcasm the best response you've got? Obviously, NASA's claim about this differentiates it from other vehicles made in the 60s. Gravitor 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA doesn't "claim" anything "about this" other than the rocket exists. That's like saying "Taunus could run for 2500 miles between oil changes" is a "claim" of Ford's. While you can see the rocket for yourself, good luck finding an intact Taunus. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my argument, but if they existed, blueprints and tapes would be powerful evidence. Absence of them does not proove the fake, but their presence would be very hard to explain by hoax proponents. Gravitor 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Hoax proponents explain away every other piece of evidence including hundreds of pounds of moon rocks. I guess moon rocks are easy to fake but blueprints and tapes are not? --ScienceApologist 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just another hoaxster cons' red herring. Wahkeenah 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, asking to see publicly owned evidence of the moon landing (or scientists wanting to see it) is not a 'red herring'. Asking for evidence is the scientific method. Gravitor 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a red herring, because it's just something for the hoaxsters to whine about. If they did exist, the hoaxsters would say they were fake. So it's a "win-win" for the hoaxsters, or so they think. While they may be publicly owned, that doesn't mean they have the budget to go looking for them. There's a war on, you know. Maybe you would like to make a donation to the government, with the stipulation that the funds be earmarked for finding the "missing" Apollo stuff? I hope you have deep pockets. Wahkeenah 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the difference between 'just something to whine about' and a legitimate problem? The evidence that would proove Apollo is missing. There is no independent data. Surely you recognize that that IS an issue? 'Terrorism'. 'Child mollesters!'. Great. Carfiend 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What 'evidence that would proove Apollo'? Are you making an actual claim that the LEM blueprints would prove that the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon (but an actual, real LEM doesn't)? Mark Grant 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm saying that if the Apollo program looked more like an engineering development program, with technical drawings, test data, logs etc, it would be more convicing than something that looks like what's left over after a film crew leaves, with some models in a museum that are claimed to be real, but can't be tested. Carfiend 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So let me get this right. Your one and only reason for believing that the Moon landings were faked is that NASA hasn't put every last technical document on the web? You're not claiming the photos are faked, you're not claiming they couldn't get to the Moon, you're not claiming that the Moon's gravity is much higher than accepted, you're just claiming that the vast amounts of technical data which _is_ available isn't enough to satisfy you? Mark Grant 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm saying that the fact that NASA does not produce information that they should have that would be very difficult to fake is evidence in favor of the hoax theory. The 'real LEM' is not convincing. The documentation of how it was made and the logs of its activities would be. But we don't have them... Carfiend 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 'real LEM' is not convincing. I think that says it all, really. Show an Apollo-denier an actual, real, flight-worthy LEM and they'll claim it doesn't exist because they can't find the blueprints on the web. Mark Grant 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your 'scare quotes' are appropriate. How do we know it's real? Because NASA tells us. Again, we are asked to take it on faith. When we ask for the documents to prove it, we are told we are being unreasonable. There's a model of Godzilla in a museum I saw, it doesn't prove she's real. Carfiend 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it doesn't matter to the hoaxsters whether these items exist or not, because either way they will use it in support of their "theory". Wahkeenah 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is typcial. When faced with evidence, instead of engaging, you begin speculating on why it doesn't matter, since you think you know what the other side would do even if the evidence against you were not damning. Great reasoning. Carfiend 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blueprints

message: Can someone verify this? Gravitor 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitor, may I respectfully suggest you do some looking up yourself, rather than burdening the editors here with all the work of clearing up things you're personally not certain about? I appreciate you're simply applying a 'healthy scepticism' to all the material that tends to support the point of view you doubt. But it would do you credit if you were to do a quick Google on sibrel and "false identity", say, and brought your own cites to the case. Otherwise there's a risk people will come to think of your contribution here as entirely negative and burdensome on everyone else. Adhib 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Adhib, I appreciate your feedback, however, I could find no evidence in a brief search for this slanderous accusation. It's pretty serious to accuse people of that, and provide no evidence. I think it should be removed in the interim, and I will continue to look for evidence. Gravitor 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think badastronomy.com has something about it. I'm sure it's every bit as strongly based as the slanderous accusations about Slayton, Von Braun, etc. Wahkeenah 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then reword it to say "Phil Plait says..." whatever. Wahkeenah 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he say that? Gravitor 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's great - it's unsourced accusations I'm nervous of! Thanks! Gravitor 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sibrel often gained access to the astronauts by claiming to represent organizations that he did not, and by otherwise assuming false identities.

message: The Nasa case clearly does not meet this requirement. Carfiend 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all seriousness - I find it hard to understand how you can have any self respect. You have such obvious double standards for things that don't fit your religion. Why should NASA not meet this basic requirement of the scientific method? Carfiend 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they don't need to. The burden of proof is on the accusers, who will never admit they were wrong no matter what evidence is presented. Wahkeenah 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, testing of the hypothesis that they went to the moon - the one that's in the article in the burden of proof section. Carfiend 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. The existing evidence is entirely on the side of the historical record. Wahkeenah 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So you agree that the Nasa case clearly does not meet this requirement? Carfiend 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As was pointed out above, the repeated experiments where Apollo 8 through 17. Where were the hoaxsters while the flights were actually going on? The answer is nowhere, because to make such a claim while the flights were ongoing would have labeled them for sure as wackos. Once Apollo was cancelled, it was "safe" for these nutcases to come out of the woodwork and make their phony claims. Wahkeenah 17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, repeatable observations of evidence for each landing. Not more NASA produced soundstage work. Carfiend 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence of that assertion. Wahkeenah 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual, you miss the point. NASA's claim is not based upon multiple observations ... in the form of controlled, repeated experiments. "but the hoax proponents wouldn't believe it!" Never mind. Getting a rational, related response to a question from you is probably impossible. Carfiend 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So you say. But the issue here is that there are two competing theories (landing, or hoax?). Science is the tool we use to decide between competeing theories. NASA does not want to be subject to scientific methodologies. Of course, if they really went to the moon, they would have nothing to fear. Carfiend 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

message: NASA does not seem to accept this, either. Carfiend 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you admit they don't meet this criteria? The question is entirely about did they go. If their only response is refusal to answer the accusations, then we should just put that on the page. Carfiend 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually the page is about "did they not go", and there is no evidence supporting that notion. Wahkeenah 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is that it is a misapplication of the criteria. If you ask them whether they went, they say "yes". NASA used to answer the myriad accusations beyond that, but they got so ridiculous that there wasn't any point anymore. -- ArglebargleIV 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep saying that, but there clearly is. Carfiend 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly is what? Wahkeenah 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Evidence against NASA. Carfiend 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence against NASA, only the fantasies of the hoaxster cons. Wahkeenah 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep saying that, but there clearly is. Carfiend 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying that, but there clearly isn't. Wahkeenah 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, you school yard 'tis', 'tisn't' tactics certainly end rational debate. If you're not willing to point to any evidence, there's no point discussing it. Carfiend 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

message: NASA does not provide any way for external organizations to examine their data, for example, the telemetry. Carfiend 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, who among the Apollo-deniers has enough technical knowledge to make any sense of the telemetry in the first place? We could dump gigabytes of Apollo telemetry in their laps and they'd just claim it was false for bogus reasons: 'LOOK! Fuel Cell 2 outlet temperature was 195.6F at MET 067:39:02! That proves it was a hoax, it should have been 195.5F!' Mark Grant 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, they'd whine, "Hey! It's just a bunch of 0's and 1's! Where's the data???" Wahkeenah 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't it funny that every time evidence is produced against NASA, or they fail to produce any your response is "well, it doesn't matter, because we think the other side would not believe it anyway"? Your logic is astounding. You have failed to address the fact that NASA fails this test, instead responding with predictions about what the other side would do IF you had any proof! Carfiend 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that the flights did not occur, and my assumption about their likely reaction is based on their past behavior. Anything that appears to undermine their premise is automatically dismissed. Wahkeenah 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So you agree that NASA's case is not empirically testable and falsifiable, and your defense is that it wouldn't matter, since you have so much insight into the other side? Carfiend 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it's testable. Go back to 1969 and watch it yourself. Wahkeenah 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great. Your answer to a reasonable question is another smartass comment. As usual, you have nothing to substantiate your position. I think you're just trolling. You never present any evidence, never answer any questions. Carfiend 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to test it is to reproduce it using 1960s technology. Do you really want to spend your tax dollars re-building the Saturn V and the lunar modules? Wahkeenah 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And, by the way, I have contributed to the article in the past. I have tried to neutralize it. It used to be worse than it is now. Wahkeenah 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your logic is faulty again. Rebuilding Saturn V would not prove it was done in the 60's. Producing documentation like blueprints and telemetry that would be difficult to fake would go a long way to proving it. Sworn testamonials by key people like Buzz Aldrin would help, admitting up front that some photos were faked, and declaring which ones were not would help, allowing third party invesstigators into NASA would help too. There are many ways to show a preponderance of evidence. Carfiend 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it won't prove anything to the hoaxsters. Even if we go back to the moon and see the remnants, the hoaxsters will claim they were put there on the latest mission. Wahkeenah 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So once again your only defence is claimed prescience about the response of others? Great. Carfiend 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. You win. Wahkeenah 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Empirically testable and falsifiable

message: What if we got away from the idea of 'sides', and represented the views as a sliding scale, with the extremists (a complete hoax, on one extreme, and NASA on the other), and in between varying degrees (partial hoax, landing with cover up etc)? Carfiend 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, my friend, is a false parallel. People who simply accept the official NASA record could not be labeled extremists Numskll 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye to that, and raise ya - accepting the spectrum as defined by a denier is already to make 99% of the possible positions tend in his direction. Cheap trick. What about a 'competency in sociohistorical research methods' spectrum, from highly competent to tragicomically incompetent? Adhib 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, but re-writing from the point of view that the whole thing is a curious social phenomenon is neutral? Carfiend 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you include the word 'curious' of course to inject a negative POV in the idea of the treating topic in terms of what people beleive that simply is not there.   Describing it as a social phenom doesn't make the claims true or false. It simply removes the need to decide on one side or the other before improving the problems that exist with this article. Numskll 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the premise that it is a social phenomenon, rather than a hoax theory is inherently pov. It would be like re-writing project Apollo to be the social phenomenon of why people think the US went to the moon (actually, that might not be such a bad idea...) A significant minority of people believe this version - it's not a quaint psychosis, it's a real theory. Carfiend 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, a theory != a conspiracy theory. Carfiend 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  err. . .before it was the 'theory' part you had an issue with. Now you don't there is a 'conspiracy' described? discussion with you seems pointless Numskll 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are mistaken. Carfiend 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  nope. I'm accurate. You're not being sincere or forthright.  Numskll 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another idea

message: :However, the Soviet Union had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959.[44]. This does not, of course, tell us anything about their ability to track foreign craft in space[citation needed].
Which part of this do you want a citation for? Carfiend 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I'm still concerned about speculation - can we source the opinions about what tech the soviets had? Carfiend 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation?

message: As someone not involved in this, I feel like I need to make some observations. Of course, I beleive that NASA made it to the moon, but the quality of debate on this page is appaling. Both sides have some guilt, but the pro-NASA side are particularly bad. Refusing to provide evidence, logical falacies, changing the topic, abuse are all common tactics. If I was not convinced, I certainly would not be by the generally poor standard of scholarship. You come over as arogant and uninterested in the facts. I'm not interested in arguing about this, it's just my observation. Trollderella 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet of you, but you have missed a large amount of water under the bridge. Apollo deniers keep charging over the top, fresh faced and ill-equipped. Their opponents here have sickened of blatting away at them with their high-tech weaponry. They're attempting to find ways to appeal to these poor chaps' common sense, through the fog of ideas. Current strategies being explored include humour and appeals to higher cognitive functions. I agree the success rate isn't great, but if you'd seen the carnage in Spring, you might accept this was better. Adhib 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it's "fallacy", by the way.Adhib 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Every time an Apollo-denier comes along with some 'fact' it's debunked, often requiring a few hours of research on our part, then they often deny the real, actual facts (like claiming that LM-13 is not a LEM), before they pull another accusation out of nowhere, requiring more research to disprove. Eventually people get tired of being treated like performing poodles. In any case, if you're interesting in Apollo-denier 'facts' and the explanations of those facts, you should be reading the article, not the talk page. Mark Grant 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha - case in point. "claiming that LM-13 is not a LEM"? How about "claiming the fake LEM is not a LEM"? Your assumption that NASA is telling the truth without independent confirmation is very sweet! Carfiend 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're making a claim that it's a 'fake', with no evidence. As I said, even when faced with a real, actual LEM built to land on the Moon, you deny that it exists. Mark Grant 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I agree it exists, just deny that there's any evidence it is 'real'. Carfiend 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations

message: ..that there is no moon, thus we could not have landed there, case closed--64.12.116.131 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  err . . that's 'there is no spoon.' Numskll 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Close enough--64.12.116.131 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a well known fact.. 

message: Does anyone know how to fix them? I beleive I broke them when I tried to change the name.
: I can't find the archives either, even using old names for the page... I guess they got lost :(. Mark Grant 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I managed to find the old pages and copied them to the right names. I'm not sure what will happen if the page gets renamed again... Mark Grant 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link talk archives to this page are broken

message: A break did me the world of good. I'm chilled. What's new? Gravitor 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The funny thing is, they'll complain about people who worked for NASA once 'making money from NASA', but are happy to believe people who make money from selling conspiracy theory books and videos. If taking money from NASA disqualifies you from commenting, surely making money from the Moon hoax claims must too? Mark Grant 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh! Those folks are sceptics, Mark! You can trust THEM, 100%. Sheesh! Doncha know nothin? Adhib 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ah fresh air.