Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 2

message: "While the evidence for the landings are considered by most who are aware of it to falsify the idea of an elaborate hoax, it has been suggested that observations could be made (either through new Moon landings or by remote sensing) of the physical evidence left on the moon(for example landing bases, equipment and footprints)."
OK, the issue here is that the hoax claim generates a testable hypothesis. It can be tested, and therefore falsified. There is no need to repeat the claim that most people don't beleive it, it's already at the top. Astronaught 19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a need to restate it because there is no reason to refalsify a claim that's already been falsified. Let's say someone discovered a brilliant way of proving that the luminiferous aether didn't exist. This person would be short on funding and generally ignored because this idea has already been falsified. In this sense it is important to point out that the hoax accusations have already been falsified. Joshuaschroeder 20:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using the word 'falsified' to mean 'I don't believe it'. It has a formal, scientific meaning, which is 'proven experimentally to be false'. The experiment (of looking, to see if the lunar lander is there) has not been done, so the theory has not been formally falsified. That is not the same as saying people beleive it. Astronaught 20:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Falsifiability defines the word falsifiable. What falsification implies from this is that an experiment or observation has been made that has shown the idea to be false. This is absolutely the case with, for example, moon rocks. There are apologetics that the hoax enthusiasts make for moon rocks, but this is beside the point. To claim that the only experiment which will "falsify" the hoax accusations is a view of the landing site is a ludicrous false dichotomy. What you are saying is that such an experiment would somehow be beyond rapproach of the conspirators, but you haven't shown why this is to be accepted but other observations which show the hoax proponents to be wrong are not accepted. Without appealing to science, you cannot make a claim to falsifiability, and science has you firmly in the camp of Apollo landings actually taking place, I'm afraid. Joshuaschroeder 20:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A theory must be falsifiable, but just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean its a theory. I can prove that I am sitting down or not - but that doesn't mean it is a theory. But you know this. I tried to edit this in good faith, but I now have a hard time believing you're not here pushing your own POV. The hoax is simply a claim - nothing more. --PhilipO 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which, the complexity and expense of building and deploying a telescope capable of viewing at this resolution (roughly x10 more powerful than Hubble) would presumably mean that relatively few hoax believers would get the opportunity to present their own eyeball to the eyepiece. After all that $ investment in scope time, what's to stop even these lucky few deciding that the lander they then clearly observe is more likely planted there by a stealth robot mission?.Adhib 09:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, at some point "common sense" (gasp!) has to come into play. Some of these guys have been watching too many James Bond movies and think that they are documentaries. This reminds me of a discussion I had with a conspiracist about the government testing ground popularly known as "Area 51", and all the supposedly secret stuff going on. I asked him, If it's such a secret, how come everybody knows about it? I then posed the hypothesis that maybe Area 51 is just a ruse covering for the real secret testing ground. That gave him some pause. It's technically known as "messing with someone's head"... which is what the Bill Kaysing's of the world did with the gullible public. :) Wahkeenah 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsifiability

message: ...because y'all have been so busy today. Please work out your disputes here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, false accusations are unfair and non-neutral, so if you suspect or know an accusation to be insincere, attempt to "neutralize" it. Unfortunately, absent a confession from the accuser, insincerity is hard to prove. But often there exists an obvious motive for accusers to lie or exaggerate. If you spot one, point it out or still better hint at it.
Adhib 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been unprotected. Please play nice and try to work things out here instead of reverting. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The article currently states that existing equipment is capable of resolving the landing sites with sufficient precision to prove or disprove the existence of Moon walkers' leftovers. Yet, according to this external site:
:The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012", however the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.
That certainly sounds impressive. Any astrophysicists here confirm if it's true? If you can, we need to fix the claim in the article. Adhib 20:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is true.  However, even with a telescope 10 times better than the Hubble, with a resolution of about 30 feet, the largest pieces of hardware would be only one pixel in size, clearly not enough to tell what it is.  Sidenote: I think that some recent lunar orbiter showed something at the claimed landing site of  Apollo 15, but not enough resolution to tell what it is. here  and here Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nifty stuff. The moonbats will say it's fake, and meanwhile will continue to claim there is a face carved in the surface of Mars. Wahkeenah 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe the claim could be that they knew they couldn't meet the goal of landing on the moon by the end of the 1960s, so they faked the first few (Apollo 11, 12, and 14), but Apollo 15 through 17 were real.  :-)  Bubba73 (talk), 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fascinating twist on the hoaxers' hypothesis. I like the way you think - outside the box. Wahkeenah 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical experiment: observe their litter? 

message: IS this anothr possible factor for the lack of a big blast crater: On the Earth the hot exhaust for a rocket heats the atmosphere, causing it to expand greatly.  This pushes on things.  On the Moon there is no atmosphere to heat and expand.  Should that be added?  Bubba73 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent point and I believe it should be added - I am pretty sure it is true and think I read it somewhere. I am reluctant to add anymore unreferenced statements though - if we could get a source that would be great. --PhilipO 02:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blast crater 

message: I'm wondering how people who believe that the moon landings were a hoax feel about Apollo 13.  Do they think that the emergency was faked too?  Also, how do Apollo 8 and 10 fit in?  They "allegedly" went to the moon too, but didn't land.  Were those real or fake (in their opinion)?  Bubba73 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier, and which you're hinting at, the various flights were all a part of an ongoing mission, each one going a step beyond the previous one, and each one essentially an experiment on a grand scale. The accusers have forgotten (or likely never knew) about some of the other perils and setbacks that had to be dealt with. One was an aborted docking maneuver during the Gemini program, due to the unmanned docking device having failed to jettison its cover. A costly and very public failure. Apollo 8's mission was to circle the moon and come back, which it did. Apollo 9 was earth-orbit bound, but successfully practiced the docking maneuver with a lunar module, although it had some technical problems. Apollo 10 went back to the moon, with a lunar module in tow, which was deployed to about 10 miles above the lunar surface, then came back to re-dock... and nearly had a catastrophe of its own, as the ascent got messed up due to a mechanical problem, leading to these fear-tinged words of Gene Cernan on live TV/radio coverage, which were later replayed on newscasts minus the first phrase, which was forbidden language on TV in those days: "Son of a bitch! I don't know what the hell that was, baby. The thing just took off on us. I tell you, there was a moment there.... I thought we were wobbling all over the sky." Apollo 11 was the final step in the vision laid out by JFK: going to the moon, landing the lunar module, taking off, docking and returning. Each mission after that took the process another step farther, with the deployment of a rover, etc., along with the setback of the other near-catastrophe of Apollo 13, of course. It all makes sense and has the ring of truth. The failures and the successes were all public and aboveboard, in contrast to the highly secretive (and failed) Russian program. The accusations do not have either the ring of truth or logical sense behind them. I have concluded that the doubters doubt just because it feeds their ego and sense of self-importance somehow, their illusion that they "know something that's a secret". If it really were a true secret, it wouldn't be "known" at all. Again, logic and reason go out the window where these characters are concerned. Wahkeenah 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba, to ask the question is to mistake the nature of the story believers are telling. Like Creationists proposing logical and empirical proofs for the existence of God, these people are actually engaged in a narrative which is primarily for defining their identity, not defining the truth. This is why disproofs fail to connect. But I agree with you, it's frustrating when you attempt to place that narrative in context, and see how badly it fits with so much of reality. Do they dispute that Huygens reported back from Saturn's Moon? Adhib 09:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 13, etc 

message: It is not appropriate for any user who wants to simply trumpet their views about "empiricism" and "proof" in regards to this issue. Why is an observation the only "proof" that is "empirical" enough? Why is "faith" referenced? These are all issues for another page and as this claim is not referenced it does not belong here. There is no indication that this is a commonly held belief of hoax advocates, and so the entire "Other issue" has been rightly removed. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claim

message: Here's how a typical debate with a "moonbat" goes:
*Moonbat: Um, what about "A"?
*Rocket scientist explains "A".
*Moonbat: Er, what about "B"?
*Photographic expert explains "B".
*Moonbat: Erm, what about "C"?
*Ninth grade science class student explains "C".
*Moonbat: OK, Dude, what about "A"?
--Go to top of infinite loop;
:Isn't A at the bottom actually A1, meaning A is tweaked with further conspiracy. - RoyBoy 800 03:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point, Dude. Wahkeenah 04:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the only "conspiracy" is by the morons who keep raising the same questions after they've been explained ad infinitum. Wahkeenah 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: They didn't go to the moon, but they did find UFOs there! :-)  Bubba73 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Alan Shepard hitting the golf balls at taxpayer expense probably helped hasten the demise of the program, as we had more important things to spend money on.  Like fighting the War on Disco. Wahkeenah 06:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was on Apollo 14 in Jan 1971.  Three Apollo missions were canceled - the first on Jan 4, 1970 and two more on Sept 2, 1970 (see Apollo 18)- all before Apollo 14's flight.  Bubba73 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being funny. Except for the part about having more important things to spend money on. Apollo evolved into the space program as we know it today, such as it is. Wahkeenah 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loop 

message: Somewhere I've seen the sequence of photos taken during the moonwalk, with the time it was taken, who took it, and other data like direction.  That would be a good thing to link to, but I cuoldn't find it easily.  
On Apollo 11, there was only one still camera used on the surface, and it was swapped between the two astronauts.  I think that both astronauts had cameras on subsequent missions.  Bubba73 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequence of photos 

message: The article's format has gone from the ridiculous to the downright despicable since I last looked in. That's a good thing for those among us who can tell our Gluteus maximus from our Articulatio Cubiti, in that no-one in their right minds who encounters it is likely to read any of the inane pap that ensues. Nonetheless, it is a discredit to the 'pedia. Anyone fancy joining forces to impose some kind of readability rules onto the rambling - and perhaps some sense of proportion along with 'em? I've recently had some (temporary) success overhauling an article with similar and related signal:noise ratio problems, and have discovered a yen for more punishment. Adhib 20:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Can you explain more about what you had in mind? Can you point out something in this article that would work better? --PhilipO 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the most severe and urgent problem is all the meanderings in the intro, prior to the index. The intro should be a simple what, and maybe when, not why, who and how's yer father. Merely moving the excess material to more appropriate places below the wire would be my Level One intervention. Level Two would include an attempt to place the disjointed sections below into some kind of logical order, and to weight them more appropriately. Stripping-out all the original research would be level 3, and clearly quite controversial. Like the sound of any of those? Adhib 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections, I am proceeding to the 'Level one' intervention so specified. Adhib 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get serious 

message: A few days ago I put a new Wikipedia page Moon conspiracy and religion, today I have a box on the top of the page suggesting that the new page could perhaps be merged with here?  
In October 2005, I tried to put the Religious Component into your page.  All the contribution got taken down at various times and you can see the discussions in the archives or user pages.
Could you tell me if you want to merge the pages?
--Wikiencyc 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good that you are not saying to junk it completely and instead you are saying put it differently.  Can you perhaps attempt as to how you would want it? Better option than tennis argue with you :)  Thanks --Wikiencyc 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say it differently because I don't even get what you're getting at. Maybe try to explain it directly to me, straightforwardly, here on the talk page where it's relatively "safe" to speak freely, and we'll see where we go from there. Wahkeenah 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moon conspiracy and religion]] MERGER 

message: :In Family Guy Neil Armstrong gets out of the studio after finishing a Moon take,A Fan say "Hey your neil armstrong! but wait i just saw you on tv,Neil trys to make up a theory but then attacks him with his helmet.
Removed this from pop culture as I couldn't confirm it. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture entry 

message: I have put this external website:  Moon Wide Web about religion and moon.
--Wikiencyc 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon Wide Web 

message: If anyone misses this content, could they please provide it with a citation before returning it to the main article? 
A more subtle version of the idea is that although the Apollo missions were not faked, some of the photographs were doctored. According to this, the U.S. government feared the humiliation that would occur if the mission failed and fake photographs were prepared on Earth "just in case." By this account, although the mission was a success, some of these fake photographs were so impressive that it was decided to release them anyway for propaganda purposes. Adhib 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: It would be possible for future unmanned spacecraft in orbit around the Moon to produce high resolution images of the Apollo sites. NASDA's SELENE, for example, will carry instruments that are capable of detecting leftover Apollo hardware. However, since the mission is primarily intended for geological study, there is uncertainty as to whether or not SELENE will photograph the Apollo landing sites.  ESA's SMART-1 might also be able to photograph the Apollo with its AMIE camera, but, like SELENE, considering (1) the fact that SMART-1 is a purely scientific mission and (2) the camera's resolution and altitude, such an opportunity is unlikely. A NASDA or ESA press photo of Apollo hardware is not an impossibility, however.
I have moved this out as part of an attempt to bring the article length down within wiki guidelines. Naturally, this involves hard editorial judgements. In this case, I wasn't certain if anyone else can see a great reason I have overlooked for this to be there. The issue in that section is whether or not an experiment can be designed such that hoax theories might qualify as falsifiable, and thus claim to be scientific. This seems to be a contribution by someone who is keen to share (true) information about SELENE, but perhaps not in the most relevant place: it looks like a sub-plot we lack space for. Too harsh? Adhib 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think you're being too harsh.  And even if it does show our hardware on the moon, the hoax believers will say that it could be unmanned.  And even if it shows footprints, that could be hoaxed too. :-)  Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: One thing, though, I don't think it should be edited down just for size.  WP guidelines says to try to keep articles under 32K or something like that, because a few people can edit files larger than that.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, where this article is concerned, any size above zero-K is questionable. Wahkeenah 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncertain relevance

message: OK, so I've done my Levels One and Two. That's the easy part. The hard part is shaving off that last chunk of fat - about 6 or 7 k's worth. It'll require some considerate truncation of waffling sentences, trying hard to preserve all factual references. Anyone wanna join in? Adhib 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get serious (Part deux)

message: The article says  "The primary basis of their claim was that it did not square with their belief that the Earth is flat."   I was going to change "it did not square with" to "it was not consistant with", since that has a clearer meaning.  But when I started to edit, I saw that it may be an intentional pun, so I left it for now.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other groups have since called on NASA to level with the American people... Tom Harrison Talk 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't you use plane English, please? Adhib 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square?