Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 4

message: This page is used for general discussion about the moon landings.  If you want to move my discussions, then I will delete any discussion that does not pertain to main page.  There is no justification for this type of censorship besides hiding honest discourse.Noodle boy 02:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I have never taken any of your comments personally, despite any apparent evidence to the contrary. However, I'm still waiting for your expansion on the coincidence of the shuttle Challenger blowing up at 1:13 after launch. Wahkeenah 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although we disagree I respect you for actually debating points and not resorting to censorship as ScienceApologist has done. I am not here to cause trouble but to have an honest intellectual debate about the validity of the moon landings.  Also the reason why I don't edit the main page is because I know it is a hopeless endeavour, at least on the discussion page I thought I could express my views on this issue. Noodle boy 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honest intellectual debate is not what the talkpages are for. Please take this to a debate site such as the Universe Today forum. --ScienceApologist 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Talkpages are not "used for general discussion" ever. The points are rightly moved to your user talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are for discussion of the subject included in the main page. Once we can come to a concensus about the allegations we can move the allegation to the main page. This is the point of the talk page.  What you are doing is censorship, plain and simple. You deleted hoax allegation links before so your track record is not very good.Noodle boy 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, if you are interested in seeing prose included in the article, propose prose here on the talkpage and we'll all be glad to talk about if and whether we will include it. General discussion and debate is not the purpose of the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will revert it again until you delete everything on that page that does not relate to the main page.  You cannot selectively delete my post under this rule.  It has to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion.Noodle boy 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been deleted, Noodleboy. It's just saved in the archive above. --ScienceApologist 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support. Not only did they move all of my discussions to my user page, they blocked my IP so there is no way for me to edit on my main computer.  The reason for this is beause supposedly I tried to avoid the 3-revert by using a "sockpuppet" which is ridiculous. I restarted my computer and edited it without signing in and next thing you know my IP is blocked.  They claim that I tried to avoid the 3 revert rule but anybody who checks the history can see that when I was logged in as noodle boy I reverted the deleted discussions around 10 times. Anyways, no worries. I agree with you that the hoax allegation page will never be presented in a fair way. These people clearly have something to hide and moderators such as chairboy are blatantly Pro-Apollo so it's no surprise he blocked my IP.  These actions actually make my convictions stronger that the whole thing was a fake. Clearly, as was already evident on the main page, they only include hoax allegations that are clearly easy to debunk.  Also any hoax allegation links that make valid points will be deleted under the excuse that it is a "non-notable" link. Whatever that means I do not know, but it is censorship plain and simple. Glad you have enough good sense to at least question what is being told to you, unlike the sheeple that dominate this page.Noodle boy 15:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot move my discussions 

message: Please read Help:Talk page to understand the purpose of the talkpage. It is not simply for engaging in endless debating and discussion. They are expressly for improving articles and proposing changes. Minimal amount of sidechatter is fine, but section-after-section is rightly redacted to the user talks. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read this

message: Per suggestion, all the remaining talk has been archived. Talk pages are for discussing what to include in the article and related issues. Please see Help:Talk page for more. --ScienceApologist 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: per suggestion, archived

message: I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the best place for this kind of tit-for-tat argumentative style. Perhaps we should consider looking into merely reporting on the controversy rather than reporting on actual point-by-point issues in the controversy. Something along the lines of Creation-evolution controversy might be worth looking at as a guide. Thoughts of the editors? --ScienceApologist 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding claims/rebuttals section

message: delete all that don't talk about the main page. You cannot selectively delete my posts by saying they are discussion while simultaneously allowing other non-main page related discussions to remain. Please use some common sense. I know my position is threatening to your world view, but please be a man for once in your life.24.7.34.99 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not delete any of your posts. Per the suggestions of yourself and another user, I merely archived all previous discussions so we could "start from scratch" as it were. --ScienceApologist 03:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you did. You moved all my discussions to my personal talk page.Noodle boy 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where those discussions belong. If you are interested in talking about the article itself, please do so here. --ScienceApologist 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want to delete my posts... 

message: Science appologist - I'm sorry that, like most NASA proponents, you prefer to communicate through reverting, with, if we are lucky, some barbed comment in the notes, I shall answer your question:
It is only landing believers that use the term 'conspiracy theory'. No proponent of any theory ever describes it as a 'conspiracy theory'. It is a derogatory term used solely to disparage a theory that the writer wants to denegrate. Its usage is appropriate as a sourced comment, not under the guise of a neutral, 'factual' statement. For great justice. 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can there possibly be a citation for something that never happened? Please provide a citation that NASA never claimed the moon was made of cheese. Erm? For great justice. 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil Armstrong described the surface as fine and powdery. That would pretty well exclude the green cheese factor. Wahkeenah 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove that he never said it was cheese though. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they describe the NASA conspiracy as a conspiracy, not their theory as a 'conspiracy theory'. You don't here the prosecutors describing their case of conspiracy by Enron as a 'conspiracy theory', do you? For great justice. 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the definition of conspiracy theory this set of ideas qualifies. A sympathetic show about the ideas was called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" . You're going to have to try harder to show your contention is correct. It's not just the critics who claim this is a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a Fox TV special, not a hoax proponent, so, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox TV?  Oh man, I'm laughing so hard my sides hurt.  •Jim62sch• 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The TV special advocated the hoax believers' points. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another "hoax believer" who calls these ideas a "conspiracy theory": . --ScienceApologist 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, the guy starts out "Well, maybe I'm not completely convinced that the moon landings were faked". So, no. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So any slight amount of skepticism amounts to exclusion? You are making up criteria now and have not offered any evidence to the contrary of hoax believers explicitly claiming that this is not a conspiracy theory. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is another example of the distraction tactic.  He is suddenly going on about being offended by "conspiracy theory" in order to change the subject from the Burden of Proof debate, and his inability to articulate his own position completely.  Algr 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof piece is an embarrasment to everyone, but if you want to discuss it, we can. The term conspiracy theory is simply a term of abuse. For great justice. 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, refusal to discuss the point at hand, which is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is simply a slur. For great justice. 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Conspiracy theory]]

message: I removed " The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since every piece of evidence regarding the moon landings can be met with pathological skepticism on the part of hoax believers."
:Because it is simply an insult. It's not sourced, and makes the unjustified claim that, because someone thinks that hoax believers are 'pathological', the theory cannot be tested. That's just wrong. For great justice. 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't quite like the wording, I still think it is important to mention the idea of a non-falsifiable theory, because that was what the section you pulled it from was talking about, and it is important to understanding the issue.--DCAnderson 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's calling the hoax proponents crazy. (Which I personally believe, but that's besides the point. ;-) The article can't say pro-hoax advocates are insane. But it *can* quote a verifiable source who makes that assertion. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, it can, but to assert that the theory is not falsifiable is simply not true. To say someone thinks it is, and others disagree is one thing, to assert that this nonsense is true is another. For great justice. 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Describe then, how it is falsifiable. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the moon, and find evidence of the lander. Or observe it with a sufficiently powerful telescope. For great justice. 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we go to the moon, they'll claim it's a hoax and if we show them images from a telescope they'll claim they were doctored. It's an obvious no-win situation. --ScienceApologist 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that pretty much sums it up.  •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with discussing anything with the astronots is that once you prove them wrong, they just resort to stupid comments and juvenile sarcasm. I know, I'll put a paragraph about that in the article. Oh wait, that's an astronot tactic. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is obvious. Take them to the moon and to the stuff from the Apollo flights. Then leave them there, and they can spend the rest of their days looking for the "exit door" to the filming location. Wahkeenah 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I like that. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the solution is obvious - apply the scientific method. Test the prediction that, if NASA went to the moon, the debris should be there as the photos describe. You're hoisted by your own petard, because, if you follow through on your science rhetoric, you'd have to do an experiment that would prove you wrong. NASA won't do it. For great justice. 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither I nor NASA have to prove anything. The historical record is what it is. You say the historical record is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that the historical record is incorrect. You have not done so. Wahkeenah 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure our friend has never heard the old debating axiom, "he who asserts, must prove."  Of course, he'll twist it round to "NASA asserted first".  User:Jim62sch 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great! AstroNot logic at it's finest! "he who asserts, must prove", "erm, unless it's NASA that asserts it went to the moon, in which case they don't have to prove at all. Yes. That's better, the rule should be 'He who is NASA, doesn't need to prove'. Much easier to defend our point!". You evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable by restoring to abuse, again. For great justice. 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In effect, the historical record is the "proof" for the Apollo flights. They don't have to "re-prove" anything just to satisfy the complaints of a few conspiracists (none of whom are responsible for NASA funding allocations, right?). The ball is in the court of the conspiracists to prove that the historical record is false. Wahkeenah 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not proof, since the 'historical record', is just NASA photos, video and commentry. There is no independent record, since their claims have never been verified independently - a core part of the scientific method. Absolutely agree with you though that the hoax theorists don't control NASA funding, and, given that, why should NASA respond? Well, there's no political reason, the only reason they would respond is if they cared about the truth. Again, you evade the point that the theory IS falsifiable. For great justice. 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "proof", not proof. If it's true that NASA is the only source (which I question), then you still have to prove NASA lied. Their being the only source does not prove they lied. I have never gotten into the "falsifiability" mumbo jumbo, because it's as obvious as the nose on your face that the way to "prove" it to (almost) everyone's satisfaction is to go back to the moon and say, "See, there are the remnants of Apollo" or "Oops, there are no remnants of Apollo". If you really think your hard-earned tax dollars should go for a project like that, knock yourself out. Wahkeenah 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue of whether falsifying it is a good use of tax dollars is separate from the issue of whether the theory is formally falsifiable. For great justice. 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are "falsifiable" or "verifiable" depending on which term you want to use. You go there and look, or you develop a telescope strong enough to confirm it. Barring those measures, it comes down to whether you buy into the historical record or the conspiracists' rejection of it. That whole issue is a "no-brainer", which is why I am not interested in editing that section. Wahkeenah 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are not interested, then don't comment on it, but this section of the discussion was about whether or not the claim that the hoax accusations are not falsifiable should go in. Clearly it should not, because the claims are falsifiable. For great justice. 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in it, just not interested enough to write about it, because it seems to have to do with whether either view is falsifiable based on current evidence as opposed to actually going there and answering the question definitively. Both sides have made up their minds about the current evidence, so it's unresolvable. Wahkeenah 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but unresolvable based on current evidence is not the same as 'unfalsifiable', which is a claim that formally cannot be falsified. For great justice. 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets back to the ambiguity of the original statement at the top of this section. I don't understand any of it. So I will likely have nothing more to say about it. Wahkeenah 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Cut from intro:
:Public opinion polls have shown that a large majority accept the Apollo missions as fact, while a notable percentage have at least some doubts about them. 
What polls? The link just goes to the generic article on Public opinion polls. Let's provide a source. The article only mentions ONE poll, and that by a pro-hoax source. That's not meaty enough for the intro. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Ed, I'll admit that you're a tireless Bertrand de Born.  •Jim62sch• 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they are refering to this 
 For great justice. 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that line in the intro because I thought it was fair and balanced (like everything Fox does, obviously) and summarized the several (not just one) polls that are listed in some detail later. I think it's fair to include in the introduction, that of the lay public, a large percentage accept the history of the space program, while a notable percentage (as compared with those very few who believe the earth is flat, for example) have at least "some doubts". Wahkeenah 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public opinion 

message: * Why did you remove this "Sibrel and others however, claim that, to the contrary, so-called 'debunkers' do not address the genuine problems, and fixate on aspects of the case against NASA that they feel they can answer, while ignoring others."
::Because it's totally unsupported by any evidence that Bart Sibrel believes this. It is, however, something that you believe and have stated many times. Are you Bart Sibrel? --ScienceApologist
:::I'll find a source for it. Good to know that I can just remove anything I like that's not sourced though.... For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted above. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Noted above"? What? For great justice. 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it just me, or does that contribute nothing to the debate? For great justice. 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giving sufficently dogmatic values of "falsifiable", nothing is technically falsifiable, is the morale of my remark. --Pjacobi 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, SA, please respond to your unexplaned reversions. For great justice. 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. By the way, FGJ, you are in violation of 3RR again. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if I am, it's because you will not discuss your reverts. It is very frustrating to be lectured by you about reverting, when you constantly do it and show no inclination to discuss it. I'm not the only one who has noticed it, and it is completely counterproductive. Please explain your reverting. Saying you did is not enough - you did not. Please point out exactly where. For great justice. 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history of this page to see where I responded. --ScienceApologist 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Blustering? You're too funny! OK, that wasn't so hard - you're starting to get the idea of collaborating, or, at least, explaining yourself. You say: "::::Actually, it is sourced by the incredible iterative arguments that the hoax-believers went through when lunar-ranging experiments were mentioned on the internet to them. Before it was explicitly mentioned in "debates", the moonbats hadn't known about them. Suddenly, they were forced to scramble to come up with an alternative explanation. Their solution? Lunokhod. That's a perfect example of how they refuse to accept falsification. It's a feature of most conspiracy theories anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that none of that is relevant to the issue of your re-inserting the nonsense about falsifiability. Your vague and random insults are not a credible source. You'll have to do better than calling people 'moonbats'. No one in their right mind would claim that mirrors on the moon are proof of human landing. Furthermore, you do not provide any evidence that the behaviours you attribute are anything more than your fevered imagination. The fact that you want to believe that 'moonbats' 'scrambled' to find an explanation for mirrors is entirely fictional. For great justice. 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, they wouldn't. Who does? Honestly, find me someone who makes the claim that mirrors on the moon, per se, are proof of human landing. Nice way to avoid the point, by the way. For great justice. 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Phil Plait for one. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. Phil Plait does not claim that mirrors on the moon prove human landing. And 'usenet' is your source? Please. For great justice. 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could easily be said that no one no how advocates that anything "proves" the moon landing. --> but this is more nonsense moonbattery. I find it very funny that most of the battiest loonballs in pseudoscience talk about "proof" as though science has some standard measure of such a thing. Obviously, they rely on their pathological skepticism to get by -- something that's allowed because there is no proof in science since everything is learned by induction. Evidence is only evidence when it supports their ideas, otherwise it cannot be true! --ScienceApologist 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What a surprise. Instead of answering the point (that Phil does not claim that the mirrors prove human landing) you respond with more insults. Just keep on taking the rope, SA. You've got enough to hang youself. For great justice. 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered the point. Plait goes into some detail about how the retroreflectors were placed on the moon by Apollo. That's evidence. Your inexact conflation of evidence with proof is the major issue here. A promotion of such ignorance seems to only be rewarded with response, however. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA claims they were placed there by Apollo, but the only evidence presented is that they are there. They could have been placed by a robot mission, just as other reflectors were. Reflects does not prove human landing is the obvious falacy that you seem blissfully unaware of. For great justice. 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, you miss the point. The fact is that you are wrong. Phil does not, as you claim, say that the mirrors prove the landing. Admit you are wrong and move on. For great justice. 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice attempt at a dumb-win, but it's a ridiculous one. Any person can go back and read the context of your statement. That evidence != proof is a side-issue that is nicely illustrated by your tactics. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SA, you do realize that this is essentially the equivalent of talking to a dog, right?  What you said reads to FGJ as "bark, ruff-ruff, bark, yelp visit to the vet bark, ruff-ruff, bark-bark". •Jim62sch• 23:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely should get that translator. --ScienceApologist 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're simply wrong, but instead of admitting it, you simply pile on more insults. Nice. For great justice. 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got it!  It was the apes around the monolith!  •Jim62sch• 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. More stupidity from the AstroNots. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Reflectors on the moon don't prove that man set foot on the moon... but they prove that man had the technology to safely send a rocket through the Van Allen belts and to soft-land on the moon, which rubs out a large percentage of the hoax accusers' premise. That's why there needs to be a distinction made that not all hoax believers are in lockstep. They have more than one theory to try to explain the observable facts. Not nearly as many theories as the JFK assassination, but more than one anyway. Wahkeenah 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means they could have sent a robot through the Van Allen belts. The premise of the radiation problem is that it's too dangerous for people. Please make an effort to familiarise yourself with the basic facts before commenting. You just make yourself look stupid. For great justice. 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from my understanding, the primary "danger" from the Van Allen belts appears to be to machines and communications. Regardless, a cornerstone of the hoaxsters argument is that we did not have the technology to soft-land on the moon. Wahkeenah 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the stuff I've seen revolves around the people, Like this one "René offers data suggesting, among other things, that without an impractical shield about two meters thick, the spacemen "would have been cooked by radiation" during the journey." For great justice. 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, that's the reason they skirted the Van Allen belts rather than going straight through them. Wahkeenah 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say... But seriously, I havn't seen much about claims that no mechanical mission could have been sent. Anyway, I think your point is more that there is no single, cohesive, hoax theory which I agree with, and have tried to integrate in the (I think, fatally flawed) Burden of Proof section. Let me know what you think, For great justice. 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with SA's edits

message: * The proposed methodologies that the conspiracy theorists propose for doctoring the photos with "wrong" reticles are often contradictory and generally require absurd lengths to explain the "inconsistencies" when there are prosaic explanations. In particular, prints were often cropped and rotated which cause the illusion of reticles occuring off-center or "not straight".
::This nonsense presents unsourced claims that are simply wrong. Please source this claim. For great justice. 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Egg on your face? --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no? Completely ignoring everything you're asked, and instead responding with insults? For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "completely ignoring everything you're asked" includes responding to "Please source this claim." --ScienceApologist 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you responded, but not with a source, with more insults. For great justice. 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the source that is included on the page doesn't count then. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: junk

message: Do you think that adding this sort of random insult stengthens your case? " As most of the accusers lack education in basic science and make many of their claims based on popular misconceptions: a fact that has encouraged certain educators to feature debunking assignments as a way to encourage critical thinking regarding bad science.". It just makes you look like unreasonable POV pushers. I'm sure you're not, of course. For great justice. 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything included there is verifiable fact. --ScienceApologist 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's not. Which is why you don't source it, I suppose. For great justice. 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is one of the instructors who advocates what I stated, and we've already shown the lack of education on the part of most hoax believers. I'm pretty sure you're not exactly cum laude, Mr. justice, though that's beside the point. --ScienceApologist 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet more insults, SA, please review WP's civility policy, and try to keep your mind on the point. Whoever the hell Tim Cole is, his scattergun insults "I'm reassured that the forces of ignorance can't totally suppress our basic need to explore and discover — even vicariously." add nothing to the debate. For great justice. 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it ironic that Fgj is lecturing me on "civility". At least he's progressing. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More junk

message: While we've all been busy combatting FGJ's peculiar statements, has anyone noticed that the article need a significant copy edit for syntax, grammar and semantic accuracy?  I'm going to start doing just that -- but I'll give everyone a day (see WP:BOLD) to discuss it.  •Jim62sch• 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit needed

message: In accordance with a proposed policy with is about to lose a vfd vote, SA and crew are continually reverting the moon hoax article to their preferred versions.
I reverted it back to Revision as of 23:36, 2 June 2006 (Reyk) in attempt to stop this war. This will be me only reversion of the weekend. 
Think about what this means: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Uncle Ed 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back on the lecture circuit, are you, Ed Poor? --ScienceApologist 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oi! Have I picked up a stalker? If you would only address points instead of flouting wikipedia:avoid personal remarks this project would be better off. Give it a go, would you please? --Uncle Ed 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Practice what you preach, Ed. --ScienceApologist 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, if my revert of Ed's revert blanked the burden of proof section, I apologize -- it was not intentional.  •Jim62sch• 09:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly object to your unexplained mass revert to a version from days ago. I am asking you as a reasonable person to respect my restoring it, since it flies in the face of wikipedia policy and practice. If you disagree, please discuss it here rather than edit warring. For great justice. 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would probably go better if you would make a few incremental changes and then let them sit for a few days, rather than trying to immediately rewrite the article the way you think it should be. Tom Harrison Talk 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, I really didn't. The changes I made the last few days has been largely removing unsourced POV editorialism. Anything sourced, I have left in. For great justice. 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Mass revert]]

message: Clinton's flippant comments are certainly strong evidence that Apollo was a humbug. As we all know, Clinton is an unimpeachable source. Wahkeenah 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny! For great justice. 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Clinton 

message: "Another says that the entire cold war was fake, to justify massive spending on fake defense, as well as a fake moon landing.  Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people?   Where did the astronauts actually go?  Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?   An overview of the evidence is provided below."
:OK, there is nothing in principle wrong with this, if it is sourced. An article in Wired though? It might be ok, if it actually said this, but it doesn't. The page referenced does not mention the cold war. Why not find a primary source for this, rather than a pop magazine? Plus, where are the rhetorical questions from? Are they part of the Wired quote, or your own research questions? For great justice. 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything that occurred before my lifespan was a hoax. World War II? Never happened. D-Day was filmed on a (soggy) soundstage. Wahkeenah 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Change the subject. Don't answer the question. AstroNots, I don't know.... For great justice. 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never flew to the moon, and neither did you (did you?) so that makes the both of us AstroNots. But I think I have a pretty good sense of what rings true and what doesn't. The explanations of how the Apollo missions were done made sense, and the various accusations since then (safely realized after the hoaxsters were sure we weren't going back) don't stand up to reason. Wahkeenah 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wired

message: There are frequent comments by the hoaxsters that NASA is the only source of the information. There are at least two problems with this frequent assertion: (1) It is circular logic, in that it is using their assumption that NASA lied to prove that NASA lied; and (2) It is very likely not true, as other countries independently tracked the flights. Wahkeenah 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there might 'very likely' be other independent tracking of the NASA data, it is typical AstroNot logic to use their assumption that there is to prove their point. It's circular logic. "Since NASA is right, someone else must have verified it, so NASA is right". Erm? No. Let's see this evidence, if it exists - third party replication and verification is the scientific method, after all. For great justice. 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say "very likely" because I have seen references to it here and there, but I have not personally studied the question closely. Not that it matters. The conspiracists have already answered that by saying that such tracking "could have been" tricked by earth-orbiting satellite transmissions. In the hoaxsters world, "could have" equates to "definitely" when it comes to their position. Meanwhile, I keep waiting for the hoaxsters to come up with something that will make me question the Apollo program's sequence of events. I ain't seen it so far. Wahkeenah 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never seen it said that triangulation could be fooled, nor have I seen any triangulation data. I've never seen any third party verification, and would be interested to see any that you have. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothing about it beyond what I've already said. I'm waiting for an expert to post that kind of info. Wahkeenah 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think even the CIA believes the 'one shooter' theory any more, but apart from re-stating your point of view, and indulging in some pseudo-psychology, what is the point of this diatribe? For great justice. 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Apollo hoax theory fits the pattern of other conspiracy theories, a term which you don't like, but it fits like a glove. And while it is possible that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, there is no definitive proof of it. One of the cornerstones of the JFK consipiracists was that Oswald was not a good enough marksman to have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds. First, he was a good marksman. And second, the six seconds start with the first shot, so technically he only had to fire two shots in six seconds. Etc. Etc. The JFK story is pretty much off the conspiracist radar anymore, because too much time has passed and nothing new has emerged, and JFK remains dead (although one theory postulated that he had survived and was in a vegetative state; once the autopsy photos were made public, it pretty well put that one to rest). However, the Apollo story remains alive. It will die (except in the minds of a handful of hard-core doubters) when and if we return to the moon, which will require funding, and also a practical reason to go... other than to "prove" that the Apollo program happened, which would be a collosal waste of our tax dollars. Wahkeenah 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue will, indeed be settled when science is applied to the problem - by observing it. As for JFK, you are in a very small minority of true believers if you believe the full govt account. For great justice. 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who here honestly believes that any "moonbats" will even believe it if/when we go back a second time? Repeatedly claiming that "we can settle this once and for all by going to the moon" is a huge red herring...logically it makes sense, practically it's easy to rest on because the likelihood of it happening anytime soon (we're talking decades here) is slim, so you keep repeating it. Anyway, this talk page makes an amazing read, you moonbats are quite off your rockers. Rhetorical exercise for you: take off your blinders for a couple of minutes, look at all the evidence again, and ask yourself what is more plausible - a faked landing, or a real one? Sounds like you're fixated on the Van Allen Belts, and have no problem with soft-landings, the nicities of photography, etc. Hit those books, boy! 161.225.129.111 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back wouldn't prove that we went there in 1969-1972.  I saw a comparison to cold fusion somewhere on this talk page.  Cold fusion is a scientific issue, the moon landing is a historical one.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Apollo question won't be settled to everyone's satisfaction, no matter what is done. And I do not necessarily believe the "full government account" of the JFK story. It is possible that Oswald acted alone, and it is also possible that he had co-conspirators and that, as with Tim McVeigh (as some have postulated), he kept silent and protected them. I am about 99% certain that Oswald was involved. I don't buy into the "vast government conspiracy" stuff that Oliver Stone came up with. There is no question that the government wanted to downplay any hint of conspiracy that might suggest the Soviets were behind it, as it would likely have triggered WWIII if it were true. But the conspiracists can't accept that one lone nut could do this to us, denying the fact that all it took was a rifle and the will to do it. As the years have gone by, we have seen that JFK had many enemies. The group with the greatest motivation, other than supporters of Fidel Castro, would seem to be the Mafia, as they felt betrayed by JFK. I have sometimes wondered if Oswald and some other independent assassin were coincidentally shooting him at the same time. Not likely, but possible. Unless any new evidence comes forward, I don't think we'll ever know the truth of the JFK situation for sure. That raises the question of the "falsifiability" of the many JFK assassination theories. That could require a book or two. Wahkeenah 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC there are still some govt archives that are sealed on the JFK issue, but I agree that, without new evidence, it's unlikely that there will be resolution. There is a difference between a case like the JFK assasination, where the evidence has been largely destroyed, and the Apollo landings, where, if they happened, the evidence should be in good condition, on the moon. We can't revisist the JFK moment, we can (if we want to) revisit the scene of the crime with Apollo. That's what makes the moon landing accusation falsifiable, and JFK not. For great justice. 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right, and that's why I have to hedge on the JFK thing. Maybe once all the participants are long dead (along with us) the full truth will come out. There were a number of folks who also thought the Lincoln conspiracy was an "inside job", but after 141 years I think the chances of determining that are fairly slim. However, as with JFK, I wouldn't say with absolute certainty that it's "not falsiable", just "probably not falsifiable, or verifiable". Obviously, the final answer to the Apollo question is to go there again and either find or not find the Apollo remnants. Back to JFK, don't forget that the Kennedys themselves bear a good share of the responsibility for all this, as they went to some lengths to keep "sensitive" info out of the public eye... such as JFK's extramarital situations... and their reticence helped to fuel the conspiracists' flames. Maybe we need to invent that time machine and go back and revisit any number of historical events and find out what really happened. If only we had the funding. Wahkeenah 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's get working on the time machine! For great justice. 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to get back to you on that. Wahkeenah 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA the only source? 

message: "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a collection of urban legends suggesting that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked by NASA." - I reverted this. Please don't do it again. For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have skewed this page so far in the direction of credulous acceptence of the hoax claims that it's necessary to provide a balanced presentation. Are you seriously suggesting that the hoax claims are not urban legends? Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They are not urban legends by any definition of the term. Please look it up - it does not mean what you think it means. For great justice. 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconceivable! Wahkeenah 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never get involved in a land war in Asia! For great justice. 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexander the Great would dissagree.Geni 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have also been the originator of the phrase, "Live fast, die young (32) and leave a good looking corpus." Wahkeenah 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you trying to be taken seriously, or just trolling?

message: I did some work on expanding the biographies section - please don't revert it without comment - I'd like to add brief one sentence bios of the main NASA proponents too. What do you think? For great justice. 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies

message: The moon hoax stories are not really urban legends. Urban legends are more like the stories about alligators in the sewers and tarantulas in the cactus plants. The moon hoax stories are conspiracy theories, i.e. the idea that there is a vast conspiracy (usually by the government) to hide the "real truth" about conventional history. Urban legends are usually about something innocuous, although they can cause harm, such as the claim that Procter & Gamble's moon-and-stars logo was a satanic symbol, which was very hard to shake, even when very conservative Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell went to bat for the company. Conspiracy theories are like a parallel universe to generally accepted history. They are often hard to totally disparage, but they are also fad-like, so they tend to stick around for awhile until the next one comes along, or until proven or disproven definitively. Another good example of a conspiracy theory is the notion held by some (mostly leftists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks. This is of particular interest because it's similar to the notion held by some (mostly rightists) that the U.S. government was either negligent or even responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack on 12/7/41. In both cases, the allegations were raised by people who objected to our having gone to war over it. It now occurs to me that this section really belongs on the conspiracy theory page. Whatever. :) Wahkeenah 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your voice of sanity. ;) For great justice. 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I quote you on that? :) Wahkeenah 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While they are certainly conspiracy theories, there is some overlap: They're narratives with many elements of folklore; they're usually thought to be true by those who repeat them; The points about the malign intent of the supposed perpetrators are sensationalized, as is characteristic of urban legends. I think 'collection of urban legends' succinctly summarizes the nature of the hoax stories. I suppose reasonable men might disagree, but the phrase would have to be up long enough for someone to see it and disagree with it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is overlap, but they are not the same thing. One characteristic of urban legends is that there is virtually no evidence. Has anyone ever actually seen an alligator in a sewer? No, but those who talk about it know someone who knows someone who has seen them. By contrast, conspiracy theorists take bits and pieces of actual evidence, like a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing, and construct their own "picture" from it. Also, conspiracy theories are usually connected with politics in some way or another. Liberals like to talk about how there is a vast right wing conspiracy, and conservatives talk about how there is a vast left wing conspiracy. It's not a coincidence that the conspiracy theories really heated up during the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Of course, that's my own conspiracy theory. :) Wahkeenah 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see your point. Maybe 'urban legend' is more confusing than informative. Ultimately, I think I wasted an afternoon on this; I don't think there were any substantive improvements after . Tom Harrison Talk 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't want to know how much time I've wasted on this article. Maybe if the Chicago Cubs were playing better I could focus on them and leave this article be for awhile. Wahkeenah 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -) Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban legend? 

message: I don't want to edit more again, but please tell me what evidence about "Nearly all" people
believe this plan.
Maybe my English is poor, but I think you can know what I mean.--219.78.196.244 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section in the article itself about polls which answer this question. --ScienceApologist 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Err..Can't tell actually what you are talking about. Sorry! michael<span
 style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"></span><span
 style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">Curtis </span><small
 style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> talk+ contributions</small> 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the accusations as baseless. 
I doubt that even a sizeable fraction of these have even bothered to mention the hoax accusations. Don't they mainly just ignore it, like most biologists ignore Creationists who criticize Evolution? 
If there is a rejection of the accusations, however, we should say something like:
*Joe Blow, an astronomer at Universty A, says that he can see the Lunar Module at Mare Tranquilitatis through his telescope.
Or:
*A survey of space scientists and technicians conducted by Reuters (or Gallup or Roper or Pew?) indicated that X% agreed that the accusations were baseless. 
Let's apply NPOV and WP:CITE here, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ed, again you didn't read the sentence you removed. "Nearly all interested..." is what it says. We support this statement later on in the article by quoting the interested scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts. --ScienceApologist 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Nearly all" US's scientists, technicians believe? Or "Nearly all" all world scientists, technicians believe?--219.78.196.244 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example as to why this would make a difference? (i.e. is there a schism among U.S. and other scientists regarding this subject?)--DCAnderson 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there's no evidence presented about opinion outside the US - that's par for the course for the AstroNots though. Evidence isn't required for their claims. For great justice. 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to find some polls external to the U.S. - along was you also cite polls indicating what those respondents thing of the U.S. in general, as their responses could be based on anti-American attitudes. Wahkeenah 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, if we wanted to comment on opinion outside the US, we would. I'm not sure that polling has been done. Better to state the facts, that no polling data is known, and so opinion is not known. If data turns up later, we can add it. AstroNot speculation on world opinion isn't useful. For great justice. 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me an earlier incarnation of this page said that a Japanese poll indicated about half the people there had doubts about Apollo. Of course, it would not surprise me if half the Japanese people also think the U.S.A. started World War II. Wahkeenah 00:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, can we produce a source for the Japanese poll, or this another article of faith? For great justice. 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be buried somewhere in the countless reverts of the article and/or in the archived talk pages. Go ahead and look for it. Don't let me stop you. Wahkeenah 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found an anonymous posting from May 17th in the talk page (Archive 3) that reads "In Japan, it is estimated that the majority of people there believe the moon landings were faked. Hence probably why they want to send LUNAR-A up there." Spot-checking among the many changes made in the article that day, I don't know see a reference in the article itself, so I don't know what the anon's source is, if any. And at this point (see my most recent comments before this) I lack the interest to pursue this or any of the other point-counterpoint stuff further at this time. Wahkeenah 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if an anonymous poster made an unsourced comment that should be "Good Enough For Astronot Logic" (GEFAL) in future. For great justice. 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About "Nearly all"

message: Appear to be trolling. Especially considering this curious statement he made to User:Ed Poor . I find it hard to take a user who makes bald accusations in such an arrogant manner seriously. It's hard for me to see this kind of behavior as anything but disruptive. --ScienceApologist 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice ad hominem attack. I guess when your intellectual arguments are exhausted, that's about all that's left. For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually wanted to discuss "intellectual arguments" you wouldn't resort to so many violations of Wikipedia policy. I think you are gaming the system. Any gesture towards good faith at this point would be appreciated. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Random insults are all very well, but I'm at a loss to know what you mean. For great justice. 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued aggressive behavior does not seem tempered with any desire to really dialogue about any of these subjects. Rather you have made the curious declaration that no one discusses anything with you. That doesn't feel like good faith to me. --ScienceApologist 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you certainly don't. It's a fact. Look at the history. When asked a question, you reply with insults and avoid answering. For great justice. 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you insist on making generalized statements like this? They are rather bizarre considering the lengths you bend over backwards to accomodate your own idealization of "balance". You feel that the ends-justifies-the-means or what? Are you honestly saying that I have avoided answering every single question you've ever made? --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have avoided answering most, for example, this kind of thing, which is pretty typical. 
"Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it ever occur to you that I had no answer to this particular point (mostly because that was not prose I had a vested interest in)? Again, you're having a problem in assuming good faith. I changed the entire section, after all. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So you have no object to my removing it? For great justice. 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you see this in the article? --ScienceApologist 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was there about half an hour ago, it seems like events have overtaken the discussion. For great justice. 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The last few edits by [[User:For great justice.]]

message: I see that this section has been edited to remove anything except pro NASA editorialising. It is unsourced, POV rhetoric. Rather than simply remove it, I wonder whether anyone can justify keeping it in its current form? For great justice. 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can suggest what about it is "pro NASA editorialising" rather than making blanket statements? --ScienceApologist 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard not to be blanket, since it's uniformly bad, but, let's take this bit. "Was all of NASA knowledgeable of the Hoax, or just a few people? Where did the astronauts actually go? Were the Russians fooled, or complicit?" Where does it come from? Whose questions are these? For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it wasn't so hard after all wasn't it? --ScienceApologist 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Application of the scientific method to this scenario would require that indepentently duplicable evidence for a claim of a moon landing be produced, allowing each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this:" For great justice. 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Application of the scientific method would involve replicable experiments by third parties that provide proof of the NASA claim. This sort of experiment would allow each explanation of an event as a separate hypothesis, like this: 
This statement is terrible. Application of the scientific method does not require "replicable experiments" by "third parties". There is no such thing as "proof" in science and the "NASA claim" hasn't been described yet! So this is again another example of an extremely poor edit. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'historical record' is entirely NASA's. There is no independent verification. For why this is important, see below. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See Stem Cell Fraud Worries U.S. Scientists and Cold_fusion#Reproducibility_of_the_result
For the kind of thing that happens when the scientific method is ignored. These frauds were detected when attempts were made to replicate them. If there is no oversight, even scientists tend to perpetrate fraud. NASA has, uniquely, no effective oversight. For great justice. 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the basis for your assertion that no one was "watching" NASA? Wahkeenah 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence has been produced that they were. I don't invent things for which there is no evidence, unlike the Astronots. For great justice. 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that no such evidence has been produced? Wahkeenah 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen no evidence for any. I do not 'know' that there is none, just as I do not 'know' that you don't have three arms. I assume there is none until I see evidence that there is some. When 30 years have passed without anyone publically producing any, that assumption is looking pretty reliable. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of evidence the moon flights occurred, and none that they did not occur. Meanwhile, who told you about my three arms? Wahkeenah 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is plenty, why can't you produce ANY that doesn't come from NASA? For great justice. 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the basis of your claim...that there is no evidence of the moon landing except from the organization did it, hence it was faked? I just want to make sure where you're coming from...161.225.129.111 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because I have not studied the question of other nations' evidence in depth. Besides, you are presupposing that NASA lied, but you can't come up with any evidence of that assertion. Wahkeenah 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just you. No one has produced any. You would think that the Bad Astronomy site, with all the people scrambling to try to find explanations for the accusations, would be able to come up with something, but zip. Nada. There is no evidence except for NASA's own. That rigns big alarm bells for those committed to the scientific method. For great justice. 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not demonstrated that the only evidence is NASA's, nor that they lied. And the alarm bells don't seem to be ringing all that loudly. The space program, of which the moonflights were a part of its evolution, has gone on its merry way. Wahkeenah 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I respect your deeply held beliefs about the existance of this evidence. But it's not science. Let's make sure we separate the two. For great justice. 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to "prove" it is to go back to the moon. Send your contributions to NASA today and tell them to get on it right away. The future of science hangs in the balance. Wahkeenah 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't they just say NASA faked it again, this time with updated special effects? The only way to convince everyone would be for all of us to go to the moon together. Even then someone would deny that he was actually there, and challange anyone to prove that he wasn't just a brain in a vat. We went to the moon before, and some people say they don't believe it. If we go again, what difference will that make? Tom Harrison Talk 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There we are, back on comfortable AstroNot ground - ad hominem attacks. Disguise your lack of independent evidence by claiming that your opponents are too pig headed to accept any. Nice. For great justice. 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, really. Why would it be any more convincing next time? Tom Harrison Talk 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha. Apparently there is independent evidence. Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! You're starting to look for evidence, and think critically, instead of trotting out your tired and erroneous rhetoric! A victory for the article! For great justice. 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If they are eye-witness accounts of the landings, then yes. For great justice. 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes an eyewitness account special? Do you have a cite for your claim that an eyewitness account qualifies as indepedent evidence? --ScienceApologist 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the astronauts themselves, maybe the little green men on the moon that Apollo kept quiet about (according to one of the several hoax "theories") could be called as witnesses. Wahkeenah 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burden of proof, again

message: This pseudo-medical term has no accepted usage outside insulting people. It should go. For great justice. 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a well-used term in skeptical communities. --ScienceApologist 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a well used term of abuse on web forums devoted to disparaging critical thinkers. Can you demonstrate it's use in a respectable context? Actually, why don't you follow wikipedia policy, and source the claim? For great justice. 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no claim to make. The statement is neutral in terms of the description of the subject. --ScienceApologist 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, AstroNot thinking is clouding your logic. "There's no claim to make because... there's no claim to make. Because... I say so!". Erm, not good enough, start thinking critically. For great justice. 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for a thought-out explanation. --ScienceApologist 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't wait up. He's gone. Check his user page. Wahkeenah 23:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term 'pathological skepticism'

message: SA - why did you remove this? "Bart Sibrel responds to this by pointing out a common tactic of NASA proponents, to take a claim that hoax proponents do not make (for example that there are tens of thousands of conspirators), and then 'debunk' it." For great justice. 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bart Sibrel did not respond to this like that. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. He did. For great justice. 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to you providing evidence of this cause-and-effect relationship with a direct quote. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, these are the two section of his FAQ that I was thinking of. It is, I suppose, subtly different in semantics - I presume you are ok with me adding it back in slightly re-worded, since it does clearly relate to the point made about the thousands of people? For great justice. 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are both quotes I've seen before, but they are not in response to the points the statement was addressing in the article. I don't see Bart addressing this idea as such at all. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you mean they don't occur in the same interview transcript, then you're right. But of course it addresses the issue of the 10,s of thousands claim. For great justice. 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it only addresses the claim that 10s of thousands of NASA workers should verify Apollo. It doesn't address independent observers. --ScienceApologist 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal without explanation

message: No one could explain why the term conspiracy theory should be used, except in the context of reported insults by pro-NASA types - it is not a neutral term and has no objective meaning. For great justice. 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a conspiracy theory, in the objective sense of the term as used by journalists and academics. Tom Harrison Talk 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no objective sense. It's an insult. What definition are you using? For great justice. 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the references in conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a source for a hoax proponent that says calling the accusations a "conspiracy theory" is an insult? Or is it just your opinion that it's an insult? --ScienceApologist 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "conspiracy" works much the same way the word "cult" does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion. Historians do not use the word "conspiracy" to describe accurate historical reports. On the contrary, they use it to indicate a lack of veracity and objectivity.
“Reconstructing Reality: Conspiracy Theories About Jonestown” by Rebecca Moore http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Articles/conspiracy.htm For great justice. 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the Great Conspiracy, and the Catiline conspiracy, off the top of my head. Tom Harrison Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no question it's a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theorists don't like the term. Maybe something more politically correct, such as "Minority Report", would work better? Wahkeenah 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Apollo hoax proponents don't like the term "conspiracy theory"? ScienceApologist 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I presume none of them, because none of the ever use it about themselves. I can't produce evidence that they don't like the term "asshole", "fuckwit", or "bitch" either, I suppose you want to put those words in on the same logic? For great justice. 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike conspiracy theory, those are epithets; they have no non-pejorative use. We call the hoax narrative a conspriacy theory becuase that's what it is, and no alternate term accurately describes it. Tom Harrison Talk 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Except 'theory', 'accusations', 'claim' etc etc. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are accurate descriptions of the phenomenon as a whole. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant to say "all of them" don't like it, but I'm not sure; it's clear you don't like it, nor will I argue that it's necessarily a neutral term the way it's often used. Meanwhile, the middle of those three vulgarisms is a new one on me. Is that a Britishism? Wahkeenah 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite - and yes, I agree with you that it's not neutral. But Wikipedia should be. For great justice. 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Conspiracy theory can be used a pejorative, as can Dutchman. Conspiracy theory has a perfectly well-defined meaning, and is in current use by academics and journalists. I've told you where to look for the definition, and pointed you to the references by Barkun, Fenster, Melley, and others. Tom Harrison Talk 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We went through want to call the activists who run websites like Bad Astronomy before, and you did not recommend a better name for them. Please tell me what we should call them. For great justice. 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point. The two citations provided are to sympathetic websites. --ScienceApologist 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll ask (yet) again. What is the correct term for people who actively advocate for the NASA position? For great justice. 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax opponents seems to be a pretty good one. --ScienceApologist 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much like that. Actually, I don't know of any "NASA advocates" in the sense he means. The "advocacy" has come from the hoaxsters, putting interested scientists on the defensive. How about "The Defenders"? In any case, I think Mr. Justice is gone for good, unless he starts over with a new logon (and behaves differently). Check his user page. Wahkeenah 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theory - trying again, in the hope of getting an explanation, rather than insults

message: Please tell me,"Nearly all" behalf of which place's scientists and technicians,US? UN? Russia? China? If just behalf of US's scientists and technicians, then write "Nearly all interested US's scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless."
This is English Wikipedia, not the United States of America's Wikipedia. Must analysis clearly, our country's scientists and technicians maybe not believe this.--219.78.49.187 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to any notable non-U.S. scientists who disagree? Is there a reason we should think that this is just an opinion held in the U.S.?--DCAnderson 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AstoNot Logic here again. There is no evidence either way outside of the US. Better to say that, than to assume the rest of the world reflects US opinion. For great justice. 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the basis for your assertion that there was no independent verification, no tracking, etc.? Wahkeenah 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because none has been produced. Typical AstroNot logic. "I assume it's been independently verified until you prove it hasn't been..." Of course I can't prove that no one has verified the landing, but in the absence of any evidence, I'll say it hasn't been verified. That's the scientific method. For great justice. 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not assume it has been independently verified, because I don't know. How do you know? Who says none has been produced? And if that's true, then why do the hoaxsters bring up stuff about signals possibly being sent from earth orbit? Wahkeenah 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So you admit that you have not seen any independent verification of the landings, and that doesn't bother you. The hoaxers speculate on signals from satellites because it is a plausible hypothesis for the signals recieved from the ground stations. With no evidence triangulating the signals, there is no way to distinguish between that and the landing truth theory. For great justice. 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not studied that aspect of it in any kind of depth. I have vague recollections from the time that many places around the world were tracking them. Wahkeenah 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, that's ok then. If you have vague recollections, then that settles the matter. If only we all used AstroNot logic... For great justice. 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like NASA, I have other things to spend my time and money on besides trying to prove things that have already happened. Wahkeenah 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny! It needs no proof, because of your unshakable belief.  Classic Atronot logic. I know AstroNots don't like to stick to the point, but this thread is about evidence of opinion in other countries. I take it we agree that we don't have any, and simply saying that is the most honest thing to do? For great justice. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of "proof", but the hoaxsters won't accept it because of their unproven presupposition that NASA made it up. Show me something that contradicts the historical record. Wahkeenah 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And I do not agree that we don't have any, because I don't know if we have any. I must yield to the experts on this, if they haven't already abandoned this page by now. Wahkeenah 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, until the 'experts' chime in, it's fair to say on the page that we don't know of any, since any claim to have any would have to be sourced? For great justice. 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I didn't list any countries, but what about Philippe Lheureux, and his French language book? The fact is you have no evidence about belief outside the US either way (and we're talking about the general population here, not that there is any evidence about scientists either). Why can't you admit that and move on? For great justice. 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are French-language debunkers as well. I don't see your point. And actually, we were at one point talking about scientists, technicians, and space enthusiasts here. So I'm pretty secure in calling this point finished. --ScienceApologist 04:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are the French language debunkers? Are we to take them on faith too? For great justice. 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The French language debunkers live in France for the most part. I don't ask you to take anything on faith, Fgj. --ScienceApologist 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About "Nearly all" again

message: These are all tendentious. "Say" is often a more neutral choice. More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with these? Why are they not synonyms for 'say'? For great justice. 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More at words to avoid. Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see that its on that page, but I've never see an explanation. I'm happy with either, since I think they're synonyms, but I'm interested in why you think one carries more weight than the other. Whatever, I'm happy either way. For great justice. 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claim", in particular, carries an automatic bias with it, as it is shorthand for saying, "This is what they say, but I don't agree with it." "Point out" and "note that" are less confrontational. "Say" is totally neutral. Wahkeenah 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So why are you worried about places where hoax proponents 'claim' things? For great justice. 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more worried than about where "NASA proponents claim" things. It's every bit as prejudicial as the term "conspiracy theory" is, if not more so. Wahkeenah 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very fair. For great justice. 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! Nice attempt at inserting your POV again! The hoax theory is a theory in the scientific sense. What, out of interest, are your preffered alternatives to hoax and NASA proponent? Why a double standard? Oh, wait.. For great justice. 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way in hell that these allegations amount to a scientific theory. If they did, you should be able to introduce in the first sentence as such in an NPOV fashion. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they are a scientific theory. The theory is that there is a set of data (the NASA 'evidence') and two theories to account for it. One that NASA is telling the truth, the other that they are lying. An experiment can be designed to differentiate the theories (going to the moon) and the evidence of that experiment would tell you which is true. What's wrong with that? For great justice. 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theory != conjecture. Learn some basic philosophy of science. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That experiment has already been conducted. The hoaxsters failed. Wahkeenah 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, aside from insults and childish comments, why is that theory not valid? For great justice. 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a scientific theory because it doesn't have the features of a scientific theory. Go ahead and read the page on the subject. --ScienceApologist 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You havn't got anything apart from 'It just is', have  you. I've read that page - it's a theory. It meets all the requirements. Show me any that it doesn't meet. For great justice. 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "point out", "claim", "note that" 

message: Let's get this one settled once and for all. Read the Lunar Ranging article. The Russian mission placed mirrors on the moon. They returned ranging data. A mechanical failure  left them in a less than ideal position. This was a successful mission in that it proved that robot missions could place mirrors on the moon. Subequent failure of a motor is not the point. For great justice. 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the robot mirrors worked fine, and are a good proof that robot missions can place mirrors acurately. The fact that, on that particular mission, the lander later malfunctioned is not relevant. You know that, so I don't know why you continue to press the point. Oh wait, yes I do. For great justice. 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another point is that a soft-landing on the moon was well within the technological reach of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., despite the hoaxsters continued argument that we lacked the technology to get to the moon. Wahkeenah 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice change of subject. The russian mirror experiment proves that mirrors on the moon can be robot placed. Soft landing a robot without return capability is not the same problem as landing and returning humans. Capability to do one does not equal capability to do the other. For great justice. 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some (or many) hoaxsters have argued that a soft-landing on the moon was impossible. Clearly, they have not thought it through. Similarly, they argue that taking off from the moon was impossible. Well, they got it wrong once, so their odds of getting it wrong again are good. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As you point out, the hoax theories are not coherent, there are several different versions of them. That doesn't mean they are all untrue. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what missions could the US have used to put the mirrors on the moon. what was the launch date?Geni 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't go bringing technicalities into it. Wahkeenah 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but since we only have NASA records of the missions, I would be surprised if they include them. That is the importance of verification. For great justice. 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you have not proven that the only records are from NASA. Second, there is a presupposition (without proof) that NASA staged the events. Wahkeenah 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Moonshots require considerable lifting power. Launching them is a major event. So what was the launch date of these robotic missions?Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their best guess would probably be that the supposedly manned launches were actually these robotic launches. I suppose that when the astronauts appeared to be boarding the spacecraft, they were actually ducking down some secret escape hatch. Not that the conspiracists indulge in speculation or anything like that. Wahkeenah 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen no records from anyone but NASA. You have not shown any. I have not seen anyone else produce any. If they exist - where are they? I'm not going to make assumptions without evidence, that's AstroNot logic again. The hypothesis that NASA faked the landings is based on supposed errors in NASA's account of the landings. There is no third party record available. For great justice. 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit it on the head: "Supposed" errors. Everything the conspiracists come up with is easily shot down. They can't find anything or anyone to contradict the historical record. I keep waiting. I would love to have it exposed, if it's true. But there is no evidence of such. Wahkeenah 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Change the subject. There is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE for NASA's claims. I know you believe anyway, and that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs, but while I agree that the hoax claims are not proven, neither is NASA's case. For great justice. 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know that. Meanwhile, show me something to undermine my "faith" as you erroneously call it. If that Fox special is the best they can come up with, then why should I give the hoaxsters any credence about any argument they make on anything? Wahkeenah 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And you're entitled to define "independant" in any way you see fit, likely in such a way as to it not being possible to verify; according to a peculiar personal standard. Not just anybody could walk around the Apollo program, for obvious security reasons, and not just anybody can be shoved into a capsule to "verify" they are actually going to the moon. - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, so you're stuck in a corner. When asked to produce evidence for your position, you say you don't know whether any exists, and ask for evidence that you're wrong. This is like much pseudo science. This conversation is fruitless, since you don't have any independent evidence. If anyone else does, maybe they can chime in. For great justice. 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any evidence? Shazam! Wahkeenah 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes NASA-sponsorship non-independent verification? Why is it that just because someone is paid by NASA it is okay for the hoax-proponents to claim they aren't independent? Can you show any evidence that scientists and technicians are not independent when they are involved in NASA? The knife cuts both ways. You have to show that the evidence provided is "not independent" -- you can't just assume that it isn't. --ScienceApologist 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the constant circular reasoning of the hoaxsters. NASA lied, therefore NASA lied. I keep asking them for something to show that NASA lied. They've got nothing except their presuppository. Wahkeenah 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is the NASA sponsored verification? Please, produce anything - I'm happy to look at it. Regardless of the hoax, let's see any independent evidence. For great justice. 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if Bubba looked into his telescope during launch, saw the vehicles in orbit and leave orbit, that, instead of the evidence we do have in abundance would convince you? Oh wait, Bubba doesn't have image capture on his telescope, which are otherwise known as binoculars. My point is your definition of "independant" is likely laughable, and anything provided by say, other countries, could be dismissed as "unconvincing" or part of the conspiracy. Is there a compelling reason to find said evidence when you obviously have handily dismissed much of the evidence already presented in detail? - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an actual user on here named Bubba73, an interested scientist who has argued against the hoaxsters many times, but I haven't seen his name recently, so I'm guessing he's had enough of it (which I am getting close to also). So, in your example, instead of "Bubba", I suggest you substitute "Gomer" or "Goober". :) Wahkeenah 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am not a scientist - I just play one on TV! I still have this article on my watch list.  But when my watch list shows literally dozens of edits, I get discouraged.  Too many for me to check.  Also, it has gotten too heated here.  I think the discussion page should be about changes to the article, and much of it is like an argument on a blog or newsgroup.  I've had to cut down on my Wikipedia hours, and about a month ago, the majority of the time I have for Wikipedia was on this one article!  So I had to back off for a while.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and don't forget that your bumpkin of an observer might have seen Coke bottles, too. Wahkeenah 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case the apollo craft were spotted. Just rather outside LEO.Geni 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would presume anything that was touched by US/Soviet? government hands doesn't qualify, as it can be created by said conspiracy. Certainly a tidy way to remove the vast majority of the evidence from rational consideration. - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Of course, the idea that the US and USSR would/could have cooperated in this way in the late 60s, before detente and while the Vietnam war was at its height, and that this could have remained a secret (as in no verifiable evidence) from then until now, is ludicrous to anyone with an understanding of human nature, geopolitics, or both. --Guinnog 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As ignorant as they are of science and technology, it's no surprise they are ignorant of history as well. Wahkeenah 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirrors 

message: According to this link , Mr. Justice has been pulling our lariat: He doesn't believe the hoaxsters either. He's just challenging this article's presentation. However, he has been justifiably smacked around by Admins (i.e. temporarily blocked) for straying from that mission significantly by "stirring the pot" or "baiting" us, which is against wiki rules. So, while his motives may be valid, his methods have been questionable. Well, I did my part by trying to neutralize the article a tad, a couple of weeks ago or so, and now that I know what Mr. Justice's true position is, I feel like I can back off from this constant point-counterpoint stuff. Wahkeenah 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Algr 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That's why Mr. Justice has been temporarily blocked on one or more occasions recently. Wahkeenah 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seem unable to comprehend is that my and your points of view are not relevant to the article. Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and take it to heart. I have never claimed belief, but do take seriously the encyclopedia project. For great justice. 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the issue. It's your constant confrontational attitude, such as what you just displayed in the above comment. Wahkeenah 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Every element of confrontation originate with the pro-NASA. I have been invaliably polite except when confronted with refusal to engage constructively and abuse. For great justice. 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pushing a minority opinion about NPOV to prove a WP:POINT. And you violate WP:NPA as a matter of course. --ScienceApologist 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that user was indefinitely block at 20:14 UTC, which ought to quiet things down a bit. However, I concur with the user farther down the page, that this megillah should be archived sometime soon. Wahkeenah 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revelation 

message: "Since men did in fact land on the Moon on 21 July 1969, hoax...". Come on. Stop trolling. For great justice. 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source who says they didn't? Tom Harrison Talk 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to rise to your trolling. You know the npov policy. Please follow it. The whole article concerns the controversy over the statement you keep inserting as if it were uncontroversial fact. Stop it. For great justice. 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is an uncontroversial fact; no reliable source is available saying the moon landing didn't occur. That we recognize that and say so doesn't prevent us from neutrally describing the claims of the hoax believers. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll probably want to archive much of this in a week or so anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom needs some NPOV education... 

message: First Google video link, is there a response to that in the article? As I can't see it. - RoyBoy 800 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A response to what? The wilful overinterpretation of some indeterminate footage? If response is wanted, I'd recommend: "Mainstream opinion treats this as a perfect example of how loose methodology inevitably leads to fallacious conclusions." Adhib 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is solidly debunked here.Geni 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. We don't mention it because its not notable enough? - RoyBoy 800 05:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Like the waving flag argument, for example? Wahkeenah 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The concept is quite straight forward, in low Earth orbit (or any orbit for that matter) the spacecraft would be travelling so quickly the Earth below it would be noticeably moving (not just the clouds). This can be confirmed by bothering to watch any orbital footage. - RoyBoy 800 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, clue me in... What, exactly, is the "problem" with the video? Wahkeenah 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I did a calculation on this (probably back in an archive), and if the circular part of the Apollo was used to make it look like a distant Earth but actually in low Earth orbit, something would pass through the entire field of view in under a minute (I think it was).  It clearly doesn't do that.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean they're saying they used a fisheye lens or some such to emulate a hemisphere of the earth? Where did they go to college, Mad Magazine University? Wahkeenah 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Given the conspiracists' track record of ignorant and willfull distortion, I wouldn't trust any video clip that they claim anything about. Wahkeenah 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of these suggestions are so dumb I cannot believe they're being made. Did any of these people ever take a science class in their lives? Do they not understand that when you turn on lights in a room that is dark, light will reflect off the window? They really think that it's the Earth that shows up when they turn the lights on? How dense can one get? --ScienceApologist 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more to it than ignorance. The conspiracists are quite willing to distort information to push their bogus point of view. How do we know they didn't alter the video to try and make it fit their "theory"? Wahkeenah 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was watching the National Geographic channel show about this again the other day (titled Moon Conspiracy, I think.  Excellent, BTW - everyone should see it.)  Kaysing says that the F1 engine (the one used in the first stage of the Saturn V) was too unreliable.  Kaysing was in technical writing at Rocketdyne during their early part of the development of the F-1 (rocket engine), I think, and left about 1961.  Yes, there were problems with the early F-1 tests.  But about five years later, the problems were solved.  There were thirteen Saturn V launches, each one had five F-1s in it, and none of them failed in actual flights.  Yet Kaysing said that they were too unreliable... Go figure. Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, it's either ignorance or willful distortion. He based his assertions on when he left. So he was perhaps correct in saying the 1961 version was unreliable, but to continue to spout that when its problems were fixed amounts to fraud. It would be interesting to find out the circumstances under which he left. Maybe he was angry at NASA for some reason, and this moon hoax stuff was his way of trying to get back at them. I think it would be useful to investigate the motives of the moan hoaxsters. They want everyone to think they are innocent little cherubs who are only looking at facts and, at worst, misunderstanding them. But I have come to realize it's much more than that... those characters are guilty of what they accuse NASA of doing. Meanwhile, I see that someone posted a "POV" thingie on the article. However, it's from a red-linked user who posted nothing here explaining it, so I am going to take the liberty of deleting it. Wahkeenah 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  It takes imagination to see a flag flapping in a still photograph.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA - Apollo 11 How did they do it? 

message: Class G12 is doing its project work on space this term. Our teacher Mr Thomas says that our debate topic should be about whether we really went to the moon. I am in charge of the team that is debating that we did not go. Please could you help me to find information for this.
Thank you very much,
Juliw, Class G12.
*What is a nice, polite person like you doing in a disputed page like this? :) Well, your team should find some arguments by exploring this site with links. For your school project I may suggest that you check out the following link, to a fairly balanced site. I copy the general conclusion: "Despite several science based web sites intent on countering the conspiracy theorists, it is still possible to find what seem to be significant unanswered questions on the web. A reasonable person may conclude that 1. There are too few scientists willing to answer questions from the public about this historic experience, 2. It is disappointing and curious that NASA does not have an official open question and answer forum as a means of teaching science and generating interest in the US space program, 3. Some unanswered questions cast reasonable doubt on the official story." Your team should find some arguments to use here: http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003.htm
(Axlalta 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What an incredibly ignorant website!  I'll quote their first "unanswered question":   Gravity of Moon Doesn't Fit Neutral Point -- In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon. A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said "At a point of 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant" In 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles. The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%. A moon with 64% of Earth's gravity would require way more fuel and power than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions. -- STATUS -- AS YET UNANSERED The surface gravity of the Earth and Moon don't have anything to do with the neutral point. The neutral point depends only on the individual masses.  The surface gravity also depends on the radius of the body. Bubba73 (talk), 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And another thing - the distance to the neutral point varies, because the distance between the Earth and Moon varies.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify, the neutral point depends only on the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, and the distance between them (which varies by a significant amount).  The surface gravity of the moon depends only on the mass of the moon and the radius of the moon.  The mass of the earth and the distance to earth have nothing to do with it.  Secondly, spacecraft don't go on a straigt line from the earth to the moon.  Finally, when they say "200,000 miles" - that is a rounded number, not exact.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another advantage you'll have is that a question can't be 'wrong' - only an answer can.  This means that you can make up any question you want, and your opponent has to do all the research of finding the answer. Algr 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cynics "R" Us. 0:) Wahkeenah 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup.  I think that hardly any Moon hoax advocates really believe in their own theory.  Like FGJ, they just want to stir up trouble.  My own pet theory is that the purpose of the moon hoax is to discredit other issues by association.  "Oh those people who believe in / JFK assassination / Iraqi prisoner abuse / Global Warming are all just kooks like the moon hoax theorists."  Algr 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they even have their own theory?  I've never seen one say "here's what we believe actually happened with the moon landing, and here is the evidence supporting it."  Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with most conspiracy theorists, they claim that because they are being discriminated against, they don't have the resources to come up with the correct explanation: they can only tell that the "official story" is wrong. This is another good tactic if you're going to debate on the side of the hoax proponents: keep your head above the clouds and simply say that NASA didn't go to the moon, and when someone asks what actually did happen claim that you cannot find out because NASA spends all their 15 billion dollars in resources maintaining the coverup, killing off people, preventing research dollars from getting to the true believers, etc. --ScienceApologist 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Sir / Madam, 

message: For some similar reasons, the atomic bomb may have been fake too.  See webpage.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sometimes WP:NOR really really applies.Geni 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic bomb fake too?? 

message: This is to all the sceptics that have contributed to this article. Maybe it will change their mind.
To illustrate my point: only recently I was reading up on the Old Greeks. In one of their stories they write about having walked on the sun. Of course, initially I laughed, as I am naturally inclined to scepticism. Later, however, I began to think: what arrogance and what temerity of me to doubt that a people as intelligent and inventive, and as resourceful and imaginative as the Old Greeks could not have put a man on the sun. Of course, they lacked the computing power that was available in the nineteen sixties and seventies, let alone that of our age, but look at their imagination, their power of reasoning and their capacity for storytelling.
They must have known hardship, and then be able to overcome that hardship with the proper will of mind and the right amount of can-do attitude. They must have known adversity and set-backs. And then managed to counter that all.
And while I was pondering all this, I saw my mistake: never underestimate the power of the imagination. Even when rocket science was in its very early stages and the only computing power available to them amounted to no more than a few electrons running through a stick of amber rubbed against a piece of straw, the right amount of can-do attitude could have taken the Old Greeks to where they said they have gone. Putting a man on the surface of the sun may seem an impossible project for us people in the 21st century, to them it was a mere challenge and a truly achievable goal. There are times and situations where scepticism is due but there are also moments when it is totally misplaced and inappropriate. That is where scepticism goes overboard. Anon2 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They went there in fiery chariots. Wahkeenah 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this page a joke? Trepan 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much. Wahkeenah 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought there was a Japanese sattelite that had photographed the moon lander? Trepan 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, as of yet.  You are probably thinking of SELENE, whose launch has been delayed.  SELENE might be able to do it (I'm not sure). See this link. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, as discussed here before, photos (Clementine, I think) show something at the reported landing site of Apollo 15.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh. Do we know what? Where can I download those photos. Definative proof would shut these idiots up. Trepan 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From back in the talk archive, here and here.  Something disturbed the dust where the landing believers claim Apollo 15 landed, and it wasn't a meteor.  Can't see for sure what it was, though.  It may have been a secret unmanned landing to stir up dust.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you think so? I thought didn't think this was serious. How would you distinguish between the two? Trepan 22:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's being funny. A segment of the moonbats are willing to concede we might have soft-landed unmanned missions on the moon as part of the "coverup". That explanation is a compromise, to try to explain observable facts (such as the lunar laser mirrors) that don't square with their "theory". Wahkeenah 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, trepan, I was trying to be funny.  But even if we did have photos showing not only the lander, but even footprints, I don't it would convince everyone.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is not as much evidence as I thought there would be - I assumed this was a lunatic fringe theory, but, while I am not convinced, there are some serious questions. The article doesn't really reflect that. Trepan 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean there's not much evidence supporting the hoax claims, you're right. It is nearly a lunatic fringe theory, and all their questions have been answered. That doesn't stop them from asking those same questions over and over, though, and that's what keeps alive the mythology that somehow Apollo was a humbug. The conspiracists don't like having the questions answered in the article, because it undermines their "theory" and reduces the likelihood of recruiting new believers. Wahkeenah 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When scepticism goes overboard 

message: I find it strange there's no reference to the Soviets never reaching the moon.  I added this reference and it was promptly deleted.  If we can put in that the Soviet never cried fould we can also put in that they were never able to make it there (which brings some doubt as to whether we were able to since they beat us into space and logically would have at least eventually had the capability if we did.) User:165.200.82.195 14:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it once, because it is irrelevant as to whether or not Apollo went to the moon.  If my neighbor never made it to Disney World, does that mean that I didn't make it there?  If you study history, the USSR had many of the early space successes.  But by the middle of Gemini program, we were ahead.  They were planning for a moon landing about 1974.  Their big N-1 rocket blew up a couple of times, and they canceled the program.  They never announced that they were going to the moon by a certain date, or were going to beat us there.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russians had the same means and the ambition to go to the moon as us.  If your neighbor had the same means and ambition as you to go to Disneyland and you did go, most likely they would as well- especially if they were jealous of your trip and had pride at stake.  It's not concrete proof that you lied about going there because you claimed you did and had motive to lie about it while he couldn't make it no matter how hard he tried, but it's still a point worth noting. User:66.41.190.30  00:59 - 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial assumption would be incorrect. The U.S. economy was and is much stronger, and their technology and luck proved to be inferior as well. As Bubba points out, the U.S. started out behind, and then caught and passed them by 1964 or 1965. Their timetable for a lunar landing was 1974. Maybe they would have made it. But they had some launch-pad disasters, and they gave up. The U.S. could have given up after the Apollo I fire, but there was a national priority (i.e. budgetary money) to fix the problems and continue. If the Saturn V had exploded on takeoff of Apollo 8, that might have killed the program. But it didn't, and it didn't. Wahkeenah 01:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviets Never Reached The Moon 

message: The first photo, the one that the flat earthers use, shouldn't be the first photo... there are many more logical reasons to presume the landings were faked - not that i think they were - than this one, which is utterly daft. Saccerzd 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leadoff photo

message: Nobody in their right mind could call this article neutral: "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless," "hoax proponents tend to respond to them by changing the subject, or finding a new audience," "Hoax accusation opponents maintain that a key feature of all arguments questioning the moon landing is the unstated assumption that the burden of proof lies entirely with NASA and its supporters. [1] Hoax proponents' presentations often consist of questioning technical minutiae with the result that debunkers must research and answer all questions that the hoax proponents come up with, failure to do so being taken as proof of a moon landing hoax." "The accusations are a type of conspiracy theory, because the hoax argument centers on claims that conspirators in the possession of secret knowledge are misleading the public in pursuit of a hidden agenda," etc.
The whole article reads from the point of view that the landing did occur and those who question it are wrong and illogical.  This is not neutral.
Why would anybody even object to the Neutral POV tag being placed on this article is beyond me, it is so obviously biased. Fromos 22 June 2006
*You have a point, and you need to propose specific changes, which you have started to do. There is indeed too much editorializing. But you should thoroughly list your proposed changes here rather than starting another futile edit war as other complainants have done. For one thing, almost every statement you cite as being POV is demonstrably true. That doesn't mean it couldn't be re-worded to come across less whiney. Wahkeenah 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, too much editorializing.  On the other hand, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight this says not to give undue weight to small minority opinions. I don't believe that it reads from the POV that the landing occurred - it fairly examines each of the cliams of the hoax proponents.  In other words, it doesn't assume that the landing occurred.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. The article does not necessarily prove the landings occurred, it merely demonstrates that the hoaxsters' claims don't wash. As I've said before at least once, I started to watch that 2001 Fox special with some interest, to see what they had. When I saw their so-called "evidence", I knew this "hoax" claim was the real hoax. Wahkeenah 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I missed it, but Wahkeenah, has no-one ever suggested providing an Apollo hoax hoax page, telling the story of how Apollo hoax believers have been gulled? Adhib 11:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And I say again (and again) that those who complain about the "biased" nature of the article just want the one side presented without responses, giving the false impression that their questions have baffled the scientific community. The one-sided-claiming-to-be-neutral approach is the typical conspiracist agenda. Wahkeenah 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you have said that before. That's a generality. You need to define precisely how you think the article should be re-written. Wahkeenah 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See, here's the problem... you get these guys coming here and whining "It's POV! It's POV!" But their idea of "neutrality" is to present the questions without the responses. They don't want a "neutral" article. They want an article that presents only their side. If you've got a resolution to that problem, by all means present it. Wahkeenah 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting note about Fox is that they aired the Alien Autopsy film as if it were real.  Then later they had a show saying that the film was a hoax! Bubba73 (talk), 05:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody in their right mind could call this article neutral 

message: Please remove the word "interested" from the sentence "Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless."  The second half of the sentence is sufficient to establish which scientists, etc we are talking about, however the word "interested" unfortunately also means "having a stake in the matter"; a party with interest in the matter means something different from a party who finds it interesting.  This word casts a shadow of prejudice over the views of these scientists, etc., since it implies that their comments reflect in large part their personal interest in the matter.  (Especially since the word "interested" is the first qualifier).  Please remove just this one word.
Thank you.
User:82.131.188.6 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assert that "interested" adds something that the second half of the sentence ("who have commented on the accusations") does not.  In your opinion can a scientist choose to comment on the hoax without being "interested" in it?  Otherwise it's a very weird qualification: Not nearly all interested scientists etc who have commented on the hoax, but nearly all scientists etc who have commented on the hoax...!  BTW, "normal English usage" is not "encyclopedic English usage", as I hope you'll readily grant that "interested" especially means "interested party" in an encyclopedia.  BTW, even if we take interested to mean "finding interesting" it still casts a aspersions over the sentence, since it implies the group is self-selecting!  This is an unnecessary implication: it doesn't matter that a scientist takes an interest in something, it just matters that they comment on it in an official capacity.  Of course, the only reason any self-reflecting scientist would become interested in, for example, numerology, so that they could take the time to inform the people who believe in it that numerological coincidences are of no predictive (etc) value.  But the point is that it's not just that the scientist takes an "interest" in debunking (the only reason a scientist should be interested in non-science is for the sake of debunking) but rather without necessarily showing interest a scientist can comment on the fact.  Can you at least see how "interested" implies a significant and superfluous self-selecting criterion?
User:82.131.188.6 15:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please remove word "interested" from intro. 

message: If we're casting around the 'pedia for examples of other articles which manage to handle a fierce controversy in an encyclopaedic way, have we given proper consideration yet to the Holocaust denial example? Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming Apollo deniers are (quite) as emotive and cranky as Holocaust deniers. But the approach that article takes might prove helpful - treating the narrative itself as the primary subject for investigation (when it started, what its features are, who developed and upheld it), and hiving off the arguments within the narrative to a separate space. Even if y'all disagree, at the very least it might be useful to ask Apollo deniers: "In what respect does your method of enquiry differ from those used by holocaust deniers?" That could take us to the heart of the issue a bit more niftily? Jus' a thought. Adhib 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, I'll consider it some more later.  A difference, though, is that one claim is that the landing was faked, the other is that the holocost never happened or was greatly exagurated.  My initial response is that it might be good.  However, several years ago I went to a debate about creationism versus evolution.  The creationist spoke first.  The evolutionists presented the case for evolution, but they didn't respond to the creationist point by point.  I thought it would have been better to respond to each point.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are both valid comparisons with this issue. In all three cases, people falsify the truth for politically driven reasons. --Guinnog 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just political, it's of a religious nature, or nearly so (fully so, in the case of the evolution debate). Wahkeenah 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In this sense, politics and religion are as one. --Guinnog 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget Flat Earth - consider this model for achieving neutrality 

message: I have seen Donald Rumsfeld, present White House member, admitting the Moon landing was a hoax.
:I'be also seen him suggesting he was joking.
:Both were in the same TV-program: Opération lune (2002) (TV)
Please, someone upload this video onto the net, and please, someone bring in Rumsfeld for questioning. :) Maybe that way we can shed some light on the issue. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could post that next to the famous vid-cap of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Both of those bits would add equally to this article's value. Wahkeenah 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  research: Donald Rumsfeld 

message: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=4FBD8386-9129-4D08-AE1E-C0102CC592B2&f=imbot_us_m_2534&fg=copy
"Ares is a name that refers to mars and it connects to our vision of going to the moon mars and beyond."
Scott Horowitz, Nasa exploration systems 
Freudian Slip? I think it's painfully obvious that those in the know are aware of the technical hurdles of landing men on the moon.  This reminds me of watching NASA chief Dan Golden say in a TV interview that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention, or reference to the Apollo missions 37 years ago. Another freudian slip? lol. Noodle boy 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, they have a vision of merely making a successful shuttle launch. As memories of the shuttle program begin to fade, it's beginning to look like that was a hoax, too, ja? Wahkeenah 10:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it was easy to go to the moon, you haven't ready much about the history of Apollo. And the specific problems which caused two shuttles to explode weren't issues with the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo launches and landings as such. There were no side-by-size stages in which the flame from one could pierce the other; and there were no tiles on the capsules which could be banged into and dislodged by foam from a rocket. The point being that the shuttle and its accessories are rather more complex machines than Mercury-Gemini-Apollo machines were... which stands to reason, as they are part of the continuum, the evolution, of the NASA programs. Wahkeenah 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA says that they have a "vision of sending men to the moon" 

message: "Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. [15]"
"The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of 36 of the Apollo astronauts have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. (see Ms. Irene Schneider on The Space Show). (Plait 2002:160-162)"
This is strange and dubious. On the one hand it's suggested that the dosage is the same as an ordinary XRay exam. On the other that the fact that the astronauts developed cataracts was caused by this radiation.
Since XRay exams are so common, many people should develop cataracts due to them which would pretty much render the fact that the astronauts have cataracts as irrelevant when proving that they did go to the Moon. This kind of reasoning, linking an health problem to the presence on the Moon is only valid if that health problem is unlikely to be caused by something else. Saying the dosage was the same as an XRay makes this link tenuous at best.
This needs further explanation (I think I know why this could be true, but would rather have someone with a more in depth knowledge to clear this).
cvalente 11:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is ridiculous.  I think i'd rather listen to what MIT professors have to say then some dubious claims made by internet hackjobs. Pro Apollo sycophants seriously need to look at the issue more objectively.
"Solar Flares are produced by "storms" in the solar
magnetosphere. These eruptions yield very high
radiation doses within very short time periods
(hours to days). There is a correlation with the 11
year solar cycle. The largest events occurring in the
months following sunspot maximum. Solar flares
are cataclysmic releases of energy resulting from
processes that are poorly understood."
We went up to the moon during the peak of solar flare activity.  Somehow, a single X-ray doesn't correlate with "very high radiation doses" quoted by the MIT professor.
http://paperairplane.mit.edu/16.423J/Space/SBE/introduction/SpaceEnvironment.pdfNoodle boy 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put in most or all of the references to Plait, and the second paragraph in this section reads as if he made the statement about the cateracts.  I don't believe he did, but I'll have to wait until I get home to check.  Incidentally, no major flares occurred during an Apollo mission.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation inconsistensy in text

message: Someone added something about the various moon landings being "a" clip from a movie. You moon hoax believers might want to refine my edits a little more on that one. Wahkeenah 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone source that? I've never heard a suggestion that it was from a movie. Trendline 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read more about this. It's one of the hoaxsters hypotheses. Wahkeenah 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You may be right, but can you provide a reference to a hoax advocate who makes this hypothesis? Thanks! Trendline 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film clip? 

message: "This view is by no means shared by all hoax proponents. Many hoax proponents have argued that America lacked the technology to soft-land on the moon." Trendline 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one wants to back this statement up, I'll go ahead and take it out. Trendline 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to go ahead and implicitly argue that the hoaxsters agree we had the technology to soft-land on the moon, I've got no problem with that. It further undercuts their "theories" about the Apollo program. Wahkeenah 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not arguing anything, just taking out unsourced speculation. Trendline 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with taking out unsourced speculation, and I appreciate your efforts. However, you give the impression of someone who has not studied the hoaxsters' arguments very much. You should read all of the stuff on this page and in some of the archives. You will then get a different picture of how the hoaxsters think. Everything Bubba says about them is true. Their belief in Apollo being a hoax is like a religion, in that no amount of evidence confirming the Apollo flights will sway them. Some of them, I think, even if you personally flew them to the moon and showed them the Apollo remnants, would say the trip they just took had been faked. Wahkeenah 05:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You may be right, but our task here is to report the controversy using neutral, sourced references. Thanks! Trendline 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read all the references listed? --ScienceApologist 16:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Read some of the archives from the hoaxster cons. There might be some references listed, although it could just be their interpretations. Wahkeenah 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which ones?

message: I added a Hoax allegation link, to "hoax allegation links."  I added a neutral BBC moon hoax link to the neutral links section. You would be hard pressed to find a more neutral point of view than the BBC link I posted. In fact I would encourage you to follow their standards regarding NPOV.  If you would like to revert please have a cogent reason for doing so.24.7.34.99 10:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC is not 'neutral' (read "pro NASA") enough for SA! Trendline 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Noodle boy, you added a vanity site. That type of promotionalism is simply not allowed. The BBC site wasn't precisely "neutral" as it entertained the hoax ideas far more than a neutral treatement would. --ScienceApologist 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC is known for its scrupulous journalistic standards. They too are part of the conspiracy to smeer NASA now? It seems like only NASA is 'neutral' enough for ScienceApologist... Trendline 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SA. Is that the best you can come up with? A BBC presentation of the moon hoax article being a vanity site? Who's vanity is being promoted may I ask? If you engage in harmful reverts yet once more I will report you for vandalism.Noodle boy 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the site I was referring to. --ScienceApologist 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC link will be re-added. Your accusation that it entertains the hoax idea is ridiculous. It is a page about the hoax and it presents both sides of the argument.  Please do not engage in wikilayering, as it is against wikipedia's policies.Noodle boy 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: SA - please don't revert war. The BBC is a respected news source - the link is relevant and should stay. Carfiend 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC writeup adds nothing to the article. All it does is restate the arguments already presented on various pages. However, we need more redundant external links on this page, so we might as well keep it. Wahkeenah 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, by the way, that BBC article tilts toward the hoaxsters. "The Apollo astronauts claim their flags had horizontal poles across the top, which kept them extended" ??? It was reported at the time, and besides that, a four-year-old idiot could verify it from the photos. Wahkeenah 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Apologist 

message: If someone claims something, without providing evidence, we should report that they say it, but not state it as fact. NASA says that they have the blueprints, or, at least, a website says that they say they do, but who has seen them? Trendline 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting unverified claims

message: What purpose does this serve? "The German magazine Der Spiegel speaks of "...those myths in which Elvis is alive, John F. Kennedy fell victim to a conspiracy involving the Mafia and secret service agents, the Moon landing was staged in the Nevada desert, and Princess Diana was murdered by the British intelligence services."" - while it's a pop culture ref in a magazine, I don't think it really makes any significant contribution - so what if a german magazine says that? What does it tell us? Certainly little about opinion in general. Anyone want to defend it staying? Carfiend 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: totally irrelevant information.  It should definitely be removed. Also, it violates NPOV.24.7.34.99 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it helps put it in perspective.   Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? It's hard to tell whether this is representative of German press coverage, or is an outlier. I don't see how it really establishes more than what the person who wrote that article thinks. It doesn't even give us the editorial perspective of the magazine. Carfiend 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Der Speigel's quick way of lumping various conspiracy theories together. I notice they left out the Holocaust denial, although I'm thinking there may be a German law against denying the Holocaust, so including Holocaust denial would be pointless. Wahkeenah 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but what authority does this article in Der Speigel have to tell us anything more than what that article writer thought at the time? We could find a magazine article quote for more or less any pov we like, it's not really an authoritative source, is it? Carfiend 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, that author is every bit as knowledgable about Apollo as the moon hoaxster cons are. However, I would not necessarily argue in favor of keeping it here, because it's merely one of a gazillion sound bites. It would be more appropriate to put it on the page about conspiracy theories. Wahkeenah 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to take it out, since it stands out to me as a random quote without any real justification for why that particular quote from that magazine adds anything to the argument being made. Carfiend 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like it to remain, as it's a verifiable quote from a reputable source which perfectly sums up how the majority of informed people think of this matter. In fact, all three conspiracy theories mentioned there have more actual evidence to support them than the moon landing hoax does. Only the Princess Diana one comes close in its pure urban myth-hood to the idea that many knew the Apollo program was a hoax, all went along with it, and none, nearly 40 years on, have come out and said so. When you consider that these people would have included scientists from all countries, including many which were openly hostile to the US and would have exposed the fake if there was one in a heartbeat... All in all this is a very good and very fair article. If anything it is too open to the idea that there is any truth in these unverifiable and unverified allegations. --Guinnog 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I take your point, but I don't understand how you know that this is representative of what (germans? everyone in the world?) people think of this. It seems like pop commentry, and out of place in the section it's in. What about moving it to the public opinion section if you really want it? Carfiend 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is the assumption that those other items in the list are all bogus. I don't think many seriously question whether Elvis is dead, and even if he were alive, it wouldn't really matter. The Mafia connection to JFK remains a possibility, because they certainly had a motive to shoot him, although the vast Oliver Stone fantasy conspiracy is unlikely... and it is still unclear whether Diana's wreck was caused strictly by a drunken driver or by interference from other drivers. So on that basis alone, its presence is questionable. Wahkeenah 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German magazine?

message: I added some words to what another user started. I'm not altogether happy with it. It might be better to be in outline form: Total hoax (totally faked); Partial hoax (only some of it faked); Coverup (no hoax, but some of it censored); or whatever. Wahkeenah 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've added - what's the difference between one and two in your mind? Is it that in one nothing leaves the ground? Carfiend 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, or at least that nothing leaves earth orbit. Wahkeenah 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax believers arguments 

message: Someone added citation requests for the missing data - this was cited, but someone removed them saying moonhoax was not a good source. While it may not be in general a good source, I think it is a good source for what hoax proponents believe. Carfiend 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to distinguish between reporting facts and reporting opinions here. If we report that the missing data is a fact, then moonhoax is not a good source. If we report that "moonhoax says that data is missing" then it is a good source. Only question is if moonhoax's opinions are notable enough to be talked about in this article. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site hosts videos of the NASA folks saying the tapes are missing. I guess they could be faked... Carfiend 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely, but the PDF file I posted a link to up above would appear to be a much better source for information on the tapes. It explains what happened to them and where they're supposed to be, rather than just claiming that they're missing. Mark Grant 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/07/13/1654200.shtml
:: Yeah, that's where I found a link to the PDF. I'd found a reference elsewhere to the tape they'd been given which was believed to have Apollo 11 video footage on it but turned out to be some old test data, I hadn't found the PDF before now. I've added a brief summary of the contents of the file to the missing data section, and a reference link. Mark Grant 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny! That tape with the lighting boom on it is 'old test data'! What's that? A Coke bottle you say? 'old test data'! Funny! In all seriousness, actually having this data would be powerful proof, since it would be virtually impossible to fake it all correctly. Shame it doesn't appear to exist... Carfiend 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI Slashdot

message: I think it's getting past time this talk page was archived again, but I have no idea how to do it... Mark Grant 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll have a go... if I screw up we'll have to revert it :). Mark Grant 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page size