Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 1

message: Update : I added the point that currently the only direct source of evidence for the lunar landings comes from those with access to the moon, given that telescopes cannot resolve the lunar landing sites (a point which I hope is generally accepted) and was snipped out of hand, first for lack of sources, and then on a sophism. I'll leave the subject alone now since I've learned what I came here to learn about wikipedia. Richard 15:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *"....doesn't belong on Wikipedia" - I couldn't agree more. Cheers --PhilipO 17:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *You're wrong about the "degree of certainty". It has the same "degree of certainty" that we soft-landed a vehicle on Mars recently, which I'm guessing you do believe happened, because it happened in your lifetime. Every question the doubters have asked about the Apollo program has been answered and explained over and over again, and it's like trying to teach the Chinese alphabet to a tea leaf: It's beyond hopeless. FYI, unicorns probably did exist, just not in the form we think. However, your last comment, that the article does not belong in wikipedia, is A BIG TEN-FOUR!!! Wahkeenah 17:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: **You and your fellow doubters keep (understandably) evading the issue: What specific question(s), not already explained, do you have about the Apollo missions? As regards "faith", how do you know that anything you did not personally witness or live through is true? I argue that any historical fact of that nature requires "faith" on your part. Wahkeenah 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Well, in that case no historic event can be proven, since none are repeatable - you are just being told that certain events took place and can accept it or not. That is a general problem with any thing in the past and doesn't apply in particular to the Apollo moon landings. Afterall, we could all be brains in vats and nothing might objectively exist. This is a rather pointless discussion so I won't be chiming in any further. Cheers --PhilipO 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: **Roger that. The event called World War II, for example, also has to be taken on "faith". You can no more "prove" that World War II occurred than you can "prove" that the Apollo missions occurred. The only proof we have of any historical, i.e. non-repeatable event, are documents, photos, objects and eyewitness accounts. The space program has plenty of those. The doubters have nothing, except ignorant misinterpretations and ego-driven fantasies. These are guys who watch the "Matrix" movies (or "Capricorn I") and think they're documentaries. Wahkeenah 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Such as what? And how would I know you weren't faking the evidence to try to prove your point? As a parallel example, a Christian fundamentalist, a guy with a college degree, in fact, once told me in all apparent seriousness that dinosaur bones might have been put in the ground by Satan to deceive us into thinking that evolution was real. That is exactly the mentality that has been demonstrated by the Apollo accusers. Wahkeenah 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: People have used radio carbon dating to prove WWII happened? Joshuaschroeder 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to put this back in context. My argument is that there is no way that one can prove that man landed on the moon in 69. You cannot investigate directly, and you cannot even investigate remotely, therefore it has to be taken on faith. Someone then suggested that all historical events have to be taken on faith, but this is not true. Historical events on earth are regularly investigated using Archaeology, Forensics and other branches of modern science, because it IS possible to investigate directly historical events on the earth.
Richard 09:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there is no way anyone can "prove" to your satisfaction that any event off the earth has happened, such as the recent Mars landings which could just as easily have been video coming from the Mojave Desert. And your argument about scientific techniques for events on earth also requires "faith" that they are being used honestly and correctly and that they are demonstrably valid... which many creationist religionists (probably a lot more than the famous 6 percent) dispute vigorously and have tried to legislate against. I say again (and again and again) that the Apollo program was part of a still-ongoing evolution of space exploration; that there is plenty of evidence that it both could have happened and did happen; that there is no evidence that it didn't happen, i.e. that the accusers' challenges to the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny; and that the accusers began pushing this stuff after it was "safe", i.e. after we were no longer flying to the moon. Wahkeenah 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article fails to address the point that it is not currently possible to empiracally prove the lunar landings occured, and that therefore all discussion on the point is moot. Were we discussing This Article I wouldn't complain about tacit acceptance of the landings, but this article takes the position that the landings are unequivocable and this is empirically impossible to say. Therefore this article is not fit for wikipedia. The article should read something like : Some people believe that man has never landed on the moon, and while it is empirically impossible to make a judgement, the vast majority of people disagree with this position. The End. Richard 11:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your logic is as flawed as the arguments used by the moonbats, but I can't argue with your concept of brevity. Why don't you go ahead and apply the Wikipedia "Be Bold" credo, and do exactly that. Start with a clean slate and see what happens. >:) Wahkeenah 11:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  And by the way, you keep evading my questions: For one, can you prove we soft-landed an unmanned vehicle on Mars recently? Wahkeenah 11:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not avoiding it, it's just not what we're discussing. But the same applies to that misison, I cannot proove either way whether or not man has landed something on Mars. As I said before, for many reasons I find it more plausible.Richard 12:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a good one! :) I see you had to revert a second occurrence of that "waving flag" nonsense. That little episode is a microcosm of why trying to debate this issue is akin to spitting into the wind. No matter how many times you explain it, they ask the same questions again. By the way, Christian fundamentalists are also quick to point out that carbon-14 is unreliable because of its plus-or-minus uncertainty factor which becomes larger the farther back you go, and is thus also a tool of the anti-Christian secular-humanist conspiracists who assert that the earth is over 5,000 years old or whatever. And the user above has inadvertently raised a related issue. He doesn't have to prove anything to me, and the people who ran the Apollo program don't have to prove anything to him, either. It is the accusers who claim that this did not happen, so as with any court of law, the burden of proof is on them. It is they who must prove something contrary to accepted history, and they cannot, because they have no contrary evidence. But they do have their "faith" or "belief" that Apollo was a humbug, and that's all they need to keep harping on the same already-addressed issues, over and over again. Now, let me surprise you with something: I would be very willing to consider the possibility the moon landings were fake, if you had anything. I watched that show in 2001. The accusers have nothing! Wahkeenah 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article fails to address the key issue

message: I remember seeing some documentary talking about Area 51,stating that this is the area where the supposedely hoax landing was filmed.I'm not an American,and so I'm not aware at all about Area51,I know that even for an American it would be tough to get info on it,but the media there must have stories on it,I would appreciate it if someone would put some info on it here.I've seen many videos on the issue of hoax landing,and all of them are biased towards one side or another.Whenever I see one I'm totally convinced that one side is right.I think people should really make unbiased reports and documentaries.Just an intresting fact,just look at the image "As11-40-5886",Neil Amstrong is in a shadow region and yet you can clearly see him!!And to this even the explanation of various sources of lights is not valid.And also,somebody conveniently deleted some facts i wrote on the page.
:How many times will we have to explain this? Perhaps we should create some sort of 'bot to do it. He is visible due to the ambient light from the Moon's surface. His white spacesuit reflected much of the light that fell on it from all directions. Look up the External links for all your answers. Cheers --PhilipO 18:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PhilipO please dont get personal with this after all it really doesnt affect us whether its a hoax or not,However theres another flaw,As far as I know,metals are the best reflectors of light,Then why isnt the Lunar Lander reflecting light like Neil's spacesuit?Prateek01 14:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how did I get personal? This issue has been explained countless times on the Internet - that is what I am saying - and that is not a personal attack. Insulting you (which I didn't) would be getting personal. Cheers --PhilipO 16:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the government denies the existence of Area 51. But knowing what the government is these days, that means it does exist. Davidizer13 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Area 51 is where the WMD's are. Wahkeenah 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not; I think they went straight from Libya to Oak Ridge for demilitarization. :)  Tom Harrison (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Area 51 hold any importance with this issue?

message: Unlike some other conspiracy theories, this theory is falsifiable. Observations can be made--for example, through powerful telescopes or via new moon landings--of the physical evidence....
Well, if I'm not already convinced previous landings are legit --I am -- why should I believe evidence from (alleged) new landings? --Calieber 13:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  China's got a rapidly growing space program. If they go to the moon and the reports of radiation, the photography, and so on match NASA's own from three and a bit decades ago, it'll either prove that NASA are correct, or insinuate that China are co-operating with the US in a "hoax" or for some reason attempting to copy the US's 1960s-70s "hoax" without fixing any of the "mistakes" listed here. I'll bet dollars to donus regarding which conclusions each side will draw. Sockatume 05:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsifiable?

message: "In a recent twist, the son of Nikita Khrushchev (the Russian Premier at the time of Apollo) related meetings between his father and John F. Kennedy. JFK apparently offered the USSR a deal to agree to USSR/US missions to the moon. The Soviet leader said "No" initially, but then changed his mind some months later. Khrushchev's son said that, before his father had a chance to seal the deal, members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas. "
:Interesting though this nugget of information is. I don't see that it is in anyway relevant to the hoax theory. Mintguy 16:01, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may have got carried away - take it out if you like, it seemed to me that, though it did not relate to the hoax, it did muddy the waters of the moon landing conspiracy theory. :) As I say, I'm happy for you to take it out if you don't think it belongs here. 2toise 16:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: You might be right - do you want to have a crack at finding a better home, or just remove it? 2toise 04:46, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a more pressing question: is it true - not President John F. Kennedy's joint manned lunar landing proposal (I know all about that) but the assertion that Sergei Khrushchev has claimed "members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas" before his father had a chance to seal the deal? This is not what Sergei Khrushchev contends in his book, 'Nikita Khrushchev and the Making of a Superpower' (Penn State Press). Would someone be so kind as to provide me with links/references so I can further my understanding on this matter? Thank you very much. 195.188.152.10 22:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Khrushchev

message: Here's another moon hoax!  I wonder, should we turn this into a page on (alleged) moon hoaxes, or keep this one as an Apollo landing page and find another home for this?2toise 12:08, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 1800

message: It is alleged that in early 1968 (while 2001 was in post production) NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three moon landings. He initially said he was not interested, but, apparently, NASA convinced him using a combination of carrot and stick; exclusive access to the alien artifacts and autopsy footage from the Roswell crash site, and threats to publicly reveal Raul's (Kubrick's younger brother) links with the American Communist Party. 
Kubrick is alleged to have spent sixteen months working on the project with a  special effects team led by Douglas Trumbull on a sound stage in Huntsville, Alabama, with the Apollo 11 missionbeing staged in July of 1969.
Allegedly a Saturn V rocket was launched into low Earth orbit with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins remaining there while Kubrick's footage of the 'landing' was released to the press. The return to Earth and splashdown were, of course, real. 
Several months later, the Apollo 12 mission was successfully staged in a similar manner. 
Randall Cunningham was later recruited to direct a 'failed mission' - Apollo 13.2toise 12:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kubrik connection

message: 10 astronauts died under mysterious circumstances during Apollo.
Deaths:
*Ed Givens (car accident) 
*Ted Freeman (T-38 crash) 
*C. C. Williams (T-38 accident)
*Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident)
*Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire) (outspoken criticism of the Space Program)
*X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut but had flown X-15 above 50 miles (technically he could be considered an astronaut along with a number of the other X-15 pilots).
*Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash shortly after reporting for duty to that program. 
*NASA worker Thomas Baron was a murder and a coverup of a 500 page report on the Apollo 1 accident.
--------------------------------------------------------
Some facts:  Freeman ran into a flock of geese while 
trying to land at an airport near Houston.  (Possibly
the geese were working for the conspiracy.)  He tried
to eject but he was too low, and "zero-zero" ejection
seats weren't standard gear in those days.
Elliot See and Charlie Bassett tried to land at the
airfield near the McDonnell plant in very foul weather.
They were going there to get Gemini simulator time, along
with Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan in another T-38.  
Stafford was leery about going in and banked off, only to
be surprised when See, piloting the other T-38, broke 
away and went straight in.  
Deke Slayton judged See at the bottom rank for flight
skills; See blew the approach, throttled up to lift off 
for another go-round, and clipped the building where the Geminis were being put together.  The T-38 flipped into 
the parking lot. There were over a dozen injuries to 
innocent bystanders, fortunately all of them minor.  The 
T-38 might well have gone square into the building, 
spreading carnage and, incidentally, destroying the Gemini
capsules being built there.  
CC Williams augured in near Tallahasee in a brand-new
T-38; he ejected too late.  This the only one of these
three incidents that could be regarded as suspicious, 
since the T-38 left little but a crater and metal 
scraps -- it hit at high speed -- and the cause
was never determined.  It was judged likely to be a
manufacturing glitch.  greg goebel
*These deaths only appear suspicious to the conspiracy theorists.  It's parallel to those who claimed there were a lot of suspiciously "early" deaths of those in some way connected to the JFK assassination, without any reference to actuarial tables of the population in general to see if there was any statistical significance, because that might have undercut their hypothesis.  Test pilots die all the time.  Someone should study the stats for deaths of test pilots in general and see if there is any statistical significance compared with those connected with the space program.  By the way, everyone involved in the Lincoln assassination is now dead.  Sounds fishy to me!  Wahkeenah 16:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspicious Deaths

message: Thought I should point out, since somebody's offered it as evidence further up this talk page, that the French "documentary" Dark Side of the Moon, about Stanley Kubrick's involvement in the fake moon landings, is - interviews with genuine Kubrick family members and US Government bigwigs notwithstanding - not true. And not meant to be true. The out-takes during the credit sequence ought to be a dead giveaway, even for people who hadn't noticed that several of the interviewees were named after characters in Kubrick movies. (And that joke about the Acidic Jew - oy.)
*Statement on the film-makers' site
*a list of some of the tip-offs in the film
—Paul A 03:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Kubrick "documentary"

message: Can we go back to disprove? I think falsify is a little confusing in this context because of the possible interpretation of 'falsifying evidence'. We are talking about the relative easy with which the theories could be proved false, not faked. 209.102.127.144 03:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsify?

message: Re: (+"No qualification is offered to support this claim of "more accurate" mirrors, nor is any correlation shown between the "accuracy" of mirrors to their placement in arbitrary locations on the moon.")
I don't care to get in a revert match, but the statement above can not possibly be substantiated, because it is in a passive voice that fails to limit the scope of "who" is not offering such evidence, and says nothing about to whom the evidence might have been offered. Further, it is unlikely that an unpaid Wiki volunteer has conducted exhaustive interviews at NASA to determine what NASA has offered. The claim would have merit if the editor did the research and provided to us evidence of the comparative accuracy of the two mirrors, allowing for changes in the ability to accurately place mirrors by robot in more recent years. SoCal 21:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: totalism

message: This article is biased towards opponents of a moon landing hoax. See statements like:
"That the hoax believers can only produce 2 other suspicious deaths amongst the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo indicates just how far they must reach to try to support their conspiracy theories.
:This is a wiki - edit it if you like - remember the principle that we should be writing from a Neutral Point of View! Mark Richards 16:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: It is worth noting that during the lunar scenes in 2001 Kubrick's Earth appears as a white/great ball, rather than the continents clearly outlined... I think this is significant and should be mentioned.
*Stanley Kubrick was a movie director, not a scientist.  His name should not even come up in this article.  Wahkeenah 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kubrick 

message: I added the note about amateur astronomers and amateur radio operators tracking the Apollo spacecraft. I personally saw Apollo 13 through a 10" telescope a few hours before the explosion. Rsduhamel 23:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've added that the explosion was seen from Earth. I always understood that what people saw was that the spacecraft started to be surrounded by a 'cloud'. Evil Monkey → Talk  23:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
If there is a conspiracy it involves not only NASA and the US government but all professional and amateur astronomers working at the time in all countries of the world, many of whom would have been
delighted to prove the US never got to the moon.
Exile 11:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sightings by amateurs 

message: Barely mentioned at all is (for me) the best counter-argument to the hoax theory is: "Why didn't the Soviets even suggest it was faked?"
The Soviet Union had some of the greatest scientists in the world, and a space programme of its own including robotic landings on the moon. They had no interest in protecting America's propaganda coup, so why on earth didn't the Soviets disprove the moon landings?
They had the technology, they had the expertise, they had no motivation to lie about the moon landings. If they'd had the slightest bit of evidence the landings were faked, you can bet they'd have announced it very very loudly. Yet we didn't hear a thing about faked landings from the USSR, ever.
Why isn't more made of the silence from the Soviet Union?
Many conspiracy theories are based more on motives than proof (e.g. "The mafia must have killed Kennedy because he cracked down on them" etc), but this is one case where the motives are irrefutably against the conspiracy theory. It's almost impossible to imagine any rational motivation why the USSR would conspire with the USA to deceive the world into thinking America got to the moon first.
Agreed -- this argument was brought forward in an edition of the Skeptical Inquirer one or two years ago, and is -- in my opinion -- the single best argument to shut up most arguments on the topic -- unless you are dealing with a hard-core conspiracy theorist who believes the Soviets were in on the hoax (don't ask, they do exist!)
--62.153.157.219 12:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet Union: no friend of America 

message: There is a lot of vague stuff here.  We have claims and rebuttals in the text by "skeptics", "apollo believers" and other vague terms.  I've copy edited to keep it impersonal where no reference is given, and to attribute where possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit

message: This was posted in the article by anonymous user 81.129.185.119 and is too funny (and on-the-mark) to just obliterate:
:Overall, the landings were real. Those who believe otherwise are probably stupid or ignorant. Despite all the counter-arguments to the above points, the greatest is that they were all theorised by weirdos. It seems somewhat co-incidental that those who 'realised' this particular 'truth' all live in caravans and drink their own blood
Now, who can argue with that? Wahkeenah 23:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny POV 

message: Today, a brilliant thought occured to me when I watched the Space Shuttle take off again 
after a two years' interval.
Now that the Bush administration and NASA have expressed their desire to go back to the 
moon, and since this is not possible with the Space Shuttle, which today finally, after a 
lot of problems and huge investments, is able to only put itself into earth orbit again, 
here's the following proposition: dump the entire ramshackle Shuttle program, get out the 
old drawings and technique from more than 35 years ago, forget progress and modern computing, and just exactly rebuild the whole Apollo program. It will save huge research and development costs and guarantee that before this 
decade is over we have people on the moon again.
Apollo had a success-rate of more than 85% and took us to the moon and back. And that 
with the technique of more than 35 years ago. Compared to this, the Space Shuttle, with 
all its modern technical achievements, is a lame vehicle. It cannot take us beyond earth 
orbit and it cannot take us more safely back to earth.
In short, if everything went so brilliantly during those marvellous early seventies: drop 
that lame Shuttle and bring back Apollo. Sometimes life can be so simple... Anon2 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be onto something. The only thing lacking in your argument is a reason to go there... the very same question that ultimately truncated the Apollo program once we had landed there a few times and had only a few rocks and nice photos to show for it. Wahkeenah 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem with that plan is that you just can't fire up the production lines and be off again. For starters the production lines no longer exist. You would need to rebuild a whole infrastructure that surrounded the Apollo program. For instance if you at Kennedy Space Center, you now need to "unmodify" the Vehicle Assembly Building, launch pads, Mission Control, back to what they were during the Apollo era. The blueprints for all the equipment are all still around but we are 40+ years on from when they were created and so many of the manufacturers no longer exist (for instance on the Saturn V, Boeing was the lead contractor on the first stage. It now owns the lead contractors on the other two stages(North American Aviation and Douglas Aircraft Company), with North American also being the lead contractor for the Apollo Command/Service Module). Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The space shuttle is engineered to go to orbit. It is designed to be a truck. The original appolo program had several flaws.  --Cool Cat My Talk 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Back: Proposition

message: I think there is a significant comunity, at very least NASA and US gov disputes/explains every detail we mention in this article. Hence the tag is aproporate. All conspirasies are contraversial, hence the tag. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles disputed tag/contraversial tag

message: Stars were easily seen by every Apollo mission crew...
Not true. The Apollo 11 crew, at their press conference, report that they have not seen any stars. Rik G. 23:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a source for that assertion? Wahkeenah 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The press conference itself and footage of it. Anon2 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If true, I'm not that surprised they couldn't see stars. The brightness of the earth, moon and sun probably interfered, just as a full moon tends to make for bad stargazing here on earth. I'm curious to hear more about the context of the question, though. Wahkeenah 01:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I saw footage where (I think) Brittish astronomer Patrick Moore asked the question, and they could not see stars from the surface of the Moon.  Bubba73 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars

message: There could be some interesting psychological or sociological questions about why this idea achieved significant currency.  I think one is that the Apollo landings now have a rather dream-like quality about them, since it all took place in a relatively short time a few years ago and we have not gone back.  Also obsessive study of the photographs etc. may appeal to a certain type of mind. PatGallacher 12:27, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
You're right on the money.  Keep in mind that these claims surfaced in the wake of the 1960s assassinations, Vietnam War and Watergate, so there was a lot of distrust of the government (unlike now - ha!) and it definitely appeals to a certain type of mind... the kind that is always trying to find hidden meanings in things, or different realities.  In fact, it's similar to what was going on at the time, of going over every scrap of evidence about the JFK assassination, trying to figure out who "really" did it (the government, of course!) and denying the obvious.  Someone cooked up this idea, based largely on ignorance, and it took on a life of its own.  It falls into the same category as stuff like ancient astronauts, bigfoot, the Bermuda triangle... taking a few observations, leaving out obvious contradictions and logical explanations of those observations, and weaving an alternate reality.  It's like starting a new religion or some such.  It's basically anti-scientific.  And it's no accident that believers in these alternate realities are often Luddites.  Wahkeenah 15:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology

message: Collins certainly couldn't see 'em: apollo11_pressconference.wmv Anon2 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not _quite_ what he said. What he did was was that on the DAYLIGHT side of the moon, when they weren't looking into appropriate optics, they didn't see stars (duh).  Nor when they were photographing the solar corona (also duh) -- Rick Boatright 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Armstrong who said that (duh to you). Collins is the guy who says "I can't remember seeing any". He stayed in the Command Module all the time. He was never on the moon... Anon2 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but Collins was talking about "during photography of the solar corona."  Which was done on-orbit, not from the surface, they were _all_ on-orbit when those observations were taken. Rick Boatright 02:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Collins was talking about Armstrong's "I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see". Now what is it? Did Armstrong see stars or didn't he? From this statement it looks like he did see stars  (during photography of the solar corona) but cannot recall what stars they were. Anon2 10:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: How to simulate the apollo stars problem:  Go outside on a dark night.  Take a sheet of white paper with you. Obstruct half your vision with the sheet of white paper.  Light it very very brightly. Say, 10 flashlights.  Look at the unobstructed sky and see if you see stars (you won't.) Rick Boatright 11:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars II

message: Mean distance from earth:
*ISS: 350 km
*Space Shuttle: 1000 km (max.)
*Moon: 384,400 km
Anon2 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: The equipment itself was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required for the astronauts was open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture. 
Impossible: the Hasselblad cameras had no automatic exposure and no viewfinder. Anon2 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They used a modified camera with four "stops" in the focus.  I think the choise of exposure had just a few presets too.  Bubba73 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: I heard they were planning to go to the moon
Is this true?
Dudtz 8/28/05 6:58 PM EST
Yeh, but we'll have the last laugh on them... we're selling them the Shuttles. >:) Wahkeenah 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peoples Rupublic of China going to the moon? 

message: It has been asserted that the policy of Neutral Point Of View is “absolute and non-negotiable”. This article is in contravention to that policy in a number of respects.  Firstly it places the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations in a category of ‘cranky conspiracy theories’. This has the effect of discouraging a fair consideration of the arguments of those who have analysed the data and concluded that Apollo 11 and subsequent manned missions to the moon cannot have taken place. The author(s) asserts that “Nearly all interested scientists have rejected the claim, considering it to be baseless. In short they consider this claim (that the moon landings did not occur) to be the actual hoax.” If by ‘interested scientists’ the author(s) refers to the vested interests of those who seek to discourage a fair and impartial evaluation of the data, the statement is accurate, but if, as one assumes, ‘interested scientists’ refers to members of the scientific community who take an interest in this matter, then the author’s claims are pure rhetoric and propaganda designed to support his or her own partially veiled views. There are, in fact, many highly trained scientists among those people who question the reality of the Apollo missions as well as experts in photography, filmmaking and, dare one say it, ordinary laypersons of average intelligence. The general problem is that the emotional and psychological investment that the average American citizen has in the reality of the Moon landings and the prospect for America’s loss of dignity and self-confidence should the hoax accusations be found to be true dissuades objective and impartial analysis. However, the facts remain and will not go away. The most elementary truth which stands behind the video and photographic anomalies, the silence of the astronauts etc - and not mentioned in this article - is that any serious rocket scientist knows that the performance specifications of the Saturn V rocket are utterly incommensurable with the proposed journey of 480 000 miles which it is supposed to have journeyed to and from the moon. The figures simply do not add up. One does not need a PhD to do these simple calculations.  Any American schoolboy can work it out for himself. But rather like the people in Hans Christian Anderson’s story ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ we are terrified to speak what is so clearly obvious to our own eyes and our own minds. User:Langdell
:I'm guessing you weren't around at the time.  You probably question the Nazi Holocaust as well.  The stark reality is that every one of the claims of the conspiracy buffs has been explained by people who actually know something about the facts.  The characters who cooked up this conspiracy theory were post-Watergate paranoids and looneys.  The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has more credibility than than the "We never went to the Moon" hypothesis... which is to say, less than none.  The mere presence of this article in this so-called encyclopedia is an abomination.  Wahkeenah 02:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested in this page entitled "What would be the final speed of a Saturn 5 rocket built fueled and fired in space after all three stages burned completely?". Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept looking for a conclusion somewhere in there. Be that as it may, this is presumably someone's independent computations, and I would assume that NASA worked it out their own way, without so many "guesstimates". If the argument buried someplace in there is that there wasn't enough thrust to get on the way to the Moon, that's a little like arguing that bumblebees can't fly, because there obviously *was* enough thrust to get there.  Wahkeenah 03:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That page guesstimates the Saturn V created total velocity of 12.33 km/s, more than enough for the Earth's escape velocity. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos. Not that those facts will sway the "true unbelievers". :) Wahkeenah 04:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point Of View

message: I used to believe without doubt that that the U.S.A. landed on the moon. Now after reading both sides. The people that believe unquestioning that we landed on the moon seem like the crowd that would belive that a carpenter that walked the 2000 years ago is God. Not to say all of them are, but it just seems like you are blaspeming to say something is fishy about the apollo program. Why did the soviets just stop pursuing it and build a spacestation? Also, Why so many problems with the shuttle? Why will it take till 2018 to go back when technology today is superior? Why is it harder now, than go to the moon in the sixties and seventies? 
Do not give me politcal or money reasons thier was almost the same lack of interest back then. Yes, There was hype but it was gone by the the third flight and a lot of people questioned the race in the first place, and do not forget that this was done during the upheavol and the economic times of the sixties and seventies. 
The apollo program is just starting to sound to more and more people like the mythical thing it's named after. Because of that you will see more and more people question it like they question other unlikely things. Just like the the 2000 year old carpenter that is God. Don't forget a billion people still believe that the carpenter existed and is God without questioning a thing about it. I wish more people would ask questions like this one it will hopefuly bring the truth to a undeniable point.
BTW, If this seems out of place it is I just felt like trolling today. Oh, and I think this sould be theory, not accusations, and sorry for the poor grammar.
:There is nothing suspicious about the space programs of the 60s and 70s. The bogus doubts were planted by publicity seekers with no practical knowledge of science. Wahkeenah 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn those socks :-) --PhilipO 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents on questioning of the apollo program 

message: It is claimed in the article that 'On the other hand the Apollo retroreflectors are more accurate and more precisely placed than the Lunokhod mirror.'
Is there any evidence for this? Who claims it? If we can't reference it, we should remove it. Astronaught 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for any referencing of the reflector claims... Astronaught 18:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Interestingly the source you give does not make any comment on the relative accuracy. There is still no source for this 'factoid'. Astronaught 18:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Before hacking out sections of the article, why not spend a few minutes looking for a second source (like I did)? --PhilipO 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflectors

message: I replaced Confirmed experts who have spoke on the subject all reject the claim, considering it to be baseless. with Nearly all interested scientists have rejected the claim, considering it to be baseless.
Who are these 'experts'? Who 'confirmed them'? When was it that they 'spoke'? It's true that nearly all interested scientists reject it, but let's not make vague overarching claims. Astronaught 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - that change is fine with me. --PhilipO 18:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Phew! Something we agree on! ;) Astronaught 18:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed experts?! 

message: I removed "The number of resignations was not greater than the normal number of resignations in governement agencies as administrators and officials switch jobs and positions." Is this true? Can you source it? Where does it come from? Astronaught 18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignations 

message: Why do you want to remove a statistic that puts this in perspective? 6% of Americans say they don't believe NASA went to the Moon, and a quote saying 'well, 6% of people will say yes to anything' is ok, but pointing out that only .05% of people say they believe in Buddhism has to go? Why? Astronaught 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The surveys are conducted differently and the should not be compared. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven forefend we should face facts... Astronaught 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot understand the reason the surveys are different, you should perhaps consider taking a break from adding information about surveys to articles. Joshuaschroeder 19:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: Beyonf whether Joshuaschroeder thinks they are or not, what are the criteria for refering to someone as a 'scientist' in this context? There is a danger that 'scientists' are people who agree with our POV, and 'cranks' are people who do not. Astronaught 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, a scientists is someone who is a member of the scientific community. This usually means they work in a technical aspect for a research group interested in scientific research. Getting an opinion of a scientist also means that they are giving a "scientific opinion", based on their own expertise in the area they study. Bill Wood, to my knowledge, does not satisfy these criteria. Joshuaschroeder 19:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The scientific method defines what is science. If you don't like it, you can study things other than science. Joshuaschroeder 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: All you need to do is refer to his credentials, his writing, and his research program. That is enough to establish him. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientists