Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 9

message: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your idea.  You do not have a right to post here without inconvenient facts compromising your vision.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Its articles are required to have a neutral point of view.  This does NOT mean that we are supposed to make every idea sound equally plausible - it means that different explanations of events must be treated with equal scrutiny.  Simply posting the hoaxers claims would turn the article into its own subject.  It would be the same as an article on 'Alice in Wonderland' that did nothing but repost Louis Carroll's original text.  that is not what an encyclopedia does.
There is no hoax theory.  Search the web, and you will only find endless imagined "flaws in Nasa's evidence" that do not hold up to scrutiny.  Despite requests by other editors, the many hoax proponents here have yet to produce any complete narrative of what they think happened.   That is a central fact of the article, and is why this article is not titled "hoax theory", but Hoax Accusations.  This article is therefore about a belief, and those who advocate it.  We question the belief.  The article on Jesus questions him too, so that is not unusual.  A coherent "story of Jesus" exists, and can be referenced and discussed, but no one has found a similar "story of the hoax" anywhere, so there is nothing to write about here but shooting down hoax claims, and reporting on the tactics of hoax proponents.  
Many of the discussions here tend to repeat themselves, which makes "assuming good faith" difficult.  (But still we try.)  We asked a previous hoax proponent what would satisfy him that a moon landing did occur, and after some difficulty understanding the question he produced a list of items that did, in fact exist, but he refused to acknowledge.  Requests for non-nasa evidence have been answered multiple times.  Before you start a new subject, please read through the archives to see if the answers to your questions have been posted before.
Thanks.
Algr 06:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no hoax theory. Indeed. When I was trying to rewrite the article to meet NPOV and be less cluttered with pointless argument/counter-argument, the biggest single problem was that there is no consistent theory that makes any sense which can be discussed in the article. Even the different accusations from different Apollo-deniers are fundamentally incompatible (e.g. their claims vary from the Apollo astronauts never going into space at all up to them landing on the Moon but the footage being faked). It's incredibly difficult to make a sensible article out of something that makes no sense. Mark Grant 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two good things to read:
* Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
* Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Bubba73 (talk), 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, certainly those too.  Five percent of Americans believe that the Moon landing was a hoax.  Three percent believe that they've been abducted by aliens.  I wonder if there is any overlap?  Bubba73 (talk), 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note to new users

message: This Astronomy picture of the day says "No single exposure can easily capture faint stars along with the subtle colors of the Moon."  And they show a composite photo showing the surfaace of the Moon and background stars.  but it is NASA, so they must be lying. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the original website for the photo.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome photo. I just downloaded it for my wallpaper. It also serves an educational purpose, as it mentions the issues with trying to photograph bright objects (such as the earth, the moon, and rocket scientists) and dim objects (such as stars and hoaxsters) in the same photo (if that was a personal attack on anyone reading this, I'll issue an apology at a later date). Wahkeenah 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, even with Uranus, which is nuch dimmer than the Moon, he had to do two exposures - one for the planet, one for the stars.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When he is photographing the Moon or a planet, no stars are visible, except this one of Saturn, 8 of its moons, and a few stars.  Even then, Saturn is overexposed in order to bring out its moons.  A few of the points of light are stars. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars redux 

message: A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false. Wiktionary defines it as "A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable." One of the characteristics of some of the well known ones is that they are widely believed, usually on the basis of some dubiouis photos or other 'evidence' that cannot be corroborated by independent third parties. Let's look at some popular ones:
Myth              	Evidence                  	Independent verification?       	Status        	
Loch Ness Monster 	:Image:Lochnessmonster.jpg	None                            	Probably false	
Bigfoot           	:Image:Smalfut.jpg        	None                            	Probably false	
Sinking of Titanic	                          	Significant independent evidence	True          	
Project Apollo    	                          	None that hoaxsters understand  	Quo           	
Moon Hoax         	                          	Tall tails                      	Squirrely     	
The moon landing claims have much in common with other myths, in that their proponents insist that negative proof for the fantastic creature or event be provided. Carfiend 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:POINT. Thanks Numskll 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another numbskull non sequitur. Carfiend 11:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:NPA. Numskll 14:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What personal attack is that? Carfiend 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at this guy's history.  Almost all he ever "contributes" has to do with this article. Based on the guidelines for such (sock puppetry), he looks to be either a sockpuppet, or majorly obsessed. Maybe not quite as blatant a sockpuppet as User Axlalta , more along the lines of the near-single-mindedness of User Broodlinger  or User Gravitor . Oh, and I almost forget the appropriately titled User No_Username  , who existed only long enough to argue against the discussion of Canfield's behavor at . Wahkeenah 11:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, when you're in the wrong, with nothing left, lash out with unsubstantiated accusations. Look at the recent rfc that you and your kangaroo court put together. Not one outsider found any merit in it. If you have more accusations, take them to an rfc. Carfiend 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or rather letting groundless accusations get answered with a resounding 'no case to answer' when they get sent to RFCs? Your playground name calling doesn't deserve a response. You've got no case when you try logic, so abuse is your only avenue. Gravitor 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your phraseology is also nearly identical to several other flamers who have come and seemingly gone here. This is my last communique directly to you under your current guise. Wahkeenah 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you ever considered that when many people make the same complaint about your behavior, that it's possible that it's you, not the rest of the world, who is at fault? Carfiend 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. Now, of the two of us, which one has been blocked by an administrator? Wahkeenah 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wahkeena, when making controversial reverts, please use an edit summary, and please keep participating in talk.  Revert wars serve nobody, consensus should be the goal. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, right. Your whining resulted in my being blocked for restoring your reverts, which you still refuse to explain. No good deed goes unpunished! Explain why you keep reverting uncontroversial facts. Carfiend 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of the word 'whining' isn't civil, please be kind and rewind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The truth isn't always pretty. Carfiend 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carfiend, knock it off.  You said he was whining, and I asked you to be civil.  Instead of accepting that, you respond with 'the truth isn't always pretty'?  Review WP:CIVIL and contemplate exactly how inappropriate your original and continued sentiment listed above is.  This is not a conspiracy to gang up on you, this is common courtesy, without which this project is doomed to fail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I did explain it, in the section "The most recent reverts". Carfiend's only interest is disruption. It's a game. Wahkeenah 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well keep explaining it, and keep participating.  It might be a game, or it might be a user who really doesn't understand or agree with your points.  Assume good faith until the building burns down around you and assume that the admins will step in if it becomes clear that you're dealing with a crank.  We stress on these things so you don't have to. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You did not explain it. If you did, please cut and paste the explanation here, because I cannot find it. Carfiend 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: READ THE SECTION CALLED "THE MOST RECENT REVERTS". How many times do I have to tell you the same thing? Wahkeenah 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think, with respect, that we all need to assume good faith here. I am tired of the unproductive bickering here. Can we agree on the form of words at the bottom of this, and then get on with improving the article? This isn't doing it for me. --Guinnog 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought we had a methodical approach going in that section, and then this guy came out of his wiki "holding cell" and picked up (fighting) right where he left off. What's a mother to do? Wahkeenah 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about what you've been asked repeatedly to do, which is explain your persistant reverting on the talk page? Carfiend 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the Titanic - it illustrates the point! There is plenty of independent evidence for the existance, sinking, and location of the Titanic. Carfiend 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you call a common belief with no evidence to back it up? A myth.

message: I've been taking a break for a while, but it's good to know that the AstroNots are still up to no good, and still ignoring the elephant in the room! Who disputes the neutrality of this article at the moment? Carfiend 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's got a point - why won't you answer the question of who disputes it? And why do they, for that matter? Gravitor 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have not answered the question. Who disputes it, and why? Carfiend 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you really want to try, the best way you could help is on joining the discussion below about a NPOV consensus version of the article. --Guinnog 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: ...is to #discuss improving this article# not have "same to you with ketchup" matches.
There are people who think that the 1969 landing was a hoax, and present a variety of reasons.
Other people present a variety of different reasons why NASA #dod# land two men on the moon in 1969.
Why don't the moon-landing-disputers incorporate more of space travel in general into their argument? Or even suggest that a drone was sent to the moon to provide the necessary background information etc?
Remember the saying "don't assume malice when stupidity or forgetfullness will suffice" - and this applies as much to NASA as anyone else. Making repeated accusations (whatever the tone) against other Wikipedians (or anyone else for that matter) tends to convince innocent bystanders (whether or not interested or willing to be persuaded) "agin the spouter."
I read somewhere to the effect that the total programming for the Apollo mission could be stored on a modern floppy disk: is this true?
Jackiespeel 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be, if they went, and if all the programming hadn't been 'lost'. Gravitor 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The programming code hasn't been lost. -- ArglebargleIV 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is it then? Gravitor 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try here, for a start. -- ArglebargleIV 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Take your unsubstantiated accusations to rfc, where they will be dismissed, as they deserve to be. If you have a complaint, make it in the appropriate forum and stop making slurs here. Gravitor 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The purpose of this talk page

message: I have doena fairly comprehensive copyedit on this page. I have taken out (deleted or commented out) areas that were unsourced, removed the "Challenges and responses" headers (which seemed too liturgical to me), and tried to make sure everything is properly sourced and verifiable (see WP:V). I am keen to improve this article, without making it a POV-pushing one (see WP:NPOV). Any comments? --Guinnog 08:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Numskll, instead of instantly reverting any change that anybody makes, why don't you discuss Guinnog's copyedit changes here? -- ArglebargleIV 11:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as I requested just above. I also noticed that you used the edit summary "please see talk page" when I can see no evidence that you have discussed your reverts of my changes here. Please do so. Reverting to a poorer version of the article is just rude, will win you no friends here, and is unlikely to lead to the improvement of the article. Thanks. --Guinnog 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wahkeenah, that seems like good advice. I just thought the article was looking a bit in need of a copyedit. Is "Web sites" our house style, for example? --Guinnog 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let's start here. "These claims are widely dismissed as baseless by NASA and interested members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities." back to "Members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented reject the claims as baseless."? The former is POV, the latter is demostrably ttrue, clear and unambiguous. Thoughts? --Guinnog 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stages? More space program metaphors. Kudos. OK, at the risk of sounding like the Hoaxster Club, what citations do we have to support either of those statements, or are they simply our home-grown summary/conclusion based on the details of the article? As I recall, this opening line has been debated before, due to that same general question. It's a given that NASA would dismiss the hoax story as baseless, so that part is not really informative, although it's certainly verifiable. "Interested members" vs. "Members... who have commented" was a sticking point before. How do we determine for sure who is "interested"? The answer would seem to be, by citing those who have commented. So while I think calling the first one POV is overstating it, the second one is arguably on "safer" ground because it at least implies citations which presumably are elaborated upon in the article or its footnotes. Wahkeenah 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, some sense from Wahkeenah. If someone has not spoken up, we cannot make assumptions about what they would say. We can only say that most scientists who have spoken up have supported NASAs story. Carfiend 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that as soon as you were unblocked, you once again started changing without discussion. You need to stop doing that, unless you are hoping to be permanently blocked. Wahkeenah 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I made well described, factual corrections, that YOU reverted without discussion. You are straining anyones assumptions of good faith. Please explain what objeection you have to the article stating the truth? Oh, right.... Carfiend 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the mainstream scientific and technical communities" clearly includes NASA. I can't believe we're even debating this! The shorter, clearer, verifiable, NPOV one is better, I would say. --Guinnog 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting to hear from Numskll. He must work for a living, or something. Wahkeenah 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, given your insistence on reverting without comment, what is it about the factual correction I made that upset you so much? Please explain your objections, per Wikipedia policy. Oh, I forgot. You're not interested in policy unless it supports your POV. Carfiend 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You lie. And I've had it with you. You are simply playing a game with all of us. You are a squirrel that I refuse to feed any more. Wahkeenah 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks won't save you from having to follow policy and explain your reverts. Which parts of my edits do you dispute? It's a reasonable question, and only one answer springs to mind as to why you won't answer it. Carfiend 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We started a discussion this morning and you disrupted it. That's why I reverted. Which I already said. You are either a liar or you can't read. Which is it? Wahkeenah 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks won't save you from having to follow policy and explain your reverts. Which parts of my edits do you dispute? It's a reasonable question. Carfiend 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no response to a reasonable question, just abuse and anger whenever you're called on your disruptive behavior. Carfiend 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most recent reverts 

message: I think the headers are part of a larger problem that those sections have. That problem is bloat. I'd like to see each of the major sections pared down to a paragraph of two which summarize the basis of the tit for tat laundry lists currently in those sections. -- maybe a 'tit' paragraph followed by a 'tat' paragraph for each of the major sections. We could then move all of that carefully compiled content to an ripe-for-expansion article on claims/counterclaims. See WP:SS for more on this idea. The advantage is that we end up with a more reader friendly article that allows readers to get the only the highlights or read in dpeth if they choose. The potential for NPOV bliss might be improved. This is not floated as a way for various POVs on this topic to get there 'own' page. Numskll 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's consider  [[WP:SS]] as a template for this article 

message: Hi, I'm a third party who came into this with no opinion on the subject.  After reading it, I don't believe their was any conspiracy or large scale hoax.  However, one thing I didn't like was that some of the examinations were placed in italics, which gives them an unfair stylistic "authority."  You should keep the claims and the italic examinations in the same paragraphs.  Aside from that, good job.
*That's a good point. Maybe a simple indention would suffice. Wahkeenah 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Wahkeenah - using the talk page isn't so hard, is it? Carfiend 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sarcasm Sockpuppet strikes again. Wahkeenah 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How ironic, coming from the Sarcasm Sockpuppet. I don't think I remember the last time you made a productive comment. Carfiend 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah yes. You've got no evidence for your outlandish claims, and your logic is bancrupt. Bring on the stonewalling and abuse whenever you're cornered. Carfiend 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be blocked. But I'll let someone else take care of that. Kirk out. Wahkeenah 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Newsflash. Not agreeing with your POV is not something people get blocked for. Abuse, refusing to use the talk page, and general disruption though is though. Wise up, and figure out that there is an NPOV policy here , not a Wahkeenahs Point of View policy. Carfiend 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newsflash. You have just described yourself to a T. Wahkeenah 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: } by Art LaPella 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good content, poor display 

message: Well done ScienceApollogist! The truth doesn't have to hurt, does it?! Carfiend 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallup

message: "Widely" deoesn't go well into the following sentence :"The hoax claims are dismissed as baseless, by NASA as well as mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers." unless it's rearranged, possibly as :The hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers, as well as by NASA." -- ArglebargleIV 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar/Style

message: #Who disputes this pages neutrality?
#Why?
Carfiend 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that you disputed the article's neutrality.  -- ArglebargleIV 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. At least, not to the degree of wanting to tag it at this point. Carfiend 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more time on the neutrality question, in the hope of a civil answer

message: Until sunstantial changes are made to the article, please refer on appropriatley directed questions related to the NPOV tag  to the text below.
I think the NPOV tag is helpful. The tit-for-tat structure of the article doesn't properly contextualize the hoax as a social phenom and variously gives undue weight to one extreme or the other.  Perhaps you can see it this way: the tits and the tats, taken together, result in some bizarre chimera of fact, fiction and fantasy that is sure to (snd seems to be designed to) frustrate, confuse, and mislead the casual reader. I've said as much in various ways a half dozen times on this very talk page and, in fact, on more than one occasion to the very editor who posed the question. I believe the content and tenor of these talk pages, in those rare places that they actually reference the article, bears this out. There you have an answer as to why I think the NPOV tag is valid that is  both civil and direct. Let's talk about WP:SS and how it can help us out of this mire. Numskll 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One answer on why the NPOV tag is valid 

message: :I don't agree with you about the NPOV tag, though I do agree that there are some problems with the way the article is presently structured. I tend not to like the tit-for-tat approach myself and I would rather it was written more concisely in ordinary prose. You're always going to have the problem on an article like this, as with the Loch Ness Monster, that beyond, as you say, its existence as a social phenomenon, the article is going to largely consist of information that debunks the subject of the article. That isn't a failure of NPOV, but a failure of the subject of the article to demonstrate verifiable evidence of its existence. People who believe in the phenomenon are maybe going to be disappointed in the balance the article takes, but the undue weight bit of the NPOV policy applies here.
:Maybe a more productive approach might be to add more verifiable information about the cultural phenomenon that the hoax accusations have become? --Guinnog 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent idea. Wahkeenah 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a ridiculous idea. You can't abandon NPOV policy in favor of Wahkeenah's Point of View. Carfiend 05:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain why Guinnog thinks the tag isn't "productive" unless they disagree with the validity of what I've said (i.e. you believe the article is NPOV - please enlighten me on my talk page if you think I misunderstand the mechanics of the  NPOV tag)but the fact that the tag is intended to alert people that the article needs help seems pretty productive to me. Your response doesn't address the "chimera" problem. Numskll 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you that stylistically the article needs to be cleaned up a bit. Using summary style as you suggest, and using prose sentences rather than the pro-con approach as I suggested might help that, and make the article more readable. I still don't see how any of that amounts to a POV issue. --Guinnog 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  further the tag is intended to attract editors and caution readers. I believe thast has value. Numskll 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONTINUED: One more time on the neutrality question, in the hope of a civil answer

message: There's already an article on topic we could link to by way of the complete treatment of this specific topic. Here is an idea for structure: first paragraph. The hoaxsters think there's a host of strange tinngs about the photographs. Secound paragraph, a treatment of way the "anti-hoaxsters" think the inconsistencies and weirdness are legit. then we link to the other article and , perhaps inlcude all of the references in a well organized "see also" at the end of the article. Numskll 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no. Dismembering the article, and hiding the evidence is dishonest and unhelpful. Carfiend 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carfiend please attend to WP:NPA and WP:AGF your reply above clearly violates both of them. Also please don't remove sincere commentary related to this behavior from your talk page. I'm attmepting to keep a conduct a productive discussion with engaged editors Numskll 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SS]] photographs and films lets start her shall we? 

message: Manned landings, with backup stagings—Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested that, while the landing took place, NASA created a parallel fake landing in case of accidents or failures, although he now believes otherwise.[5]  
clavius.org, the source, does not reflect this one very well. It seems as if the idea might have been mauled/skewed/misinterpreted in interim edits. How about (as a courtesy, please read the source (its short) before responding to the content):
 Manned landings, with backup stagings— According to Clavius.org Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested as a hypothetical situation that the landings could have taken place but that NASA could have falsified some video and photographs to replace those damaged or lost during the actual mission. Hoax proponent David Percy apparently took O'Leary's hypothetical as a sincere belief. O'Leary has since reasserted the idea as merely hypothetical  
Numskll 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  or we could delete this one as a red herring. Numskll 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax Theory version is not supported by source 

message: This is a summary of Kaysing's theory, from page 64-66 of his book.
launch -72 hours:  B-1 rocket engines placed within the F-1 combustion chambers and fuel is switched
launch -1 hour: astronauts shown entering the Apollo capsule
launch -20 minutes: high-speed elevator takes astronauts to an exact duplicate of Apollo capsule
launch: appears normal
launch +23 minutes, mock J-2 second stage and mock J-2 third stage put apollo in orbit.  Astronauts are flown to Moon set in Nevada by high-altitude jet.  Phantom Apollo communicates to the Deep Space Network
Launch + 2 hours: Apollo is jettisoned into South Polar Sea.  The astronauts are in well-equipped underground mockup of capsule, with a few of the shapeliest Los Vegas showgirls
Other than occasional checks with Mission Control, the astronauts are free to wander about, play slot machines, and use the 24-hour buffet at the Dunes.  
+72 hours: Moon set is ready
+74 hours: astronauts get in position and fake exciting scenes of the moon landing.  The moonwalk is faked 90 miles north of Los Vegas.
The rest is an anti-climax.  For simulated landing, astronauts are flown to a small atoll south of Hawaii, they enter the module and are dropped by a C5A just out of sight of the recovery aircraft carrier. Bubba73 (talk), 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating. What evidence, if any, does Kaysing provide for this version of events? --Guinnog 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the $64 question. If it's "waving flags", then it's trouble. But at least it resembles a theory, even if it's a fig-newton of Kaysing's imagination. Wahkeenah 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually they put the smaller (but imaginary) B-1 engines inside the F-1 engines, according to him.  However, close up pictures of the engines don't show a smaller engine within them - the exhaust seems to be coming out from the entire engine bell.  Maybe the theory is "coherent", but it seems to be inconsistent with the facts.  If the astronauts were in the Dunes, why didn't anyone spot them?  Also, it is a pretty big feat to drop the Apollo in the south polar sea, given its orbit. Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term "coherent" in this case means fleshed-out enough to present a narrative; not necessarily a factual narrative, but a theoretical chronology of events. Ugh. Wahkeenah 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Kaysing said that the F-1 engine was too unreliable.  It did have problems early on.  According to K., B-1 engines were reliable but produced only half the thrust of the F-1 (therefore unable to send Apollo to the Moon).  They also used a different fuel from the F-1, but Kaysing has it backwards in his book - the F1 used RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen.  As far as I can tell, the B-1 is a figment of K's imagination.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the timeline of his theory, Kaysing says it has been alleged that there was an argument between one of the astronauts and a NASA official over a showgirl named Peechy Keen, but "this has not been authenticated by our source of information."  Does that imply that the rest of it has been authenticated? Bubba73 (talk), 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaysing's theory

message: Does anyone still think this article needs the tag? I'd like to take it down again, as I don't really think the discussion we are having here relates to WP:NPOV. What do you think? --Guinnog 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be more like it I think. --Guinnog 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my rationale on this very talk page about the NPOV tag. I personally don't believe that much has changed. I see it bas a POV issue because there are scores of weird little constructs that have been twisted to one side or the other and mis-use of sources seems to be common (whether intentional or through drift caused by unwise edits). I am, in  my own way, at a pace I can manage, and on a scale the various stakeholders can manage working on what I see as the NPOV issue.  If you believe it is more of a clean up issue than I'll agree with that.  But not including a "caution"  or "fixer-upper" tag on the article itelf (not the talk page) while the article is in anything like its present shape would seem to me to be a diservice to the casual reader. Is there some sort of shelf life on these tags, other than when the issue is fixed? Numskll 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we agree then that a  tag would be more appropriate? I agree the article needs attention, I just think the present tag isn't the right one. --Guinnog 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't oppose it or change it if it is replaced, but I'm being as sincere as I can be on my opinion on the NPOV tag and believe that opinion is considered and valid. My sticking point is that the tag (clean up, caution, NPOV) should be seen by the casual reader and alert them that the quality of this article is not up to encyclopedic standards. ; thus it should be on the article itself and not on the talk page.  Numskll 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if the banner of the page could say "cleanup" and maybe one or more individual sections could be labeled "POV"? Wahkeenah 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would make sense as far as the editors are concerned, but too many of those tags in the sections could be an eyesore and, on some level, hamper readability. It's a shame there's not an easy way of representing those headers on the talk page and we could tag them appropraitley there (leaving our warning for readers at the top of the article) -- sort of a running to-do list. That would help us narrow stuff down and to guide progression section by section. Numskll 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  While we're on the topic of misuse of sources, I wonder if I could get some input on my issue with the Dr. O'Leary's cow . . .er . . . hoax version . . . issue above. Numskll 00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very wise to be Leary, Timothy. (Apologies to Joey Forman). I would be concerned that if you delete it, some newbie might add it back. It might be better to report the facts of this red herring, to cover the bases. Wahkeenah 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It definitely is possible. Don't give up so easily. --ScienceApologist 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ironically, the quality is probably a lot better than most internet articles on the subject, since this one is at least trying to present a fair description. Wahkeenah 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, one offending phraseology is that this is NASA's definition of a Moon landing.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we a little sarcastic today? Have we been into that Georgia Peach Schnapps a wee bit today? :) Wahkeenah 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I forgot that editors not also over at List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 aren't in on the joke.  Over there we recently had a bid discussion over the US versus USSR definition of space rendezvous.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag?

message: Please see theory for more. The scientific community is rather rigorous in its use of the term. Since the scientific community is a party involved in this article, please do not call the allegations "theories" lest we confuse the reader. Thanks, ScienceApologist 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this as more about pop culture than science. The hoax proponents idea do meet the popular definition of theory ( this is what may have happened. Think conspiracy theory, not theory of evolution.Numskll 11:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with characterizing them as a "conspiracy theory" or the characters as "hoax theorists", but we should avoid bandying about the term "theory" in isolation especially when other words will do. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised this issue before. It was pointed out that "theory" means both "scientific theory" (which is what you're talking about, and what my point was) and "conjecture", which is how it has been used here, and is why the Great Unwashed often say that "Evolution is only a theory". Wahkeenah 12:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is equivocal, let's just use another word, okay? --ScienceApologist 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Story, concept, idea, model, scenario? Wahkeenah 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of the above. --ScienceApologist 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall, it was the hoax proponent(s) that objected to "conspiracy theory", as they found it pejorative.  I was going to argue that it wasn't.  (Watergate is a conspiracy theory that happened to be true.) But the issue settled on it's own. Algr 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There cannot be discussion about the term being pejorative, the conspiracy theory page explicitly says: "The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value".--Pokipsy76 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but there was a lot of heated discussion about it on conspiracy theory (I think it was) about a year ago.  I think "consipracy theory" is mild.  Things like "Crackpot theory" could be considered pejorative.  Believers in a conspiracy theory don't like their theory called a C.T., just like believers in a pseudoscience don't like thier topic called "pseudoscience (a lot of heated discussion of that too).  Bubba73 (talk), 13:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the problem has been that the hoax believers constantly delete or rephrase attempts to characterize this subject as a conspiracy theory, on the grounds that the term "conspiracy theory" is an insult and thus a "POV violation". My own POV is that they regard it as an insult simply because it "hits too close to home". Wahkeenah 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a contributor to the formulation Poki quotes above from Conspiracy theory, I should additionally point out that Watergate was not, ever, a conspiracy theory. It was a tip from a source which was methodically investigated, applying rules of evidence hard won in any serious newsroom, until enough verifiable evidences from enough independent sources stacked up into sufficient evidence to defend the newspaper against litigation. As I recall, when we had those debates last December over the question (whether or not there was an overlap between "conspiracy theory" and methodical investigations of true conspiracies), no-one met my challenge, to cite a single case of a methodical investigator being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. And there were some real nuts in the room at the time ... Anyway, the point is that Conspiracy theory certainly refers to a narrative of dubious validity. If that's pejorative, some things are rightly pejored against. Adhib 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that tip had led nowhere, Watergate could have died as a story, or it could have become a typical "conspiracy theory". And that's the rub where the moon hoax tale is concerned: there is no insider tip, no actual evidence, just oddities that some have tried to "connect the dots" for. Watergate started slowly and built up to a major political event. The moon hoax stuff started slow and built up too... not much. The problem with it is, there's nowhere to go with it, unless someone in-the-know were to make a startling confession. As I've said many times here, even if it's true that the landings were faked, there's no evidence; and no "oddities" that can't be explained by the conventional story and/or by pointing out how the "oddities" are merely misinterpretations. Wahkeenah 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These aren't theories

message: per Wahkeenah's suggestion let's list issues we have with the article. Maybe in one master list. It would be good to sign each item (unless it breaks something). Here is me starting that list:
# Predominant hoax claims: 1 is not sourced. Numskll 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Sections 

message: "Mission control would hear the astronauts words ONE second after they spoke (one way travel time) and then could respond immediately. The astronauts would similarly hear mission control's words one second after they were spoken, and they too could respond as soon as they'd heard what mission control said - or even before mission control had stopped talking. So any recording would have only a one second delay from the remote side, and no delay at all from the side where the recorder was. A two second delay would occur only if one side was echoing the other's transmissions back to it."
The above logic is flawed (even if the first sentance is true).  If recording at point A, it would take 1 second for a message to be relayed to point B, whereupon the response would be uttered, and a further 1 second for the response to be returned and thus recorded at point A, resulting in a cumulative delay of 2 seconds.  The converse is also true.  The above logic would only work if a single recorder was simultaneously recording both points, with no delay in the information getting to the recorder, which of course is not physically possible (a similar effect would happen if the recording was made exactly half way between the points).  If nobody can argue otherwise, I'm going to remove this part. Guinness 14:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The delay is actually about 1.3 seconds in each direction, depending on the distance to the moon at the time.  In many cases you can hear Mission Control say something and then hear it echoed back, which should be about 2.6 seconds later.  I don't know of any instance where the delay is less than it should be, unless the delay has been edited out.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, at 250,000 miles vs. 186,000 miles per second, it max out at about 1.3 seconds each way, halfway would be about .6-.7 seconds, and so on. My guess would be that some hoaxster was watching a documentary (where only selected bits of the dialogue would be used) and said, "Hey, that should be 2-3 seconds delay!" and it never occurred to them that the difference would be edited to make a better presentation. In contrast, you have the famous "One small step fr'a man, one giant leap for mankind." I see where someone took that and played it through a speech recognition analyzer and declared it to be "one small step for A man" after all. Make of that what you will. Wahkeenah 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we actually have any samples of what the hoaxers say is suspect?  It could be editing, or it could be them assuming that the delay has to apply to mission control too. Algr 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not aware of any.  Perhaps they are expecting a two-second delay from when Mission Control stops talking and the astronauts start talking (as recorded on Earth).  But sometimes people start talking before the other person finishes.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does bring up a valid point, though... with all the brouhaha about whether the article is POV or not, we've maybe lost sight of articulating where these various "theories" and "challenges" come from. Someone might have to revisit the various pre-hoax websites and see if any or all of these questions are actually there, and how they are worded. Wahkeenah 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One second delay? 

message: The external link to the KAYSING PRIZE was uncapitalized.  According to the official website, it is supposed to be all caps.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'd be tempted to enter it, but it cost $10 to enter.  Also, the Kaysing family and judges are allowed to enter!  Scratch that - I read it wrong.  It is "open to everybody who have an email address" [sic].  Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I has an e-mail address, so I guess I qualifies!  All's I has to do is send them 10 bucks! What a racket! Certainly adds to the Kaysing credibility, eh? I'm guessing there could be some cash left over which will go into the "Moon Hoax Foundation", which is the name of their Swiss bank. Reminds me of the old joke: "Send me a dollar, and I'll tell you how I make money!" Wahkeenah 09:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, it does seem to be a primarily fund raising initiative I don't see how it adds any content. i'm removing it to prevent the KAYSING PRIZE from using wikipedia to bilk anyone out of their hard earned ten bucks. Numskll 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by an IP address on the 10th, reverted by Guinnog, added again, and then Gunnog only changed it from caps to not-caps rather than reverting. Out! Out, spam spot! Wahkeenah 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the KAYSING PRIZE 

message: The section is about technological achievements. The fact that it was Gagarin is (1) well known and (2) irrelevant to the technological achievement, unless he had some special skill that no other Russian astronaut had (besides guts, that is). Wahkeenah 06:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First man in space 

message: I went through and combined identical references when possible, fixed a couple of broken ones, and changed the style of a few that didn't use the ref tag.  I may start (slowly) changing the links to  format, but certainly not all at once. -- ArglebargleIV 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Sorry if this has been gone over before - I am a newbie on this page. I can't see that the page mentions what I think is one of the interesting pieces of evidence, but no doubt the hoax-theorists will say it cuts both ways. It concerns walking in low gravity. I believe that dimensional analysis shows that the non-dimensional group v^2/gL is the controlling factor (call it the "gait number", it is called the Froude number in fluid mechanics). What it comes down to is this. A person of a certain size L can walk with a speed V on earth, where the acceleration due to gravity is G. On the moon, where the acceleration due to gravity is g, that same person, same size L, can walk with speed v. We expect the "gait number" to be the same in both cases so that
: V^2/\left(GL\right) = v^2/\left(gL\right)
giving the relation between walking speed and gravity on two different planets as
: \frac{v}{V} = \sqrt{\frac{g}{G}}
Since the moon's gravity is 1/6 of earth's the walking speed on the moon is \sqrt{1/6} = 0.4 of the walking speed on earth. Hence if we speed up the film of the moon walking by a factor 1/0.4 = 2.5 (we run the film 2.5 times faster) the moon walking looks "natural". Of course, NASA scientist knew this so, say the hoax-theorists, NASA could have released slow-motion films of the astronauts walking on earth, to simulate what it should look like when the same astronauts walk on the moon. NASA thought of everything! E4mmacro 06:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly my friend, there is a stumbling block...  Someone must be documented indicating this point.  It's a perfectly valid objection, but it's not one I'm aware of being documented as an argument.  Completely bogus claims "supporting" the "accusations" can be included because just about every peice of material that can be reasonably and unreasonably used tends to be published by the primary proponents of this idea.  If you can find a published example of someone using this argument, then please, by all means, add a cited subsection to an appropriate location.  i kan reed 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, they couldn't walk at a normal gait in any case, due to the amount of stuff they had to wear and carry on their backs. They learned to develop sort of a "hop" technique. Wahkeenah 10:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the video speeded up by a factor of 2, and it doesn't look "natural" that way.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have the Apollo 16 DVD (and others).  In there, in quite a few cases you can see the astronauts fling something away.  None of that is consistant with a film being slowed down by a factor of 2 or 2.5.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what you mean (since I haven't seen the video you refer to) but if there is a film of something dropping from the astronaut's hand it would take longer to hit the surface of the planent by a factor of \sqrt{6} = 2.45 (because of the 1/6 gravity). So for vertically dropping only it should look exactly like an Earth film slowed down by a factor of 2.45. But if an object is thrown sideways, the horizontal distance travelled before it hits the surface should be 2.45 times further than on Earth (even ignoring air resistance) because the time of flight is 2.45 times longer. So, as you say, the film could well prove the object was thrown in 1/6 gravity and is not a slowed down film of motion in earth gravity. E4mmacro 02:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the results of such a test, it would need to be cited from a reliable source that has already conducted such a test. Otherwise we fall in the "original research" trap. Wahkeenah 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking in low g 

message: The external links section of this page is out of control.  WP:NOT has some of the relavent clauses.  I'm sure you're mostly familiar.  External links should be to verifiable, well known sources, and the article subject itself.  blogs and aol hometown pages don't qualify.  being that this is a contentious page, concerns are of course being addressed here first. i kan reed 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: blueprints and documents in archives.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, news to me, "Recently, NASA managers scrambled to respond to reports that the agency had lost the original tapes of the historic 1969 moon landing, when Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The tapes eventually were found."  !!!! Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the author of that article says that it was some other tapes that were found, not the Apollo 11 moonwalk SSTV tapes.  :-(  Bubba73 (talk), 14:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now it seems that the tapes have been found ! Don't know if they can be read yet.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old blueprints and documents are not missing