Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings/Archive01

message: If you put on your critical (paranoid) glasses:
*Russia Russia is dependent of NASA aid.
::When did the Soviets receive NASA aid? Of course, it seems like you don't know the difference between the Soviets and the Russians - it was the Soviets who tracked the Apollo missions, although some of them were Russians too! Gravitor 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant present and future Russian lunar missions, NOT Soviet. If Russia launched a moon probe tomorrow, they would not be an independent source, because of their collaboration with NASA. Necessary Evil 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that's all speculation. The Soviets, if Apollo took place, should have tracked it - there should be evidence of this if it happened, no? Gravitor 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the landings were faked, why didn't the Soviets say so? They weren't dependent on NASA during the Cold War, and in fact it would have been a massive publicity coup for them if they could have provided even the slightest bit of evidence that the landings were faked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Finnish 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs). 
*Japanese JAXA — LUNAR-A JAXA needs NASA space shuttles to deliver Kibo to ISS.
*European ESA — SMART-1 ESA needs NASA space shuttles to deliver Columbus to ISS.
*Chinese Chang'e-1
*Indian Chandrayaan-1 India needs USA for economic help.
*DoD Clementine 2 DoD is full of MiB.
*Iran — Ayatollah Khomeini-1 moon probe, remember Irangate.
*Al-Qaeda — Osama bin Laden-1 moon probe.
--Necessary Evil 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How about the radio telescope in Australia that received video and data?  As far as I know, they were independent of NASA. NASA had a radio station in Australia, but it was not as powerful as the one at the Australian Observatory.  Also, there were several other missions that were seen by amateur astronomers.  In fact, on Apollo 13 NASA was having trouble tracking it (it was straying off course) on the way back and called upon amateur astronomers to help get a fix on it, and many answered the call.  Also, Clementine was not a NASA project.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba - I added a section for Australia - any clues about this would be great! Gravitor 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  And Moon rocks examined by hundreds of independent scientists.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, feel free to add these things. Although clearly, the 'Moon rocks' are presented by NASA. Gravitor 02:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You've added a note about a documentary from the BBC - any chance of something direct from JB? Gravitor 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can deliver '''independent''' evidence for human Moon landings?? 

message: Since this article is about independent evidence, it would be good to provide some indepedent evidence that NASA's retroflectors got to the Moon in some way other than on Apollo missions.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about evidence for the landings. Evidence against it goes in the accusations article. This should be nothing to do with the hoax - just evidence. Gravitor 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reflectors 

message: I am proposing that we merge the content of this article (which is almost zero content) into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations. I give the following three reasons
#The restriction that this article use "Independent evidence for human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" makes this article pointless. There are no data that currently exist that can prove that humans walked on the Moon if we disregard all evidence collected by US govermental agencies.
#As the article states, the only way to prove that men walked on the Moon is to take images of "foot prints" from orbit. These data do not yet exist, and will not exist for a very very long time. All other evidence can be ascribed to "robotic landings" (perhaps bringing back samples as did the russian Luna programme). 
#A clever crackpot will always be able to come up with a non-sensical argument as to why the information of this page is part of a bigger conspiracy. Lunokhod 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand that there is nothing to merge. It is very odd that someone would create a page call "independent evidence for human Moon landings" but then not give any evidence. I am still waiting for a singe reputable source that can be referenced for this article giving evidence unrelated to US governmental agencies that the Moon landings actually happened. As for the evidence fo the "orbital and translunar elements", what is the evidence that there were people on board? Lunokhod 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  You are a lunar scientist and you do not believe that people went there, and that the rocks that you may have handled actually came from the Moon??? 82.170.18.39 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As an uninvolved reader, I think the merge should go ahead anyway.  The Hoax Accusations article is older, and this article makes sense only in its context.  Generally when there is a debate, it helps to present both sides of the debate together.  Note that I am a college science major, and I believe that accusations of hoax moon landings are nonsense.  I just want to structure the articles in the best way possible. YechielMan 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]] 

message: Please explain the purpose of this new article. I am inclined to nominate it for deletion. Lunokhod 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To list the independent evidence for, and observation of, the Apollo programs. There is frequent discussion, and common requests for this. It could conceivably go on the Apollo hoax page, except that it is not to do with the hoax directly - others are interested, and that page is already too long. Gravitor 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to demonstrate that this topic is "Notable" (see WP:Notability). In particular, are there a number of reputable sources (or numerous irreputable web sites) that are claiming human kind DID NOT land any type of artificial object on the Moon's surface? Or is it OK to say that Ranger, Surveryor, and Luna landed on the Moon, but that Apollo was neither robotic or human?  Please give me one reputable source that indicates independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings is a notable subject. If there is not a single reference, then this topic can not be in wikipedia based on verifiability and no original research grounds. Lunokhod 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Everything in it is verifiable, and well sourced. There is no orignal research. I think you are trying to make the case that compiling it in a list is original research, in which case, you need to re-read that policy. Gravitor 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep your pants on, it's hardly 'drastic', and was in response to your frenzied criticism. Gravitor 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is drastic. It makes a big difference to the content of the article, and it makes a big difference to the purpose of the article, whose notability as a topic in itself still hasn't been established. MLilburne 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, what would you like to call it? You don't think that there are many, many publications that discuss the evidence for the Apollo landings? Take a look at the references section of the Project Apollo or Apollo hoax site. Gravitor 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain purpose of this article

message: Here is the content: No independent evidence of human landing currently exists - see future plans for missions that might, in the future, provide this. 
The assumption is obvious, that a exhaustive  and unbiased survey of all possible evidence has been conducted, but it is unsourced and unsupported. However, since we've have included it, doesn't this kind of content support this article's inclusion in/merger with  the set of articles surrounding the apollo moon hoax? Clearly this article is a response to various questions raised there. Numskll 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I orginally placed the banner "unsourced" over this section, but this was removed by Gravitor. He has shown a very high level of academic scholarship in writing this article, and by assuming good faith, I can only conclude that no evidence exists.  Lunokhod 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should not be removed. If it helps you, we can cite the opinion of a hoax proponent who claims that there is no evidence, and any evidence that pro landing folks want to use to refute that. Gravitor 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone should do that. Until then I've removed both sentences in that vital section. Numskll 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the assertion that there is no evidence - I am sure there is plenty to refute it. Gravitor 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain this section: Evidence of human landing

message: I propose to delete the section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon" as this has nothing to do with the topic of "Moon landings". This evidence should be presented in an article called Evidence for the Apollo program. Lunokhod 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Independent evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit or on the way to the Moon is a better title? Lunokhod 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that presupposes that there is only evidence for that. There is some evidence of the lander's presence on the moon, and I hold out hope that Wahkeenah may add the evidence he claims exists for human landing. Gravitor 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletion of section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon" 

message: "By "independent evidence", this is generally understood to mean evidence that has not been presented by (1) NASA, (2) any of NASA's subcontractors, (3) any of the scientists or engineers that have worked for, or have been funded by, NASA, (4) any US government employee, and (5) any person or organization that has benefited from a collaboration with NASA or a US govenerment agency." - who added this? Where does it come from? Can we source it? This page is not about the hoax, so I don't know why the hoax stuff is in there. Gravitor 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deinition 

message: Evidence for the landings has nothing to do with the hoax. Gravitor 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually it is a part of the cluster of apollo moon hoax articles. It is clear by the way  Sibrel's view guides the first and nearly eponymous section of the article -- though it woulds seem more natural to just make that the intro --seems more direct, less POV.  I'm not sure why you want to keep him out. Your reluctance to define the scope of independant evidence is also puzzling.  Numskll 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing. It is a placeholder - I expect better sources to be added. It should definitely NOT be used as an introduction to the article. Please replace it with something better. The definition of independence is discussed in the article. It is certainly more NPOV to simply describe the evidence, rather than the motives of individuals. Gravitor 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing. repeated for emphasis.  The Sibrel quote states the reason for this articles existance. You dug it up. Be reasonable.  Numskll 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I think it's about the worst possible quote. I could not find another. Please replace it with something better. Gravitor 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  to wit: "The result was Keep; possible merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations -- please work out whether to merge and if so, how, on Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. —User:Quarl 2007-02-11 12:07Z" Numskll 04:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's odd, considering there is no direct link. Gravitor 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have one hoax quote. It is about human landing - when we have a better one, please remove it. Gravitor 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why even include it? It's POV. Numskll 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then let's take it out. But then provide something to describe the evidence for the human landing. Gravitor 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbskull - please use the talk page rather than reverting. There are NO hoax refs on this page now. Please stop reverting and talk about it. Gravitor 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Gravytur, You're the one who just had a little hissy fit and started deleting valid content like crazy (all without comment here I might add). You're not the owner of this article and this isn't the place for you to prove some point. You need to chill. Also, it would be nice if your comments here reflected what you actualy have done on this article rather than whatever you want other editors to do. Wikipedia isn't designed to support double standards. Numskll 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably be leaning toward Gravitor's version of the article, if I weren't so suspicious of his motives (let alone his overly-defensive attitude). To say it has nothing to do with the hoax allegations is absurd, as this article wouldn't exist without the other one. Wahkeenah 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. The purpose is to provide a convenient list of the independent evidence for the landings. It's not about the hoax, it's about the landings. My POV about the landings is not relevant to this article, and the list of evidence should not be couched in the point of view of any individuals. It's just a list. Of course there is some relationship between the hoax and the list, but they are not causally related. The evidence presented is not presented by hoax proponents, it is presented by astronomers who (I think) believe in the landings. I am not sure why Lonokod wants to turn it into a rehash of the hoax page. Gravitor 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just guessing but perhaps it's you're insistence in quoting hoax proponents, including pro hoax editorializing and your the inconsistency between what you say in talk and od on the page.  Numskll 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ?You are not making sense. Please explain you justification for the mess you are making. This is NOT a hoax article. Gravitor 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're being inconsistent. please chill. Stop blindly reverting to your preferred version.   Justify your POV pushing and your sense of ownership of this topic. justify  repeated deletion of valid  content. You're making perfect sense for a hoax zealot.Numskll 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty clear to the rest of us Numskull - Bart Sibrel has nothing to do with evidence for the landings. Please explain yourself. Carfiend 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbskull - why do you keep trying to make this into a hoax page?

message: Dude, get a grip. You don't own this space. Numskll 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do you Numskull - please explain why you keep inserting irrelevant material into this page. Bart Sibrel has presented precisely no evidence for the landings. Why would we want to open with him? Carfiend 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you used the wrong login again. Wahkeenah 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like you did too, Bubba. Again, you manage to elevate the level of discussion. Gravitor 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the admin has found that you two are not on the same IP subnet, so apparently you're not the same guy; it's just that your respective M.O.'s (such as the specific wording of the above comment), your similar time frames of activity, and your similar one-subject editing, make y'all sound like you were separated at birth. Wahkeenah 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, then that's settled. Did the admin check you and Bubba / Numbskull / Lunokod? Gravitor 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you ask him to? Wahkeenah 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record Gravitor inserted and reinserted the Sibrel quote as the only sentence in the first section of the article. This section had a label that was extremely close to the title of the article. Thus, if you've been paying attention Gravitor insisted that it was vital to be the second sentence in the article. When I deleted the redundant nearly eponymous heading and placed the sentence in the introduction. He freaked and reverted back to his prefered version. There is some consensus that this article is a sub of the apollo mooon ohax accusations article. But I've wrote all that before and I've had discussion with Gravyfiend before and I know how they behave.  So I've no expectation they they/shim will give this response anymore than a passing thought and reflexive reply. But at least I've attempted to make a case and respect consensus. Numskll 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also note that the introduction i've put forward makes no mention of the hoax. But, in the eyes of the pro-hoaxers, it wasn't invented by this article's owner so it can't stay. This whole thing is a replay of Carvitor's behavior last summer.Numskll 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  You know I've just realized that the text I added contains no assertion about the moon hoax whatsoever. None The Sibrel quote, as I've said, was Gravyfiend's. My stylistically superior additions only added context (e.g. sibrel is a documentary film maker not but a vaguely decribed "critic") absolutely no mention of the hoax. None. And for that Carvitor feels justified by repeated blanket reverts. How childish.  If Sibrel isn't supporting your being used to prop up GravyCarvihorfiend's (oh what's the use . .. )  tunnel-visioned POV  he's invalid. Numskll 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that tirade supposed to be anything other than personal abuse and inaccurate accusations? This page has nothing to do with the hoax. You know my POV on the hoax, I think that Bart Sibrel is right. If I were pushing my own POV I would be trying to frame this page in terms of how Bart Sibrel is right. I am not. I am trying to keep it neutral - a list of evidence. Gravitor 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitor - Please stop going crazy and violating the 3RR, kthnks =

message: Gravitor has been making unilateral deletions and reverts to this page under the guise that anything related to the "hoax" is not permitted here. I would like to determine the consensus of the editors who are involved with this article: Does the "hoax" merit discussion on this article?
Yes: This article is directly related to the HOAX. Nevertheless, it is also useful for non-hoax people. Both communities should be served. Lunokhod 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: who is this? Gravitor 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please identify youself. Lunokhod 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chill the ID is in edit the edit history Numskll 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not true. The two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. Gravitor 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a spinoff from the hoax article. Wahkeenah 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really relevant though - the two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. Gravitor 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources of the complaints are hoaxsters (such as Gravitor and/or Carfiend), and those complaints are the reason for this page's existence. Wahkeenah 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please explain why you previously insisted on including him (but only exactly as you thought appropriate) then? Oh, you wanted to push your POV and still claim NPOV? That doesn't work when everyone can see your edit history. sorry. Numskll 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not insist - I included him at someone (I think your) request for a comment on evidence for human landing. I said at the time I thought it was a poor source and should be replaced asap. Gravitor 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did insist right up to the moment I placed him in context. Then you freaked. You know it wasn't me asking for that evidnece and it wasn't evidence in the first place but a claim about its absence. Shame. Shame.  Why be so dishonest when it is simple to check? what do you bleive you gain other than a bad reputationNumskll 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, it was someone who behaves and sounds exactly like you. It's easy to confuse the different accounts that you have. Gravitor 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to make sock-puppet accusations. See WP:SOCK for guidance on how to proceed. Lunokhod 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He won't take it to an admin, he's just jerking us around. Wahkeenah 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise. Wahkeenah 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  still can't be honest? Is it not in you? Doesn't your alleged quest for the truth include actually speaking it? That's not the truth you want? LOL Numskll 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fortunately, Wikipedia does not sort topics based on how they are discussed on the talk page. Please see below for the reasons why this is NOT a hoax page. Gravitor 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its genesis was commentary on the hoax page suggesting that this article be written. I don't know what you mean by "wikipedia does not sort topics". Wikipedia doesn't do anything. Editors do. And the hoax talk page is where this page came from. Wahkeenah 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a majority, not a consensus. Besides, the truth is not a vote - you can't change facts by voting them off the island. These observations took place a decade before the hoax accusations - they are not related. Your vote does not change that. Gravitor 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct, but it shows that the majority of people feel that this article is directly related to the "hoax accusations". I think that we are all willing to compromise, but unilateral reverts of large portions of text with no logical explanation on the talk page does not seem like you are trying to compromise. As I suggested below, instead of reverting an edit, try to modify the material to suit your purposes. You are in the minority opinion here, so please try to help us work towards consensus. Lunokhod 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for editor consensus: Is this article related to the HOAX? And should it be mentioned in this article? 

message: Gravitor, your editing is becoming very disruptive. Please explain why the material that you deleted does not deserve to be mentioned in this article. Before removing several paragraphs of material, it is common courtesy to exaplain why you did this on the talk pages. See WP:Civility. 
"The existence of Moon rocks" can be used as independent proof of the Apollo manned landings, as was described in the text you deleted. In particular, all scientists (independent ones too) agree that they are from the Moon. The argument that these are not Moon rocks is countered by similarities to Luna samples. The argument that they are robotic (or lunar meteorites) is countered by the sheer mass of samples that NASA has given independent scientists to analyze. We can give both sides of the debate. Please feel free to exapnd the text if your POV is not adequately described. Lunokhod 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been talked about on the page. Your relentless attempts to turn this into a rehash of the hoax page is what is disruptive. If you want to add independent analysis of the moon rocks, then do that, but if it is embedded in lots of nonsense about Bart Sibrel it risks getting reverted. Gravitor 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Moon rock section had nothing to do with Bart Sibrel, and I did not add this person's name (in fact I DELETED IT; it should not be in the intro, but a citation to him could). Your revert was unilateral, and you did not look at the edit history to determine what had and had not been added. You arbitrarily reverted to your previous version of the article, even though much had been added by several editors since this version. This is very disruptive, and if it continues, will be dealt with administratively. Lunokhod 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? Gravitor 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read what I wrote? Could you please specify as to what you think is irrelevant? Be specific please. If I was not neutral, I would say "the moon rocks provided by nasa proves that they went to the Moon. Independent analysis shows that they are really from the Moon." As this is not neutral, I added that one could say that the Moon rocks are faked, and I gave evidence as to why this is probably not the case. This is called taking a "neutral point of view". Please familiarize yourself with this wiki policy: WP:NPOV. Lunokhod 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? Gravitor 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific. What exactly is irrelevant as to whether the Apollo Moon rocks are independent evidence or not? Lunokhod 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read posts before responding to them. Gravitor 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-read your posts, and I ask again, what is irrelevant? Could you please give me an example? As you seem not to be interested in not responding, I will replace the section that you have deleted. Lunokhod 09:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read anything on this page it would be obvious - it is your continual POV pushing that this page has something to do with the hoax. When you embed sensible additions in a slurry of rubbish it is liable to be reverted. Sorry about that. Gravitor 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not own this page. Individual ownership of pages is against policy. Wahkeenah 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: ;Section added since now on VPP:To help with voting and avoid big edit conflicts/FrankB
Support  Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion. An article discussing the "evidence for the Apollo moon landings" is a discussion on the truth or falsehood of the of the Apollo missions. In this context, such a discussion can only be between those people who are skeptical of the existence of the moon landings and those people who maintain the moon landings actually occurred. The subject matter of this article, therefore, is inextricably tied to the question of the moon-landing hoax. However, assuming this article documents evidence, it only documents evidence "for" the Apollo missions, not against. Because it presents only the view that the Apollo missions occurred, this article violates the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. On the other hand, if this is not an evidentiary article, then it is merely a list of unrelated pieces of information on the Apollo missions. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This article violates Wikipedia policy on the above grounds. As this article has already survived a nomination for deletion, the proper course of action is to merge this article with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article.
Suggestion Because this new article would exceed 100K in size, I suggest that the content from the "Hoax claims examined" section of "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" be moved into "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings". At the same time, "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" should be renamed to something like "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Claims Examined" and a link be placed in "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations". The result would be two articles of approximately 50K in size each. This should address concerns about article size.  
Comment The current situation is untenable. As they are, both articles are incomplete. The "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article is lacking some needed evidence, and the "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" article is out in left field with no context whatsoever. Put the two of these together as a parent and child article, and you have a proper encyclopedia entry. This merger shouldn't be too difficult. The section on moon rocks has some overlap, and would probably need to be cleaned up and re-written such that it reads smoothly. Most of the other sections from the current article "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" would not need to be changed much and can be dropped right into place as is in its own section entitled "Independent evidence". 
Liberal Classic 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation-1

message: Parts of Surveyor 3 were brought back to Earth, and a major piece of it is on display at the Smithsonian.  There is no evidence that these parts got back to Earth in any way other than being brought back by Apollo 12.  Does this constitute independent evidence?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA built, flew, recovered and presented the vehicle - this is not really independent, is it? Gravitor 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These parts were analyzed by "indepedentent" scientists and the data conclusively shows that they were in a vacuum exposed to the solar wind and galactic cosmic rays for the duration that NASA claims that it was on the Moon. It is possible that the same data could be explained if it was in orbit about the Earth, but it would most likely have to be an orbit that was outside of the Earth's magnetosheath. A hoax explanation for this, while possible, would be very convoluted indeed. Perhaps Gravitor could give a go at explaining where the Surveyor parts were exposed to the space, and how we retreived them? Lunokhod 10:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then cite that data. Gravitor 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember that Ghislaine Crozaz at Washington University was involved with this. This should help you track down the necessary papers. Lunokhod 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice. It's not me making the claim. If you think there's independent evidence of the Surveyor missions, cite it. Gravitor 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This describes the event in question.  It took me 3 minutes on google scholar and I didn't know what the hell you folks were talking about.
Numskll 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the demonstration. It just goes to show that Gravitor is not interested in adding "evidence" to his pet project. Lunokhod 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When all else fails, make personal attacks. Great. Carfiend 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surveyor 3 

message: Please stop making the same set of obviously disputed edits without discussion. Simply deleting evidence that doesn't fit into you agenda borders on vandalism. Numskll 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's clearly not. The fact that you have a few sock-puppets who keep re-inserting inappropriate material is the issue. Gravitor 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitor, you are the minority opinion here. If you would like to make edits, start with the draft that has the consensus of the editors. Your edits are vandalism since you refuse to discuss your reasons, and respond to our questions of you, on the talk page. Your continued attempts to sabotage this page are not appreciated. Lunokhod 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's done for the day, unless he wants to (1) violate the 3-revert rule and risk blocking by an admin and/or (2) take his sockpuppet allegations to that same admin. Wahkeenah 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You should all stop edit warring and actually discuss the issue. Carfiend 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it a bird or a plane? Nope. Its Carfiend to the rescue. That's odd.  Numskll 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was expected. They've got everyone playing their game now. They're in warthog heaven. Wahkeenah 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitor: Stop editing to your preferred version 

message: This section is changing from long to short, with the reason of discussing on the talk page before changing. This is the discussion, the best way to get this over with is vote on which version should be on the article. Branson03 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the "long" version is necessary because (1) it gives context, (2) it gives some sense of how rocks obtained from a non-indendendent source can be used as evidence when they are analyzed by an "independent source", and (3) as with most subjects, this evidence can be critiqued, so it gives both sides of the debate. I emphasize that this article is not called "list of independent evidence..."; if this were the case, the context could be removed. The majority opinion (based on who is reverting back to the consensus draft) includes the long version. The minority opinion should give detailed reasons---sentence by sentence (yes, I understand that this will involve some work that may be judged tedious by the more lazy among us)---as to why each sentence is inappropriate. I ask that the minority opinion attempt to use logical arguments whenever possible and to stear clear of the use of WP:WEASEL words in their response. Lunokhod 11:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The long version is copied from the hoax article. It is not 'Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings', but rather someone's unsourced opinion on the moon rocks, which, themselves, are not independent evidence. This section should contain references to independent analysis of the moon rocks, not commentary on someone's POV about them. Gravitor 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  But the section is sourced. If there are statements you believe need references, then tell me, and I will happily supply them in two days time.  Lunokhod 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please provide them. Of course, I have no expectation that you will do what you say. Gravitor 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me which sentences you think need references. Just put a "fact" tag after each one and I'll source it in two days, or you can delete it. Lunokhod 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Lunokhod's approach seems reasonalbe. I note there hasn't been a response. This would be the place to make one. Numskll 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention editors! Discuss Moon Rock Section  here

message: Revert wars are not helpful - if you can't make a cogent argument on the talk page, don't make it into a revert war. Carfiend 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carfiend, you should realize that Gravitors "version" of the article is a minority version. His reverts are not for a single edit, but for multiple edits. In order to work towards consensus, we should at least work with the majority version, and debate the issues on the talk page. We are still waiting for a cogent arguement from Gravitor as to why large portions of the article should be deleted. If you would like to explain to us his position that might help us to achieve a true consnsus. Lunokhod 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the reason for my wholesale re-reversion, i.e. to undo Gravitor's single-user reversion of the article. Wahkeenah 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gravyfiend has gone crazy again and for the past several days has simply been reverting to its preferred version without discussion here while of course demanding that other editors use the talk page to discuss any edits. These actions make it a meat puppet if not a sock puppet. We need to deal with it as such.Numskll 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Au contraire. You do not have a consensus. You have an edit war because you think that getting one more editor on your side is what consensus means. It does not. It means discussing the article until people agree. Stop your edit warring, and come to the discussion table. Unfortunately, you have already declared that if you don't get your way you will try to delete the article, and and try to slander users who disagree with you. You've tried both previously, neither got you what you wanted. It's time you tried discussion in good faith. Gravitor 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - go ahead - I have listed the changes I made below, I would welcome constructive feedback. Gravitor 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahkeenah - learn to use the talk page

message: I revised the section and added citations for the tacit claim and counter claims offered by it. A single source that actually defines the sigificance as Gravyfiend seems to see it is wanting. Numskll 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section really belong in the introdcution as it seems to be the purpose of this page. If another source is found that places the context differently -- See above -- then we could replace that context for this one. This article without context is original research. Numskll 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - we should have a section called 'introdcution', that's where this section really belong... Gravitor 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The current one sentence introduction seem abrupt and not particularly informative. Numskll 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. I was being sarcastic. Gravitor 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As opposed to actually discussing the topic? Oh, I see. You were taking pains to point out a typo. Well, yes. You're right. It is a typo. Imagine that. You found a typo and then used sarcasm to point it out. Wow. imagine that. Numskll 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the request for a source which describes the scope of this article outside the context of the hoax is still needed. I realize this particular section ended with rancor, but perhaps some kind soul could take pity on us and find the source that would end this debate.Numskll 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention editors! discuss content here: Significance of Ind Evid . . .  

message: gravitor has dismissed them as " irrelevant commentary " I see them as useful background for the casual reader (wikipedia's target audience) tell me why I'm mistaken or suggest alternative versions. Numskll 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are duplicate information. People can look at the articles on those if they want to know more. Carfiend 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you think that everyone knows what Apollo 8, 10, 11, etc did? If we are going to present "evidence" that these missions happened, shouldn't we at least tell the reader what NASA claims to have happened? I agree that we need to have a small amount of context. This page is not a "list".  Lunokhod 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arglebargle removed much of the descriptive stuff about the missions. Maybe there's a compromise possibility, of reducing the mission to a single sentence, as a "reminder", i.e. whether the mission was in moon orbit or solely earth orbit, and whether a landing was involved or not. Wahkeenah 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps a short introduction to the list would be that comprimise. Numskll 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Editors! Discuss short short description of each mission issue here!

message: These users are operating as sock/meat puppets to support a POV war. This is a real nuisance. I'd like the community to advise on what is to be done. Numskll 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said of you and Lunakod / Bubba / Wahkeenah. The fact that a group of users do not share your point of view is not a 'nuisance', it is a fact of life. 'What is to be done'? how about engaging constructively instead of revert warring? Gravitor 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We keep waiting for Gravitor/Carfiend to live up to their own ideals. The similarity between the two users is not in their viewpoint, it's in their style and tone. Wahkeenah 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Late last summer, an RFC was begun against Carfiend, but when he took a vacation and seemed to have left for good, nothing was done. That process could begin again, treating Carfiend/Gravitor in tandem, since their M.O. is identical. Wahkeenah 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to focus on editing the article and not personal crusades against users who are trying to improve the article. Gravitor 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitor and Carfiend 

message: :This extract from Wahkeenah's talk page demonstrates a complete lack of good faith, and a confessed attempt to provoke an edit war. This is called 'trolling'. Please stop it. Gravitor 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Regreatably, given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited,  I think it is getting time to figure out the apropriate policies and procedures when dealing with meat puppets, though I suspect it is really a sock puppet despite the apparently separate IPs. Numskll 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "It's disappointing to me that you find it 'regretable' that no revert war took place. Please consider spending more time working in good faith on the article, and less time trying to game the system and troll other users into breaking rules. Thanks. Gravitor 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No clue what you're talking about. It is obvious that I was referring to your behavior -- which by the way you've continued unabated. I can only assume its your selective reading comprehension issue again. Numskll 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Gravitor, you're parsing his sentence wrong, it's a case of comma confusion.  "given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited," is one phrase, not split into two. -- ArglebargleIV 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you missed "regretably" from the beginning of that. He regrets that he could not cause a revert war. That's trolling. Gravitor 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, both Gravitor and Numskll have been blocked for 24 hours, by separate admins, for 3RR violation. Wahkeenah 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another point worth pointing out: Apart from obvious vandalism, I do not typically delete discussion points from my own talk page, the way Gravitor does from his, thus Gravitor had no trouble finding the above comments by Numskll. Wahkeenah 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitor, while still under the 24-hour block, and apparently not having taken time to reflect on his actions, continues to delete the complaints of his behavior from his talk page, calling it "trolling". This action and labeling mimic Carfiend's style from last summer. Wahkeenah 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yup. This is pretty much a replay of last summer. I apparently haven't learned a thing since then. I better start substituting beer for tea. Numskll 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since Gravitor is making the same claim in two places, each apparently without reference to or regard of the other I'm copying this here for his reference
Here, let me parse it [the bit he's going on about above]out for you:I regret that because Gravitor and Carfiend's behavior consists of acting in tandem (in the manner of meat or sock puppets), refuse to discuss disputed content on the talk page, and continally provoke revert wars that some administrative intervention is likely required.  Is it clear now? Numskll 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, no. That's not what you said. It's not even close. No rational reading of what you said can make it mean other than that you regret that you were not able to cause a revert war. Gravitor 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quibble is over the lack of a hyphen between "no" and "discussion". The sentence's meaning is "Regretably, [condition1], [condition2], I think it is getting time to figure out the apropriate policies..." And I am as rational as you are, if not more so. I'm surprised you didn't find some hidden meaning in the mis-spelling "regreatably". Wahkeenah 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you think it should be "Regreatably, given the tag-team, no - discussion revert war behavior exhibited,"? WTF? That doesn't help! Gravitor 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's not about confusion over a hyphen. It's not about issues with my comma error. It's not about misinterpretation of a typo.  It's  not really about anything other than Gravyfied trying to bait me and deflect discussion from the topic he clearly wants to avoid (sourcing the context of this article) Clearly Gravitor's misreading doesn't make any kind of sense. I've done what I could to clarify the issue. Gravyfiend simply will not engage in anything other than name calling and POV pushing. It's gotten ridiculous again -- just like last summer. Numskll 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right. I'm just saying that if the hyphen were there, he would have to look someplace else to pick a fight over. It's patently obvious that he's using this just to generate debate as part of the game he's playing. And it's working. >:( Wahkeenah 15:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  true enough. I don't think adding the hyphen at this point will change his behavior. It all about the drama to him Numskll 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Adding the hyphen, inverting the sentence order, adding, and subtracting words doesn't take away from the facts, which are obvious to anyone looking at this honestly. Numskull was expressing his regret that his trolling had not had the desired effect. Look at it in the context of the revert war that he had just instigated - the whole "Regretably, [condition1], [condition2]" business does not make any sense. Numbskull was caught trolling, and none of the good-old-boys wants to admit it. Gravitor 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put the word AND where the second comma is, and maybe you'll get the point. Dealing with you is like dealing with my grandmother. Wahkeenah 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Change all the words, and the punctuation, and it isn't trolling! He trolled, he was caught, let's move on. Carfiend 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well Gravitor at least your refusal to deal with real world evidence is not simply restricted to things hoax related. You're dead wrong about what I wrote and seemingly willfully misreading it -- whatever . . . I guess making hay with your persecution fantasies is easier than sourcing your personal world view.Numskll 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (cough) troll... Carfiend 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would appreciate it if you (gravitor/carfiend) would stop attacking me personally. Numskll 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would appreciate you stopping trolling. Gravitor 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravitor's  trolling: see below for a prime example 

message: Here is what we're disaggreeing on. Let's talk it out
# Context: Why is/is not this page hoax related.
:Yes, again, none of this evidence was collected in response to the hoax, none by hoax proponents, and none of it is referenced by hoax proponents. This is an entirely bogus claim by a couple of users who want to link this to the hoax. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was collected before hoax theories, true.  However, the existence of the observations is evidence against the hoax theories, and it thereby connected to it. Of course hoax proponents wouldn't have collected or referenced it -- the observations stand in direct contradiction to their theories. -- ArglebargleIV 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a small note at the bottom saying that (maybe, what, five people?) actively claim that this evidence does not exist, but that is not the main reason for it by any stretch of the imagination. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find a source that ties all this stuff together as "independant evidence." it is a very straight forward request. Not nearly as nefarious as carfeind/gravitor  make it out to be. Numskll 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the refs in the article. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. I've read them. They don't seem to make the required claims. Do you have one in mind that defines the context? Numskll 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then read them again. They are the context. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  so there isn't one that specifically defines the context? are we relying on you to do it for us? Numskll 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes - some people seem to have some difficulty distinguishing opinion and discussion from evidence. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lunohkod offered to source anything you have an issue with, simply use a fact tag instead of reverts. Numskll 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet he did not actually do it. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any fact tags in that section. Did he delete them or were there none placed? Numskll 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most people don't need a tag to tell evidence from opinion. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is nonresponsive. If you think the stuff is opinion place a fact tag on the disputed item. Numskll 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, some people seem to have trouble distinguishing evidence from descriptions of the programs. Carfiend 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a encyclopedia. It is meant to infrom the general reader. It is not a collection of arbitrarily created lists. All I'm looking for is context and coherence. Why make it so difficult? Why not add a line or two of context?Numskll 01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the hoax is not the context to this information. Gravitor 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then find a source that defines the context. That seems a simple request. Numskll 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the article. Gravitor 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read it. There is no source for the context except your claims. Are you the source? Numskll 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Moon rocks discussion is at the "Attention editors! Discuss Moon Rock Section here" section Branson03 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Branson. Each of the issues has been discussed above, but some editors seem to be having difficulty finding these sections, so I thought I'd make a space for this discussion. Numskll 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds like a good plan. Branson03 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 main disputes 

message: I am unable to find ANY source that is not hoax related that would tie all/most of the items on this page together. Hoax sources are easy to come by. My conclusion is that, for this article to be properly attributed it must be in the context of the hoax. If a source were found that tied them together under some reasonably coherent definition of independance than we could all gladly jettison the hoax stuff (including the hoax related line of reasoning lack of evidence is actually evidence. Failing that,  the significance section should be folded into the introduction. Numskll 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have not looked at any of the links? None are to hoax sites, all to space enthusiasts who have collected evidence (not in response to the hoax). Carfiend 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was spun off from the hoax page, written by hoaxsters to server their own agenda. Wahkeenah 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So what? We don't organize wikipedia based on edit history, but on real world taxonomy. Carfiend 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact peculiar wording Gravitor used 12 days ago. "Taxonomy"? A unique choice of words, and used only by those "two". They should be redirecting their energies to writing about the taxonomy of parrots. Wahkeenah 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the similarly peculiarly-worded comment from Gravitor, again 12 days ago, "Fortunately, Wikipedia does not sort topics based on how they are discussed on the talk page." Whatever that's supposed to mean. Wahkeenah 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually claim taxonomy, but wikipedia isn't organized by a single taxonomy in the formal sense, but rather something like a collection of folksonomies. But that's just another silly deflection. The real issue is that we're looking for a source that defines "independant evidence" of the moon  landings. What is independant? what counts as evidence? Obviously we're using those terms here in specific ways. I can find sources that support the ways we use the term here but they are all hoax related. The challege, and the requirement, is to find one that isn't. I've looked to no avail, So I'm asking the community for help. Can anyone find such a source that defines our terms, places them in context(of the Apollo missions), and is not related to the hoax? Numskll 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their argument is that independent evidence preceded the hoax claims and was not "in response" to the hoax claims, and therefore has no connection to the hoax claims. That argument makes no sense, as no one is claiming that the independent evidence came "in response" to the hoax claims. It simply exists, and can be used to further defeat the hoax claims. Meanwhile, their continued insistence on claiming the right to define "what the page is about" smacks of a claim of "ownership", which is against wikipedia policy. If they want ownership, they should start a blog. Wahkeenah 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of that aside some source that ties all of the disparate items together is wanting. That's the needed source. We use the term independant and evidence in very specific ways. find a source that defines them in context. Numskll 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is directly a result of the hoaxster complaints, going to last summer, that there is no independent evidence. In fact, now that you mention it, the hoax talk page is the only place I have ever seen this question raised. So the only possible context is the hoax. Gravitor/Carfiend's defense of this page's content is based solely on their "vision", not on any other source. Wahkeenah 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point. That's why I've questioned the use of the term "independant evidence" it only means something in relation to the hoax discussions (here and in the wider world) Numskll 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is such rubbish. LOOK AT THE LINKS IN THE PAGE! They are not to hoax sites. Not one of them. Not one. All of the people who document this stuff do it for reasons other than the hoax. Look at the evidence - what you are saying is prima facia wrong. It does not pass the straight face test. Gravitor 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can only assume your deliberatly misreading my request and that you have been unable to find a source which defines or describers the topic of this article. Numskll 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Look. If you're looking for a source that says "The Evidence for the Landings are not connected to the hoax" you're not going to find it, because no-one thinks it would be except you. It's like asking for a source that says that the moon is not made from dust-bunnies. Gravitor 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's simple. i'm looking for a source the defines the use of "independant evidence" in relation to the factoids listed in this article. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. I never heard of the dust bunny thing. Is that Sibrel or Kaysing?Numskll 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The 'factoids' are the independent evidence for the Apollo program. The links in the page are to pages that collect this. They do not list NASA evidence, just independent evidence. I cannot make you read them. Gravitor 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it's independent? How do you know NASA didn't pay them off, in anticipation of future hoax claims? I bet Bill and Bart would say so. Wahkeenah 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's just deal with attribution. Who defines these factoids as independant? Whose defintion are we using? Independant of WHAT and WHY? Source that.Numskll 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read the page, you would know. These are (for the most part) compilations of eye-witness testamonies of people who observed Apollo phenomenon. Their motives vary, but the one thing they all have in common is that the motive was NOT the hoax. Gravitor 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  right. We're not talking about motives here we're talking about how all of these observations become a single set while other observations that seem similar fall outside of the set. The crieria put forth is that they are "independant evidence" Who/what defines these as such and what values count as independant and evidnence, other than mere opinion. This is a simple question. It's not a trick. The fact that you can't answer it reasonably (outside of the context of the hoax) or source that answer should be telling you something . . . Numskll 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  context: why this page is/isn't hoax related (again) 

message: First Gravitor, and now Carfiend, have exhausted their 3 reverts apiece for the day. Wahkeenah 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 reverts

message: Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'm curious how Gravitor and Carfiend apparently define consensus as "2 of us are consensus, 5 or 6 of y'all are a minority, non-consensus view." -- ArglebargleIV 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is agreement on how to move forward. It is not one group ganging up on another - that is majority rule. Consensus means working to gain agreement and collaborating, not edit warring and hoping to carry the numbers game. Gravitor 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to start living up to your own ideals. Wahkeenah 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I love that in every conversation, you want to race to the bottom of the barrel. Everything is name calling with you. Start using the article talk page, and stop trolling mine. Gravitor 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have contacted the admin who blocked you over the weekend, to find out whether the 3-revert rule applies to user talk pages. I don't really know, but we might soon find out. Wahkeenah 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, mention the troll who violated the 33 revert rule on my page. Gravitor 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin can read, and he'll decide for himself what to do, if anything. Wahkeenah 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of consensus 

message: The issue seems to be what to include in this section and how to define the rocks and later analysis of them as independant or not independant. Again miles apart. How do we move forward. Numskll 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the sane want to include independent evidence, you seem to want to make it a commentary on the moon hoax. Gravitor 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're building up quite a catalog of name-calling. Maybe we need a spinoff article just on that subject. Regarding the rocks, the best that can be done is to cite the views of knowledgeable scientists on the subject. Which, as I recall, Numskll already did. Wahkeenah 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In amongst a bunch on unsourced commentry. The sourced evidence is fine. The rest is nonsense. Gravitor 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  fact tag what you think is "nonsense" so we can sort it out. And read your talk page. Numskll 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not getting into the situation where you post slurrys of nonsense and expect me to tag it for you. If you can't source it right, don't post it. Gravitor 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that working towards consensus? You can't spare ten minutes to fact tag what you think needs it? Have you read the sources?  Numskll 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I added sources to these statements. The source is a well respected secondary source. If you do not trust this source, I will find different ones. Lunokhod 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you add some sources about the great wall of china as well? That way we can have a section for irrelevant things? Oh, that's right, we don't put irrelevant things into articles! The commentary on NASA's opinion on the moon rocks is NOT evidence. Gravitor 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't follow your reasoning. The Moon rocks are used as evidence that NASA went to the Moon. The commentary is by an independent scientist. The quantity of Moon rocks is important to note, because if NASA only had 1 kg, the claim that they could have been collected robotically might seem reasonable. So why isn't this relevant to this article? I'm sorry if I am being stupid, but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. Lunokhod 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let's parse this out with respect to the article's title:
* Independant: Check. There is language that deals with the particukar flavor of independance to which this section refers.
* Evidence: Moon rocks are evidence.
*for: the rocks (evidence) are linked to the landings 
* Apollo: they were brought back from apollo missions
* Moon:  They have been judged my experts as being from the moon
* Landings: They rocks came from the surface of the moon, QED someone/something landed there and brought them back. 
This section seems to be relevent. What, specifically,  makes it irrelevent in your opinion? Other, than of course, merely your opinion  . . . Numskll 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus there is no independent evidence that the rocks got to the Earth in any way other than being brought back by the manned Apollo landings.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consensus such as it is seems to be to keep the moon rock section. I have some questions about the level of detail we give in that section. I wonder if it is too detailed or seems overly long when viewed against the long list of factoids presented below it. At some point, if no one else does, I'll launch a discussion in this space on the topic of level of detail in the moon rocks section. 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I find it highly relevent for the reasons I cited above, to which you did not respond. Please do so. Numskll 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have responded. There is NOTHING to link the two ideas. Gravitor 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree for the reasons I gave above? What are your reasons? Numskll 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The same ones I gave above. You've given no reasons to link these two ideas together. Gravitor 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  er . . the topic of the article was the reason I gave. What was your reason? Oh, because you say so . . . hmm . . . I find my reasoning a bit more compelling. Care to expand on yours a bit? Numskll 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we move towards consensus? Moon Rocks 

message: When someone makes an edit, and explains it on the talk page, you should try to move forward rather than simply hit the revert button. Only you can stop revert wars. Gravitor 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  or you. Anyone reading this talk page will have no doubt which editors are trying to reach consensus. Numskll 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. The Numbokodkeenah. Gravitor 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be agreeing with me. Numskll 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That you're a sock-puppet-troll? Gravitor 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to add "NASA shill" to that list. Wahkeenah 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I did. Gravitor 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please take a look at the wikipedia policy on consensus. Your idea that if you have a majority that is it is simply wrong. The truth is not a vote, and you can't just insist that since the majority want to see their pov prevail then that's how the page should look. It have to be with reference to the facts. That's why policies about verifiability are for - facts must be sourced. The stuff you insist is majority opinion is not sourced. Gravitor 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read WP:Consensus. Perhaps we should all take the time to read this again. The sections "Consensus vs. supermajority", and "Consensus in practice" give some advice on how we should proceed. Lunokhod 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahkeenah / Numskull sockpuppet revert war

message: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC discussion of User:Gravitor 

message: ...was to remove a {fact} tag of a piece of opinion. Rather than provide a source, or explain why he thinks one is not needed, simple reverting is the strategy of choice. Thanks Numskll, you really set an example to us all. Gravitor 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page is blocked. I reverted to a consensus version.  Your your latest post is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Please familairize yourself with these policies and adhere to them in the future. Numskll 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No it's not, stop wikilawyering - pointing out your continuous trolling is not a breach of policy. Your trolling, however, is. Carfiend 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carfiend, you're remarks above violate WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL please confrm to these policies.  Numskll 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Numskll, your accusations that others are not assuming good faith are a breach of WP:AGF. Please conform to this policy. Gravitor 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numskll's latest revert

message: Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion.  An article discussing the "evidence for the Apollo moon landings" is a discussion on the truth or falsehood of the of the Apollo missions. In this context, such a discussion can only be between those people who are skeptical of the existence of the moon landings and those people who maintain the moon landings actually occurred.  The subject matter of this article, therefore, is inextricably tied to the question of the moon-landing hoax.
However, assuming this article documents evidence, it only documents evidence "for" the Apollo missions, not against.  Because it presents only the view that the Apollo missions occurred, this article violates the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view.  The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article.  On the other hand, if this is not an evidentiary article, then it is merely a list of unrelated pieces of information on the Apollo missions. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. 
This article violates Wikipedia policy on the above grounds. As this article has already survived a 
nomination for deletion, the proper course of action is to merge this article with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article.
Liberal Classic 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't knoww where to start - first, we should merge Project Apollo with the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax article, since, as you say, "policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article.". Surely you agree? Let's get to work! Or is there a double standard at work here? Gravitor 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if we renamed the page observations of apollo missions. Merging with project Apollo might be a valid idea. But as it it named, and as you've presented it, it belongs with the hoaxc articles. That's where we should start. This comment "work! Or is there a double standard at work here? " isn't civil and it doesn't assume good faith. See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  Numskll 02:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, you didn't read it - I'm talking about merging the hoax page with Project Apollo - as your interpretation of policy demands. Gravitor 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your last remark. 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently not. Since you insist that policy demands we merge articles with differnt points of view, the first task is to merge Project Apollo with Hoax Accusations, since those are clearly POV forks, and unacceptable by your logic. I'll help you do that one. Unless, that is, you only want to apply this rule where it suits your POV? Gravitor 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a link to the Hoax page in the Apollo missions article in the "End of the program and lasting influences" section.  I would think that the hoax is notable and a lasting influence of the program. Liberal Classic 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it is. Gravitor 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that there is a reference to the hoax from the Apollo mission page, we can now place the evidence supporting the existence of the missions inside an article in which discusses the controversy surrounding the moon landings. Liberal Classic 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, if you are absolutely hell-bent on provoking another edit war by going ahead with a disputed move before there is consensus. Gravitor 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But your suggestion was to merge the Apollo Hoax Controversy with the Apollo Mission main page. That would never do because of the article size.  A hyperlink is acceptable, though.  Now that the Hoax Controversy is referenced within the Apollo mission main page, why do you still object to "evidence for" the missions being referenced  from within the Hoax Controversy main page? Liberal Classic 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no, that doesn't work, the Hoax Accusation page is already too big as well - thankfully, you've offered to solve that, by breaking it into smaller pieces - we can do the same to Project Apollo - just the way you recommended for the Hoax page - unless, that is, you're committed to applying the rules only when it suits you? Gravitor 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you mean that I am "committed to applying the rules only when it suits you"? Liberal Classic 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you want to merge this page and the hoax page (even though it does not make sense) but not the hoax page and project apollo (which does make sense) you want to pick and choose which pages to apply the policy to depending on what suits your point of view. Gravitor 03:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read Wikipedia:Content_forking.  Liberal Classic 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read it. Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations is a clear content fork of Project Apollo - the two must be merged (according to your logic, that is). Gravitor 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wahkeenah - this is not my agenda - Numskll is insisting on this. Gravitor 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitor, please don't lie. Anyone can read my comments right here in this section and see you're just that you simply making things up. I can't imagine obvious and blatent lies aren't a violation of WP:CIVIL  Numskll 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So here's what I don't understand, you are constantly lecturing me about good faith and civility, yet it's just fine for you to accuse me of lying and making things up? Maybe that kind of logic is why we don't agree? Gravitor 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well you were lying and making things up in this section about something I just said. It's not fine. You should stop. Maybe take a breather. Drink some tea. Read WP:DICK. It's funny. Numskll 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you get to the point - why you can tolerate a POV fork when it suits you, but not when it doesn't? Gravitor 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand you're point. I simply disagree with it. I'd appreciate it if you would address mine and not continually and seemingly purposefully misrepresent what i've wrote. Please WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF  Numskll 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm actually advocating applying WP:SS for this and the whole constellation of hoax articles to which it belongs. This format scheme is  expressly designed to avoid POV forks. Check it out. See Holocaust_denial for a fairly good example of how the policy can be applied to controversial topics. Numskll 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please stop calling people hypocrites. Liberal Classic 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but again, you're ignoring the point. You need to apply that consistently to have any credibility. Let's start with merging Project Apollo and Moon Hoax Accusations. That way, they won't be POV forks, which I know is annoying you, as you keep pointing out. Gravitor 03:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all for it! Let's suggest a merge. I'll work on the social impact you can diddle around with "evidence." I don't see it as a POV fork though. That seems to be something you've dreamt up. Numskll 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think that there is a need for this article, I suggest that you create it, and then copy the relevant information from this page. Afterwards, we can re-evaluate if the "independent evidence" page is necessary. Lunokhod 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a temporary version for this at User:Branson03/tracked. Because this page is protected, I decieded to make it in my user space. Branson03 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not be altogether opposed to this, except that then the moon rocks would not have any place there. Gravitor 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem with me. Lunokhod 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then the article becomes a list cruft. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." The proper place for this article is within the context of the hoax controversy. Liberal Classic 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My issue is: independant of whom? See my comments on Dr. Keel above and other more general comments on the flakiness of our definition above. Scroll up. We've covered it. Numskll 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You just have to shoot down any suggestion by anyone but you, don't you. He was trying to move this impasse forward by exploring an option that might meet everyone's needs, but no, no. Your POV must prevail! Gravitor 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I was expressing my views. Thar is all. Numskll 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Will you please be civil? Liberal Classic 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am being civil, I was simply pointing out that there is no need to bite the guys head off because he suggested an alternative to your POV. Gravitor 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm sorry, but I do not believe you are. Liberal Classic 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then perhaps you should, as I'm constantly being instructed, Assume Good Faith. Gravitor 03:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  disagreeing and stating the grounds does not equal biting a guys head off. Numskll 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to assume good faith, but you are providing evidence to the contrary. I've only posted in this topic for one afternoon, and in it you have accusd me of fanning flames, making ridiculous and unfortunate suggestions, aggressively pushing my point of view, of holding double-standards and being "hell bent" on provoking an edit war. Frankly, I can see why people are exasperated with you. Liberal Classic 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel compelled to interject here that A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor.Numskll 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the nature of [[Evidence|evidence]]  

message: Wahkeenah, before this got entirely hijacked, I felt like we were getting somewhere. Not sure entirely where, but, for a moment, I glimpsed a future where we both backed away from positions for a moment, and considered the bigger picture, a better, brighter world. A world safe for democracy. Two worlds divide here, in one, you respond: "Yes, but you suck", and in another "I was just thinking the same thing...". Gravitor 06:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, it was worth a try. Gravitor 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe Wahkeenah was dismissing your olive branch. To the contrary, I believe what he gave you was meant to be interpreted as constructive criticism. The guideline says always try to remain more civil than someone else who is behaving poorly. Liberal Classic 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my olive branch back to Gravitor, trying to live up to what the RFC admin asked all of us to do. Wahkeenah 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, I hate to break it to you  but that wasn't an olive branch, it was poison ivy . . . Numskll 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work, guys. Gravitor 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  as you see Gravitor was only waiting for the slightest wiff of dissent to abandon this tactic. Later, he'll claim he tried to make peace but was instanlty rebuffed and he'll do this same tactic again, since its worknig so well for him so far. 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad to see that we're all assuming good faith, and not making personal attacks. Gravitor 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin refuses to take any action on the RFC, so you are free to say and do anything you want without reproach. Wahkeenah 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you tried to use a procedure for complaining about behavior to get your way in a content dispute. It's a kind of procedural harassment. Gravitor 16:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say, is the final answer. We defer to your Teflonness. Wahkeenah 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :: I actually didn't open the RFC and it is your behavior not the content that is at dispute. But it matters little as the process is broken and all your insults and all your disruption are unchecked. Nicely done. Numskll 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of thing is one reason wikipedia will never be any more than a pretentious weblog. If it were a real encyclopedia (1) IP addresses would not be allowed to update it and (2) contentious users would be repeatedly blocked with little hesitation, and would be blocked again if they learned nothing from it. This so-called encyclopedia is more worried about copyrighted photos than about content and credibility. Wahkeenah 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right! We should give all authority on content to you, and you should be able to block anyone who disagrees with you! That's the way to improve Wikipedia! Gravitor 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the admin reproached several of us, he should have immediately issued a block against all of us for some stretch of time, then see who improves their behavior afterwards. But he didn't. Basically, he did nothing. I guess admins don't get paid very well. Wahkeenah 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still 'everything but you' that's broken. The users. The process. The admin. Ever wonder whether that might be part of the issue? Gravitor 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually referenced that precise issue in the RFC. Have you examined your own behavior? Can you even acknowledge it? Answer one of those questions directly. 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We defer to your Teflonness. Wahkeenah 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An olive branch

message: In cleaning out my watchlist, I noticed that this firestorm has been spun off the Apollo Hoax page. Frankly, I am pretty uncomfortable with the degree of tolerance that we have for hoax theories and other fringe things. However, a brief read of this page leads me to question exactly what fight is being fought here. Gravitor is not someone I have dealt with personally, but he appears to be pretty abrasive. On the other hand, the level of rudeness, childish insults and lack of serious response from others is at least as bad.
On the merge proposal, I cannot see any reason to want to merge this page. Consider this a vote against any merge, and a request to have all the heads on this page banged together. Honestly. Grow up and start treating each other like adults. Sorry for any offense, but this level of debate is an embarrassment. Trollderella 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 cents

message: A new article unrelated to hoax accusations exists: Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties. Please discuss this topic on its talk page.
Please continue to discuss the issue of "independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings" here. Lunokhod 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not - this is a gross misrepresentation of the current consensus. It's a plan by a couple of fanatics to push their POV in ever more areas. Gravitor 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If this article stays, I would advocate trimming down the observation section to one or two paragraphs, and add a "main" link to the new page. I also think that we should revisit the merge proposals in about a week's time after tempers calms down on this page. Lunokhod 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, Lunokhod, the new, trimmed down article would contain information about the moon rocks and the retroflectors but not the tracking stuff (are there sections I missed)? Thst cleans up the information for the moon landings vs information of the flights issue, but it leaves this article rather bare and given, in my view it makes the issues surrounding the terms "idependant" and "evidence" rather more problematic and does nothing to resolve the hoax vs definitely not about the hoax conflict. Im my opinion, it over all it seems positive as it cleans up some of the endemic muddiness around this topic. I'd like to see the speculative in-the-future stuff handled even if we can't get anyone to budge on the hoax/not hoax issue.Numskll 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a blatant attempt to make an end run around consensus editing. Gravitor 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  most of the active editors on this artilce don't see it that way and you mounted no argument against it beyond "because Gravitor says so" perhaps you'd like like to expamd on your objections . . . so long as you can keep a civil tongue in your head, a talent you've up to now shown zero talent for. Note, you  pathological griefing troll,  that I'm not soliciting further violations of WP:NPA, WP:OWN or WP:CIVIL though obviously given your past behavior I'm assuming your completely unaware of those policies. Oh yeah, you can pull spell check out of your . . well let's just say you should work with any typoes, per wikipedia policy, to the best of your abilities, however robust or limited they might be . . . Numskll 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  You need to request it from an admin. Who knows what will happen then. Numskll 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is: What do with do with this mess? I am still for merging this topic with the hoax article. Almost all of the material is in the Independent tracking and hoax pages already, so this will be no burden in terms of length. Lunokhod 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We may need some sort of mediation to sort out:
## How to define 'independant'
## How to define 'evidence'
## What context to place the resulting list of factiods in 
The lengthy discussions above have only caused heartburn and don't seem any closer to consensus(at least not the the formal sense) than when we started. Wiki policy on consensus has some advice on this very issue, but we've been cautioned against wikilawyering and I don't  imagine given the discussion above that we'll get buy in from the disenter among us. Numskll 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But do you want this article? I'm guessing that Gravitor is going to take a vacation for awhile, so there is no reason to pander towards his definition of consensus (unless he comes back...). Lunokhod 16:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it as deeply problematic given the strained definitions above and the fact that no one has come up with any non-hoax reference that resolves the problems or even relieves the strain. I'm not simply arguing trivial semantics, I wasted too much time looking for such a source, only to be attacked when I stated that I couldn't find one. As it is, without an attributable context that is not convoluted or dishonest by way of ommitting 'inconvenient' hoax references (peer the Keel source) it looks a lot like a random list compiled via original research to me.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I simple want to state clearly my view on the topic. Numskll 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agreed Numskll 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my impression that the AfD process is harder than a merge. It is also more unpredictable as it is not a "vote". Nevertheless, if we can argue that this article is totally redundant, and that the manner in which this info has been taken out of context as "evidence" is original research, then it should work. I'm not going to file this myself, since I have already done so and it failed. Given that we have searched for such references, and Gravitor has not supplied any, I think that we are justified in re-AfDing this. Lunokhod 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-hoax [[Apollo Missions Tracked by Independent Parties]] article exists