Talk:Moon landing hoax
- Contains a wealth of info and is about a fairly well-recognised conspiracy theory. Needs a bit of copy-editing. Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Key question: in what ways do we outdo the Wikipedia article on the subject? Do we cover everything useful that they do? What can we do that they can't? - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to expand the article and create and expand its supporting articles (e.g. the major conspiracists) in the next few days. A few things I'd like to get feedback on:
- Should the bit about the prevalence be expanded? In general, I think that one should make a difference between "casual" believers, conspiracy junkies and the "researchers" who start various conspiracy memes.
- Also, should there be coverage of the history of hoax claims?
- Do things like Capricorn One and Alternative 3' warrant a mention? If yes, where?
- Yes, yes and yes. For these purposes, our unique selling point over WP is that we can include opinions and less-than-Wikipedia-quality sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten about this, I just have had little free time. :( --ZooGuard (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The joke sections
Any idea what to do with "Moon landing" and "Moon landing hoax hoax", including their footnotes? The Occam's Razor footnote is a bit of a non-sequitur. Should they have some kind of better indication that this is humor/sarcasm? Template:Lie? Also note that a few people do believe that the hoax accusations have been started by the US government as a disinformation campaign.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone? I'm tempted to feed them to the crows.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
We went to the Moon, but...
There is a gold-level crank here who says we went to the Moon, but that we detonated a nuclear warhead there to get rid of an alien base (the video presented as proof was just the product of a local animation company). Would it fit well here or it's worth of its page? — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Anyways, it certainly sounds missional enough, though likely not sufficient for its own page. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, he's already mentioned here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Real_landings.2C_fake_pictures --Panzerfaust (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason against the hoax number(whatever)
'The photographs are too good'
If you are going to send 'highly trained technically minded people on a #very expensive# trip to the Moon you will give them the best photographic equipment for the job #and# ensure that they are fully trained in using it and in 'how to frame pictures (and take account of the sun and shadows).' 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There are two video clips that come to mind where this can be applied. The moon buggy kicking up dirt while driving and dropping the golf ball. Moon gravity is a fraction of earths so the result of the calculation should be apparent when finished. The dirt follows a nice parabolic curve. Even if they slowed the video the time distance ratio would have been dependent on gravity since friction and wind were absent. Do the math...... Oh, feather and hammer video works too.— Unsigned, by: Egorto / talk / contribs
- I genuinely don't know if you're saying they're faked or not. I think you're saying that because of the speed the hammer and the feather fell it must have been on the moon? If so I agree that is another problem with the conspiracy theory. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
How many of the 'duplicate shadows' are likely to be 'Earthglow shadows' (as the Moon casts shadows on Earth)/back-reflections from the lander etc?
And following on from my now-archived comment that the reason there has been no return to the moon is that there is no oil there - I have found  - and the comment was written independently of  (the Quora website seems to be factually reasonable from what I have looked at). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oil is made of dead stuff, nothing lives on the moon. Christopher (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Most RW-ians know that - but the proponents of the first link do not (it would probably be more viable to go and scrape the comets/Oort cloud and Kuiper belt bodies of their accumulated organic compounds and send the combined gunge in the direction of Hubble Heliopause Astronomical Facility for reprocessing into fuel than taking oil off a planet. Think something like a pelican eel or binbag holder with a swallowing facility and, when the bag is full, a homing device to HHAF.) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)