Talk:Moon landing hoax

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination here on the talk page.
Instructions here

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] If faked, then how?

The CTs constantly focus on the same photos, supposed anomalies, etc. Have any of them proposed even the basic framework of a hypothesis for how NASA did it? Is there any agreemnt among them regarding the effects used (slow-motion, some sort of special substance for the moon dust, etc)? (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Siegfried Marquardt

Siegfired Marquardt (a quick Google search shows that the name probably is accurate) dumped something that looks like a bad translation of a screed he copy/pastes all over the Internet. If I have time, I may care enough to dissect it, or ping the appropriate people for that.--ZooGuard (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting this idiot and refuting him would be a great side project on this page. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen that gibberish before. Anyway, I actually am an aerospace engineer, employed in the aerospace industry. My particular field of experience is in environmental and structural testing. In short, I shake and bake satellites and other space-bound objects. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I work with people who literally are. So if you ever need some space-related quackery looked into, feel free to bounce your questions off me. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
In CT land, that would make you a NASA shill. :) Thanks for the offer, though I guess I'll have more problems writing up his formulas properly in LaTeX.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll make it a separate page. His arguments are not representative of hoax-theorists as a whole, and this article is already too unwieldy.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. It just reads like poorly translated jargon sprinkled with scary maths, to loft up the same old canards. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, machine translated - I've found the German original, this seems to be the result of putting it through Google Translate. And the formatting of the maths suggest the original original is a Word document or something similar. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Poorly translated... machine translated... same thing. Anyway, it's the typical CT's shotgun of bullshit. And he knows it's bullshit. He starts off by claiming the ideal rocket equation shows that a Saturn V couldn't have reached orbit. Ignoring everything wrong here- if he really believed that to be the case, then why would he even bother "debunking" any further? --Inquisitor (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Cover! (sticky)

As per Osaka Sun's suggestions, I humbly nominate this article for cover. Thoughts? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg "Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar" 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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)
And a lot of other stuff. I'll see what I can do.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:44, 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)
Outdoing Wikipedia would probably require writing a lot more than one article on the subject...--ZooGuard (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
We need to be more than Wikipedia-lite ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 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?

--ZooGuard (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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)
One of the reasons I asked is because Wikipedia's article covers such things (especially the first point) better than RW's current version. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:22, 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)
So ... how you feeling about it now? (I'm going "oops, that was two months ago wasn't it") - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Axed 'em. The joke pictures did all the necessary comic relief, if you ask me. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox 15:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The question is

Why go to all that trouble when it would be much simpler to set the criteria for 'landing safe, land at captain's call, unsafe to land - go round the moon and get photographs etc' somewhat more rigorously than necessary ('and we will land a man on the moon on the 10th anniversary of JFK's announcement'). NASA would face only mild flak for 'admitting we were far too cautious - but subsequent parts of the moon program were much safer' )and there would be far fewer possibilities for 'the inconsistency that unravels it all'/'somebody collecting information to sell to the papers to pay for their retirement' etc. (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Mars landing hoax

Should this have a subsection here or a page of its own?

[1] is spoof, but [2], [3] and various others (making various references to 'the usual suspects') appear to believe what they are saying. (There are also Voyager is a hoax websites)

(And a blue telephone box will be landing on Earth next month) (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] nVidia debunks lighting problem

Might be useful. Zero (talk - contributions) 07:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools