Talk:Moon landing hoax

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on the this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

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


[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] Renominating

I renominate this for cover. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] nVidia debunks lighting problem

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

[edit] "Tito did it"

I would not say that "Tito did it", but there is always some truth in it... Fact is that Croatian scientists worked on the Apollo 11 module. Secondly von Braun was indeed reading Potocnik's book. I do not know what is the source of this document, but it obviously existed at least something which was called "Spaceflight cargo from Yugoslavia shiftmen logistics Codename 1182/S"— Unsigned, by: / talk 11:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)‎

I've got to say that I don't find those those two grainy pics evidence of anything at all. And I have no idea by what you mean when you write "but there is always some truth in it". What on Earth is this supposed to mean?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say that there is always some truth in rumors...— Unsigned, by: / talk 17:21, 23 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Then you were wrong.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Top 7 scientists who worked on the Apollo 11 were Yugoslavs, one of them died in 2013... He was a croatian. Sadly I can not remember his name.— Unsigned, by: / talk 00:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And a bunch of the parts were made by Rocket City rednecks. Point? PacWalker 09:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Point is, "Pay attention to timestamps and don't resurrect threads that have run their course" (the bot will eat them in due time). Aside from that, you are making the major mistake of accepting the BoN's unsourced assertion as fact.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
...Oopsie. And I don't accept it so much as I challenge its relevance/importance. PacWalker 09:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 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: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png 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: --Panzerfaust (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Reason against the hoax number(whatever)

Are the governments #capable# of keeping a secret that big for approaching 50 years? And - too many loose ends otherwise. (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools