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! 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 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 Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Cover! (sticky)[edit]

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)

The joke sections[edit]

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)


I renominate this for cover. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Van Allen belts[edit]

I've seen many people (YouTube commenters, mostly, since I don't actively look for this stuff) claim that the Van Allen belts completely prevented them from getting to the moon. I added a section debunking this, feel free to expand/improve it. —Kazitor, pending 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another reason against[edit]

The 'variously misplaced moonrocks' - as described at the other place and elsewhere (eg this story (too peculiar not to mention even given WP's attitude towards the newspaper) and here - among others. Anna Livia (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The cover up 'Part whatever'[edit]

This was a clickbait item.

Most people would accept 'Major organisation covers up dud and similar photos' as a perfectly reasonable 'pseudo-conspiracy.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The link has failed, and no obvious alternative. Anna Livia (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Just thinking[edit]

If NASA had been 'overly cautious' and sent various 'unmanned rockets and rovers with instruments' to do a recce on the Moon what sort of creative-conspiracy ideas would have arisen. Anna Livia (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That robot overlords exist on the moon, a la Francis E. DecWikipedia? Oxyaena Harass 13:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
No WP page - would [1] do? And [2] could be added to the notional RW page on him.
Would it have been possible with 1960s technology to have created semi-autonomous lunar rovers/signal transmitters so that the Apollo ships could have 'followed the signal' to land in a safe landing area? Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate argument against[edit]

50 years since the Moon landing - and not a single release of material to Wikileaks, 'Anti the American Satan' viewpointists, and similar places, official material released under the Freedom of Information rules/normal release after X years (including passing mentions) etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

definition of "fact" = what one chooses to believe?[edit]

The "basic facts" listed in the article are not facts at all. It is IRRATIONAL to confuse what one knows with what one believes. The most telling aspect of this subject matter is the FACT that those who believe in the moon landings try to debunk conspiracy theorists with arguments/rebuttals they encountered many decades AFTER they chose to believe, i.e. they didn't need independent verification and would have believed a fake landing without questions simply because they saw it on tv. The way people react to the suggestion the moon landings were faked is no more rational than the way people respond when somebody questions their religious faith. That's because faith is what convinces people in the moon landings, not independently verifiable facts. (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!, now where did I put that rum?... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I'm not taking you seriously. This is because you didn't even try to read the article beyond the first sentence. Therefore, I'm not going to bother with you, at all, period. You're an idiot, an intellectually shallow buffoon. Bye. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone born eg 20 years ago will only encounter the theories many decades after the event - 'and all the other arguments, including there being no facts or statements by reliable sources to the contrary issued in the past 50 years.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
If as you say, it is irrational to confuse what one knows with what one believes, then you must believe that you know nothing. If you know nothing, then you cannot possibly know that the moon landing did not occur. (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The real conspiracy[edit]

Planning the landing so that its 50th anniversary would coincide with a lunar eclipse. Anna Livia (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lunar eclipses allow you to perform miracles such as converting water into tang. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
What is tang?
Having such a 'quirky Easter egg' would be a far better 'conspiracy' than what the hoaxers come up with. Anna Livia (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Gasp, you don't know the powdery substance you add to water to get a vitamin-c rich drink loosely based on NASA-developed spacefoods? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Not UK usage - have this - or do you mean this
Planning for the long now would be more productive than a cover up; or is the intention to create a tinfoil hat for the Moon to aid the lunacy? Anna Livia (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another argument against[edit]

If there was a hoax (rather than back-formation 'what happened is what we actually intended' and similar) - why stop in 1972, as everything was set up for further 'missions'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I'll play your devil's advocate. Because they successfully convinced the Russians who were doing REAL space launches that we won and they gave up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It is slightly cheaper, after all, to send unmanned missions to the Moon (as you don't have to fund the return journey, pay or insurance of persons involved etc).
And also they were getting in Project Mars Attacks. Anna Livia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Should I still devil's advocate the conspiracy position? I'm not sure if that helps your refine this argument or not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Have not developed the idea beyond what is above (and was the switch to the Voyager missions a factor in the abandonment of the Moon mission?). Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


They consumed too much of one version of [3] so they talk another. Anna Livia (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)