There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
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)
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). 220.127.116.11 (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.) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Sights of the Apollo missions
Not only the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and others, not NASA-managed, space missions as the Japanese Kaguya have sighted from Luna's orbit what was left up there by the Apollo missions (it seems that to leave a lot of trash behind wherever we go is a human signature) but also there're amateur astronomers that back in the early 70's reported to have spotted the light emitted by the attitude jets of the Apollo modules when they were maneuvering in Earth's orbit and even pictured a release of fuel as a bright bubble. And more recently are these
- To be honest, reducing mass is a huge deal in spaceflight. Extra mass means extra propellant. Extra propellant means extra mass. Etc. —Kazitor, pending 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Van Allen belts
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
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'
This was a clickbait item.