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 2021.
| 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)
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.
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. Dec? — Oxyaena Harass 13:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- No WP page - would  do? And  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
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?
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. 22.214.171.124 (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)
- 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.126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The real conspiracy
- 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)
Another argument against
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)