Talk:Moon landing hoax/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I don't have a link for this at the moment, but I once saw a documentary about it, they investigated this case very thoroughly and even interviewed ex-cia agents and ex-Presidential advisers and senators. It turned out there really was a movie, directed by Stanley Kubrick, which was made in case the Apollo 11 mission would fail (which it didn't.) Some pictures that ended up in Nasa's archives and, over the years, in the media, were actually from the movie, explaining why some pictures really do look fake. MiddleMan 10:14, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

That's hilarious, and would make a great addition. The "accidental" hoax, due to a possible planned hoax in case reality didn't work! human^{be in} 13:13, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I would like a source on this. Interesting. It would show that such hoaxes are not only possible, but actually planned in advance. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, a popular movie who's name escapes me now, was built on this premise...it may be what youre referring to.162.82.215.199 14:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Capricorn One, I think. Of course, "many" diversions of one kind or another are planned in advance. Spin control always works best when thought out before the crisis. human^{be in} 14:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, Carpricorn One, starring OJ Simpson. It was about faking a Mars landing but pretty much the same premise. olliegrind 15:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

NASA did that, too, in another attempt to discredit god. Only they used robots instead of actors for Mars. human^{be in} 15:08, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I could prove to you that there are hidden tapes showing a faked moon landing...they called it a "simulation", but we all know the truth. I can't cite it right now, because it's still classified and the government won't let us print it.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:09, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

What's that movie that ends with all the "data" on what happened in the movie being stored in a some giant, anonymous warehouse somewhere? human^{be in} 15:15, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Raiders of the Lost Ark--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:16, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Good point PalMD, but you should read about the Northwoods document and McCollum memo for counterpoints.Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:17, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, well, part of he game is to let some stuff out (whether real or made up) so we think we're getting the whole truth. There's always the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" idea, too... human^{be in} 15:39, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

HEY!

This is all true. According to my brother's doctor's wife's dog groomer's son, (who plays Frisbee golf with a guy whose sister used to do porn films where she met a technician who worked with Francis Ford Coppala's second assistant director's administrative assistant's "husband" who told her it was ALL TRUE. ~~ CЯacke® 10:30, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

The caricature you use here is a model for dismissing any questioning of events that goes against the mainstream. (I do not personally object to it being applied to the Moon Landing, but in other cases, it is a diversionary tactic.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:41, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

It's more a caricature of "evidence" that is no better than an urban legend. As opposed, say, to "I have two anonymous (but identified in my notes) sources from the White House on record that Dick Cheney eats live chickens" from a real reporter. human^{be in}

I'd like to see a real world example. Nevermind, I am sure they exist, but people don't take them seriously. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

A real world example of what? My "cite" pretty much tracks the Woodward/Bernstein Watergate investigations. The "my sister's ex-brother-in-law worked with a guy who knew..." sort of thing is really just Lulz, in this venue (RW). Not meant to make fun of your articles. Just the Moon loonies, in this case. Relax :) human^{be in} 23:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Plus the "fact" that some of these conspiracy theories (the "moon hoax") require 30,000 people (hyperbole) to be "in on it". But people still lend more weight to the theory than they rightfully ought to; the computers in the late 1960's didn't have half the computational power of, say, your cellphone but they got the job done. Okay it took a three acre building to house them but hey, when we do flea markets we take some old payphones we have laying around the joint...I tell 13yo's that "these are what cell phones used to look like". ~~ CЯacke® 23:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Watergate actually happened, right? I wonder how many people had to be in on the faux polish attack on Germany. Big secrets can be kept (at least from citizens of the U.S., e.g., see Manhatan Project....oh, wait, the Russians new more about that program than our vice president at the time.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 08:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, WG happened. Of course, the "scandal" that drove RMN form office was not the break-in, it was the cover up that tied the top of the executive branch to it. A good example would be Tonkin. You've got a bunch of navy guys, most of whom aren't sure what happened, and one or two who do know. They can be ordered to keep quiet and they will, at least while they are enlisted (they are not told why to keep quiet). Then you have a handful of exec branch people and brass, all of whom desire the result. And, of course, all they had to do was "misinterpret" events, not make them happen. Things like the MLH require lots of people to keep it secret, from long before it is even faked. And, of course, long after. It would be easier for me to "believe" that the first one or two were faked, but then we got there - requiring far fewer people "in on it" and since we get there in the end, not much to really reveal. Oh, we need to add that one (didn't really get there 'til '75, or something). human^{be in} 12:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Closed Minded confusion

I love rationalwiki, but I am confused why it is so closed minded (or at least appears to be) I mean, the odds of anyone (including the minds of rocket scientists) pulling off such a hoax with thousands of people and no one smuggling some evidence whatsoever is staggering. However, as the probability is still there, we as rational people should do our very best to find more conclusive proof that humans landed on the moon in 1969. If we don't, conservapedia wins (cp is neutral on this topic, but you know what i mean). P.S. eventually, space travel will be so popular, everyone will be able to see the flag and crater they left firsthand.^{— Unsigned, by: 144.92.44.153 / talk / contribs}

What exactly would be "more conclusive proof" than what we already have? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:39, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we have the rock, the video, the people, the technology, the capsules. What more do we need?--Bob^{bing up} 17:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention the budgets. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

And the fact that the Russians (The Soviet Union!) confirmed it.--Bob^{bing up} 17:47, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

True, but they could be in on it, too! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:49, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah. A conspiracy!--Bob^{bing up} 17:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

When you think about it: About the entire American government apparatus would have had to work together to pull off this alleged hoax. By comparison, a conspiracy with the Soviets seems practically reasonable. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:04, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

"I am confused why it is so closed minded"

To paraphrase Orac, it is possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out uselessly onto the sidewalk.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 18:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

"The Moon is farther than the Sun, ergo - hoax"

Where should I put these guys? (Krishna fundamentalists?) Should I rename the "Flat Earth" section to something like "Total rejection of all science", or? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article

Why does this article have no real good sources or arguement in favor of the moon landing as hoax? Do you want me to add? Lucho (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably becuse there aren't any. ^_^ But seriously, if you're planning to put in content that alters the POV of this article, please discuss it here first. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That fine. I have a paralel article here where I have what I want put in this article. What you think? Lucho (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Boring, old, pro-conspiracy bullshit to be honest. - π 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It not "pro-conspiracy," it more scepticism and pessimism anout moon landing "truth." I can improve through edits, though, to make it more sceptical. Lucho (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you want to paste in a "the moon landings were a hoax" article, copied in its entirety from elsewhere, in to our article about the moon landing hoax conspiracy nutters? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we start simply. This has a bit of a feel of a Gish gallop to me. Can you identify what you think is the single best pro-conspiracy argument, and the best source for that argument? tmtoulouse 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to identify one particular example when so many are good. But let start with obvious one, the waving American flag. There is no wind on the moon, so flag waving is not really possible. Lucho (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is wind the only possible source to increase the kinetic energy of a flag? Is there no other possible source for energy? tmtoulouse 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Funny, I thought that this is a fake argument promoted by covert NASA shills to discredit the real hoax arguments... (Seriously, I've seen a hoax proponent claim this.)

Anyway, do you care to elaborate what makes you think the flag is waving? When exactly it's waving? --ZooGuard (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!" 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)You mean this vid? If it was wind causing it, it'd be far more consistent. You can quite clearly see it only waves when they're touching it, it takes a while to settle down after that because there's no atmosphere (well, a negligible atmosphere). ^moral 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mythbusters did it ^moral 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what also about the all the document contradiction I post in my reasearch over here. How come official document contradict official language by men involved? Lucho (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Gish gallop article. This style of debate is very difficult and time consuming and confusing. It is far better to go point by point. Start with your best argument, be specific, provide the sources, and let us address that point. You can then offer counter-points if you like. Just like what happened with the flag waving. tmtoulouse 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand point about Gish Gallop. But the problem is that there are too many good arguement to choose from to give only 1 good example. I am not trying to throw a bunch of thing to drown you out, just trying test the strengths of arguement. It appear the flag one is weak, and I understand it not nearly best after discussing. Lucho (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then just give another one which you think is "good". If it's it's hard to chose because they are equally "good" then pick one at random. Though I think the fact that your first "good" one was weak is interesting. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, you claim to be an expert on the alleged hoax and have spent at least an year polishing your article in various wikis, but when asked for a strong argument, you put one that is weak, and you concede that it is weak only after a brief rebuttal? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't a full article in it, then at least a section of Gish Gallop can be dedicated to the excuse "there are too many good arguements to choose from to give only one good example". Usually that's code for "I'm talking horseshit". If there are lots of good examples, it's easy enough to pick one. For instance, there's lots of good examples as to why the moon landings were real and I can pick one. The lunar laser ranging retroreflector array, left behind by Apollo 1, has been allowing laser signals to be bounced back from the moon for 35 years. There. Easy. ^moral 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's quite amusing that - after apparently spending so much time on this topic - when asked to give it his best shot Lucho can't bring himself to do it. It's a shame really because I'm sure that quite a lot of people here would honestly like to know what he considers to be the best argument - or the best sequence of arguments if we do them one by one. Come on Lucho - you've got an audience waiting for your most convincing argument!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's because he's not really Lucho, he's one of "us" puppeteering and just can't really get into the crazy very well. Someone should track down the real Lucho and invite him here ;) ħuman 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OJ Simpsons was framed!

I actually saw this argument somewhere some years ago.

OJ Simpson was framed for the murders because he had exposed the moon landing hoax.

No, really. In 1978, OJ was attempting an acting career, and was in a movie called Capricorn One about a hoax mission to Mars. Said movie was inspired by the moon landing hoax. And since OJ brought the truth about the moon landing hoax to so many people, The Conspiracy made it look like he committed a double murder.

MDB (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OJ was acquitted. Frame fail. Conspiracy theory fail. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but the armed robbery frame was a win! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Be that is it may, would any sane person ever date one of OJ's exes ever again? ħuman 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this like some kind of post-modern Pascal's wager? tmtoulouse 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but with potential real-world consequences... ħuman 18:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what they want you to think to throw you off the scent of the real conspiracy! ^moral 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BON edit to page moved here

"The information given on rationalwiki, about Soviet tracking devices, is not congruent with the information given about these same devices on Wikipedia (proper). Wikipedia says that the moment the Soviets managed to assemble functional tracking devices, the remaining 'moon-trips' were cancelled by NASA -- it does not say that the Soviets had always had the ability to track the alleged moon landings."

I regret that I have but one clipboard, or I'd have unsigned it as well. ħuman 05:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Idiots being suckered by a mockumentary

Watch GLPers swallow Operation Lune/Dark Side of the Moon hook, line and sinker: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1162759/pg1 I'm still not sure if the OP is serious or baiting the credulous. --ZooGuard (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pics

I was getting thumbnail errors from some of the images so removed them. Putting them back might solve the issue. ^moral 15:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen similar problems with Commons images. Purging the page usually fixes them. --ZooGuard (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Further arguments

There was some wiggle space - 'the end of the decade' or 'ten years from when JFK made the remark.'

What is the likelihood that 'some images etc were tweaked to improve them'/reworking the backstory so that 'the intentions' matched 'what actually happened' and similar?

Also - if there had been a conspiracy (rather than 'tidying up after the event') - human stupidity and carelessness would have meant that there would have been gaping plotholes in the records (which would have been found under Freedom of Information legislation, and/or persons investigating computer records under legit/less than legit process etc).

There was also a story that the Russians sent a mission to the moon at the same time which crashed and almost all information on which was removed from the records. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of "what is the likelihood?" - one can speculate anything. The question is "What is the evidence?"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I once heard a story of a Russian mission that was sent to the moon to uncover the remains of a dinosaur skeleton found on the moon by Apollo 11. Again, little to no evidence of anything like that exists. ^moral 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I write that article on Apollo 20, or I was only thinking about writing it? Apparently the latter. Anyway, Google it. :) I can write the article tomorrow, now it is quite late in my time zone.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

... and The Daily Sport (UK 'newspaper') a few years ago had a front page exclusive 'Statue of Elvis found on Mars' (and a London bus was lodged in an Antarctic glacier). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the US never went back

... ees simples (says Alexandr Orlov)

Eet has no oil.

QED. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi-fucking-larious. ADK^{...I'll revolve your toaster!} 16:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And manned spaceflight will be resumed once oil/similar energy source is found on Mars/the Gas Giants (using a space elevator)

The Orlov in question can be found here [1]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cover article

This is one of our more interesting articles - "not only factual, it's goaty! What does the mob think would be necessary to catapult it to our cover stories? --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me give it a thorough once-over. Looks promising, though. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my list of things I'd like sorted out before it get the gold:

• The end of the third paragraph cites a TV commercial parody. I'd rather not delete it outright or add a silly {{fact}} tag, but I would like a citation for it.

The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Pepsi max ahs one, but it don't think that's it. still looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9mJt8zRwm4.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another it might be, REd bull -- yep, this one is it. How do we cite/link to youtube? by imbedding? or just linking? or what.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I added it. Thanks for finding it for me. Just a bit more copy-editing and I think it'll be good to go. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It took a bit of clean-up, but I'd say it looks good enough for "Gold" level now. If someone wants to give one more going over and make sure it looks good to them, I think we can give this baby "cover" status. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My copy of The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories says that Bill Kaysing was originally asked to write his book as a satire of moon-hoax theories. Also there is no mention of Capricorn One or that in the movie Diamonds are Forever James Bond stumbles across a fake moon-landing set. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of that one. How reliable/thorough is that source? AFAIK, one of the early CT authors is on record as saying that he started it to get back at the US government for its treatment of Vietnam veterans, though I'm not sure if it was Kaysing or someone else. I need to check.

Why the fixation on Kaysing, though? He was only one of the first, and while a lot of the rest are repeating some of his arguments, they have also added original memes to the "lore". Attacking him makes as much sense as attacking Darwin over evolution. He also seems to be the only proponent so far that the article mentions by name, and we don't have an article about him. There are about a dozen or so more who are prominent enough for separate articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast, please

Can I humbly suggest doing some more work on the article over the weekend, including more research and more citations? Copy-editing is not enough - for example, Herman Potočnik is a cosmonautics (i.e. space exploration) pioneer, not a cosmology pioneer. There is some stuff I can do, but I don't have much time right now.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The article seems a bit confused to me, with all those other conspiracy theories thrown in, what hoax are we really addressing? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not addressing a particular hoax. Instead, we are addressing those who think the United States landing on the moon was a hoax, for which there are many, many theories on the alleged hoax. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 18:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Work to do:

• add spaceflight deniers, e.g. Jared Lee Loughner
• add the Krishnas (see the section above)
• add the "gone, but with advanced technology" nutters
• add a more extensive section on radiation, as it is one of the commonest arguments
• And I really need to finish the Dutch rock article... --ZooGuard (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the "snow on a bright day" analogy: the way it is phrased, it seems to imply a square foot of Moon soil is bright with respect to most surfaces on Earth. In reality, snow reflects ~80% of the light, while the moon only reflects ~12% - less than bare soil. Perhaps that particular sentence should be rephrased. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.127.154.67 / talk / contribs}

The edit button is broken? Humorless fascist^sociopath 16:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing the Tito section

The claim based on a documentary that may turn out to be a mockumentary. See [2] I suggest removing the Tito section, at least until December.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not removed it. I did, however, note that it might very well be a parody. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, about conspiracy theorists, not the article

Reading this article, and the "problems" with the moon landing (specifically the stuff about stars, and shadows), it seems to me that conspiracy theorists must think that those who run the conspiracy are really fucking dumb, while at the same time are smart enough to pull off the theory. *if* it had been a hoax, and *if* stars really should show up on film, than wouldn't NASA, who's clever enough to forge all these rocket signals for Russia, be able to PAINT STARS ON THE DAMN SET???? Boggles the mind.--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, for most conspiracy theories to work NASA needs to be both inhumanly clever and fantastically incompetent. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think how it works is that NASA is indeed inhumanly clever, but still much dumber than the theorists. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There should be something about the consequences of promulgating this conspiracy theory...namely Buzz Aldrin kicking your ass. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, I would pay to watch that. Can we include on this page, Cox (and anyone else) saying "people who think we never landed on teh moon are twats!". Godot What do cats dream about? 22:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin did punch Bart Sibrel in front of a camera, you can find various versions of the video on YouTube for free. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that there are two kinds of "conspiracy theorists" - "CT producers", who compose them (in the case of Apollo landing denialism, people such as Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, etc.), and "CT consumers" with a varying level of belief, from the casual laypeople who wonder why the flag appears to ripple in the photos or have "read something on the Internet", to the die-hard fans of the "producers" who may be wannabe "producers" themselves (it's a kind of fame after all). RW's coverage of CTs, and this article in particular, should be targeted at least partially towards the saner "consumers".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another concern with conspiracy theories is that you can't falsify them. Any evidence you bring up to the contrary can be dismissed as "just part of the conspiracy", and at most you can just refute the "proof" of the conspiracy. It's really, really annoying, especially with large-scale conspiracy theories like the New World Order. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why you ignore them and walk away. let the deluded be deluded--il'Dictator Mikal 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is very difficult to do when several of your family members are conspiracy nuts. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why you ignore them. or pretend to go along with them. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Saturn launch picture and image alignment

The launch picture collage currently in the article contains only the Saturn V launches, including two uncrewed test flights and the (again uncrewed) launch of Skylab, which is only tangentially related to Apollo. I found a similar image in Commons that shows all the Apollo launches, but again includes crewed and uncrewed test flights, and the individual images get too small. At the very least, the current image should be replaced with this one.

As for the image alignment, I had moved both images to the right, because left-aligned images don't look good next to bulleted lists.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

T also get this odd floating bug that happens with unordered lists. It drives me nuts. ^gnostic 17:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The xkcd quote

The xkcd quote may sound good to non-fringers, but hardcore CT believers regularly use arguments along the lines of "The Moon landing was fake, therefore [recent NASA mission] is fake too". *facepalm* --ZooGuard (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see them claim that Curiosity is a fake, then... crap, urge to Google it taking over... ^moral 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for fucks... ^theist 18:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They have been at it pretty much from the very beginning.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rational Argument, Subjective Labels

If the objective was to provide reasoned arguments to counter a number of specific conspiracy theories about the moon landings, then this article seems to have achieved what it set out to do.

However, it also makes unsubstantiated claims about the people who adhere to those theories by casually labelling them as 'crazy', etc. I might also use such terms in everyday conversation but in this context it undermines the article because it is mixing unsupported opinion with reasoned 'fact'.

As someone else commented, it is possible to be infinitely open-minded to the point where everything and nothing is true but in this case, I think it would have been better to have left out the, admittedly mild, attacks on the proponents of the hoax position and maybe saved them for another article entitled, 'Conspiracy Theorists are they all Nuts? The Case for and Against!'.^{— Unsigned, by: Gmart / talk / contribs}

If you want something to be changed, point out specific instances and your objection to them. Otherwise, see RW:SPOV.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tito did it

Does anybody know what happened with that? It's now four months after the supposed airing of the documentary. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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)? 71.162.60.111 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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. ħuman 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)

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. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mars landing hoax

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

[3] is spoof, but [4], [5] 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) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

nVidia debunks lighting problem

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

"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" http://shrani.si/f/40/6J/DW5oD0f/cargo1.jpg http://shrani.si/f/3Y/10O/qJXxtDR/cargo2.jpg^{— Unsigned, by: 89.143.97.3 / 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: 89.143.97.3 / 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: 89.143.97.3 / 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)

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: 93.191.139.9 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also 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: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Real_landings.2C_fake_pictures --Panzerfaust (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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. 31.49.115.224 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

'The photographs are too good'

If you are going to send 'highly trained technically minded people on a #very expensive# trip to the Moon you will give them the best photographic equipment for the job #and# ensure that they are fully trained in using it and in 'how to frame pictures (and take account of the sun and shadows).' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Moon gravity

There are two video clips that come to mind where this can be applied. The moon buggy kicking up dirt while driving and dropping the golf ball. Moon gravity is a fraction of earths so the result of the calculation should be apparent when finished. The dirt follows a nice parabolic curve. Even if they slowed the video the time distance ratio would have been dependent on gravity since friction and wind were absent. Do the math...... Oh, feather and hammer video works too.^{— Unsigned, by: Egorto / talk / contribs}

I genuinely don't know if you're saying they're faked or not. I think you're saying that because of the speed the hammer and the feather fell it must have been on the moon? If so I agree that is another problem with the conspiracy theory. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Shadows

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 [6] - and the comment was written independently of [7] (the Quora website seems to be factually reasonable from what I have looked at). 82.44.143.26 (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.) 82.44.143.26 (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

Moon landing deniers are quite full of BS, no doubt. --Panzerfaust (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Cover! (sticky)

As per Osaka Sun's suggestions, I humbly nominate this article for cover. Thoughts? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"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

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¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 15:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Renominating

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

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

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 [8] do? And [9] 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)