Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

Documentary
We saw a documentary on tv tonite, where all these people who knew about the conspiracy told their stories. Kissinger and all the other politicians and even Kubrick's widow spoke and admitted the hoax was true...They also admitted the elimination of Andy Rogers, Jim Grow, Vince Broom, Bob Stein and Vernon A. Walters. Stanley Kubrick spent the last times of his life at home until he died , terrified of being also eliminated.

Broken link from subject page:
* http://www.clavius.org/ website established to debunk the hoax theories

The first time I heard this theory was in Burkina Faso around 1987 moon landing seemed so incredible to some people there than they believe it was faked. Never heard this anymore in France until around 1995 and the idea was reported by highly educated people it seems Internet played a major role...

Free ringtones Ericd/Ericd 22:41 Sep 12, 2002

:Obviously these people weren't highly educated in astronomy, photography, or engineering... Majo Mills Brion VIBBER/Brion 23:06 Sep 12, 2002

I didn't say they believe in it but there was like a doubt : "Do you think it's possible ?"

: Of all the hoaxes - sorry, conspiracy theories, this probably the one that is the easiest prove false. All used argument by those supporting the theory can be - as Brion points out - countered by using well-known and simple facts of astronomy, physics and engineering. As with most other conspiracy theories, ignoring the counter-evidence, ignoring the huge heap of other evidence and the lack of a decent answer to "why?" should be enough for most people to refer this theory to where it belongs: the garbage heap. Mosquito ringtone User:Jheijmans/Jeronimo

:: There is a very compelling reason "why?" - it was politically very important to win the space race with the Russians, and the endeavor was risky, much safer to fake it. Not that that is evidence that they did, but there certainly was motive. Sabrina Martins 2toise/2toise 03:26, 3 Oct 2003

In ''Capricorn One'' they planned to fake a landing on Mars not the Moon. Nextel ringtones Mintguy/Mintguy 01:17 Sep 14, 2002

The best link is http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html
-
About the lack of flame: it would help if we could tell exactly what propulsed the module off the moon...

:Done. Abbey Diaz User:Maveric149/mav

-
Radiation
Other fata types of radiation, however, are not stopped. In Russian experiments with monkeys, the monkeys all died within 8 hours of landing. The monkeys had been in capsules whose metal walls were eight times thicker than the walls of the lunar landing module.

:This is going to require a damn good reference. The Apollo spacecraft were only in the belts for a couple hours and cosmic radiation isn't that big of a deal due to the short term nature of the trip. I recall that the astronauts got the equivalent of a couple chest X-rays of radiation for the whole trip. They were lucky that there weren't any solar storms those could have killed the astronauts (the LEM and spacesuits would not have prevented fatal doses of radiation). But that didn't happen. Free ringtones User:Maveric149/mav

::Look at the records. There were solar storms. Really intense ones. Miraculously they survived... and lived hale and hearty into their eighties and nineties. I guess a solar storm isn't so deadly after all! Majo Mills User:Clutch/Clutch


During the Apollo program, there were several near-misses between the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon and a deadly solar storm event. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked on the Moon only a few short weeks after a major solar proton flare would have bathed the astronauts in a 100 rem blast of radiation. Another major flare that occurred half way between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 moonwalks would have had a much more deadly outcome had it arrived while astronauts were outside their spacecraft playing golf. Within a few minutes, the astronauts would have been killed on the spot with an incredible 7000 rem blast of radiation.


From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/storm/storms.html




Ralph Rene
I talked to Ralph Rene on the phone twice, he is a nice old man. Very bitter at NASA for destroying his career. Mosquito ringtone User:Vera Cruz/Vera Cruz

:Could you be more specific? I've never talked to Rene in person but has admitted that he is a retired carpenter self-taught in physics. Where is the career connection to NASA? Sabrina Martins User:ilancaster/Ian Lancaster

:I've no doubt he is a nice person. So's Harrison Schmitt, by all reports. Doesn't make any difference to whether he's correct or not. Anyway, this is getting offtopic. Cingular Ringtones user:Robert Merkel/Robert Merkel

I think the point comes down to, people have very good questions about how NASA went to the moon. There are a number of technical questions to which NASA refuses to provide an answer. This is why people think there is a conspiracy. I don't care whether we went to the moon, what I care about is our government and all it's beauraucratic buddies are clearly not leveling with the public. commentariat must User:Vera Cruz/Vera Cruz

:And what questions are those? What concerning the Apollo space program has NASA concealed from public scrutiny? street resident User:ilancaster/Ian Lancaster




Removed a sentence about hoax debunkers getting irrational when defending a subject near and dear to their hearts. It was a cheap, POV, and irrelevant shot. nation pre 136.186.1.116/136.186.1.116 05:44 16 Jun 2003

activity appearing Moon hoax

ghost june Moon landing hoax

Falsifiable?
''Unlike some other conspiracy theories, this theory is falsifiable. Observations can be madefor example, through powerful telescopes or via new moon landingsof the physical evidence....''

Well, if I'm not already convinced ''previous'' landings are legit I am why should I believe evidence from (alleged) new landings? fears make Calieber/Calieber 13:48, 3 Oct 2003

Maybe you could go there yourself... iverson defense Kappa/Kappa 23:54, 18 Sep 2004

:: China's got a rapidly growing space program. If they go to the moon and the reports of radiation, the photography, and so on match NASA's own from three and a bit decades ago, it'll either prove that NASA are correct, or insinuate that China are co-operating with the US in a "hoax" or for some reason attempting to copy the US's 1960s-70s "hoax" without fixing any of the "mistakes" listed here. I'll bet dollars to donus regarding which conclusions each side will draw. time beaten Sockatume/Sockatume 05:43, 2 Oct 2004



Khrushchev
"''In a recent twist, the son of Nikita Khrushchev (the Russian Premier at the time of Apollo) related meetings between his father and John F. Kennedy. JFK apparently offered the USSR a deal to agree to USSR/US missions to the moon. The Soviet leader said "No" initially, but then changed his mind some months later. Khrushchev's son said that, before his father had a chance to seal the deal, members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas. ''"

:Interesting though this nugget of information is. I don't see that it is in anyway relevant to the hoax theory. therapists he Mintguy/Mintguy 16:01, 3 Oct 2003
:: I may have got carried away - take it out if you like, it seemed to me that, though it did not relate to the hoax, it did muddy the waters of the moon landing conspiracy theory. :) As I say, I'm happy for you to take it out if you don't think it belongs here. spinning any 2toise/2toise 16:06, 3 Oct 2003

Hm.. it casts doubt on one conspiracy theory whilst raisng issues concerning another. Sounds very dodgy. Perhaps better in a page about conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's assasination oakland bound Mintguy/Mintguy 23:05, 3 Oct 2003
:You might be right - do you want to have a crack at finding a better home, or just remove it? drams and 2toise/2toise 04:46, 4 Oct 2003

::: I have a more pressing question: is it true - not President John F. Kennedy's joint manned lunar landing proposal (I know all about that) but the assertion that Sergei Khrushchev has claimed "members of the military industrial complex arranged for JFK's assassination in Dallas" before his father had a chance to seal the deal? This is not what Sergei Khrushchev contends in his book, 'Nikita Khrushchev and the Making of a Superpower' (Penn State Press). Would someone be so kind as to provide me with links/references so I can further my understanding on this matter? Thank you very much. withering criticism 195.188.152.10/195.188.152.10 22:26, 28 Oct 2003

-
Title
Sorry, but "Apollo moon landing hoax" is a loaded term which actually makes an implicit statement of truth about Apollo being a hoax. "Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory" is a more NPOV term. bloat bloat Maveric149/mav 08:31, 30 Oct 2003
:OK, I agree that it is, but I actually think that 'conspiracy theory' is also just as loaded term. The term is used disparagingly by people who want to discredit an idea or theory. There can be no NPOV use of the term, because it is a judgement of the veracity of the claim. Can we find another term? How about 'Apollo moon landing hoax accusations', or 'Apollo moon landing hoax theory'?
:I agree that saying 'moon landing hoax' is implicitly saying that it is a hoax, but 'moon landing conspiracy theory' is implicityly saying that it is a conspiracy theory, and therefore false.you rent 2toise/2toise 11:41, 1 Nov 2003
::Isn't the whole idea of the theory that there has been a conspiracy? People do use "conspiracy theory" as a derogatory term in informal contexts, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, written in a whole different register. Indeed the very idea of a large number of people being involved in a successful conspiracy does make the truth of a conspiracy theory improbable, but that doesn't mean there are no true conspiracy theories.harvard which 62.78.231.148/62.78.231.148 11:57, 1 Nov 2003
I'm willing to be convinced, but I can't find an example of anyone ever self-describing their ideas as conspiracy theories, except in an ironic sense - the term is almost always used as a derogatory comment, or as a category label for ideas that are so fringe or improbable as to be not worth consideration. There's a pretty extensive discussion of this subject at dead genuity conspiracy theorykoppel he 2toise/2toise 12:00, 1 Nov 2003

:It is a theory about a conspiracy. That is dryly descriptive and thus NPOV. article seven Theory by itself is another thing. dialectic thesis Maveric149/mav 23:29, 1 Nov 2003

::It is, indeed, a theory about a conspiracy, but you must admit that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is not simply neutral in its connotations - it carries derogatroy connotations. Rather than simply reverting the constructive attempt I made, I wonder whether you can find an instance of someone self describing their ideas as conspiracy theories?2toise/2toise 10:46, 5 Nov 2003

:::They self-describe it as either fact or a theory. But it is neither fact nor a theory (which in the context of an encyclopedia is defined as "a set of ideas explaining some aspect of the world that is held to be true beyond a reasonable doubt by the majority of scientists in that field". The term "conspiracy theory" is no more POV than the term cult, and yet we state that religions that fit that description are cults. NPOV is one thing, but you seem more concerned with political correctness. User:Maveric149/mav

Sorry Mav, I don't really understand where you got that definition - I've never seen anything like it. A theory isn't defined by who or how many people believe it is true. Can you help me out on why you think who believes it affects whether or not it is a theory?
Re Cult, you might want to check that page out, since there is a lot of discussion of its use as a POV term to disparage religious movements. Whether a group is a religion or a cult seems to very much depend on ones point of view. Whether or not a theory is a conspiracy theory is also a matter of point of view. I would ask you again to find anyone who describes their own ideas as conspiracy theories - the reason this is important is that the term is used almost exclusively to disparage ideas, never to dispasionately describe them.2toise/2toise 22:39, 5 Nov 2003


:::Oh, one more thing. The word "theory" is often used by lay persons as a derogatory way to dismiss well-established theories like evolution, saying that it is "only a theory". This is probably what you are thinking about and why you object to the use of "conspiracy theory". But the term "theory" ''does not'' have the meaning most people ascribe! Should we not use that term as well? "Conspiracy theory" is a widely used term for this type of thing - there was even a movie by that name which was sympathetic to at least one conspiracy being true. mav

You're right - the word 'theory' is used to point out that it is difficult to prove beyond all doubt the factual basis of a claim, and is sometimes used as a weak form of the usage of 'conspiracy theory'. Nevertheless 'theory' has an accepted technical usage, 'conspiracy theory' has no usage outside of POV judgements. There is a great difference between saying that evolution is 'only a theory' (that it has not been proven beyond all doubt) and saying that 'evolution is a conspiracy theory' ("in my opinion, only a crackpot would believe it").
I'd really like to ask you to stop simply reverting other people's attempts to reach constructive compromise on this, and try to justify the use of the word outside of judemental POV language2toise/2toise 22:39, 5 Nov 2003

I'm suggesting the NPOV titles of:

1. Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

2. Apollo moon landing hoax theory

3. Theory of faked Apollo moon landing


They all indicate that the matter in question is the alleged faking, or hoaxing of the Apollo moon landings, and also indicate that this is merely a theory, or an accusation, not a statement of fact. I think that any of these would be a more NPOV alternative than the current - what do you think?2toise/2toise 22:49, 5 Nov 2003

:For God's sake! Have you read our theory article or have been listening to anything I've been saying? It ''is not'' a theory at all! Maveric149/mav 18:09, 8 Nov 2003
::Yes, I've read it, I don't see why, even by your slightly esoteric definition, this is not a theory; evidence is presented, predictions are made that can be tested- what's the problem?2toise/2toise 18:41, 8 Nov 2003

For the record, here is what Wikipedia has to say about conspiracy theories on the page Falsifiability:
Conspiracy theories
There are other examples of theories, however, that are much less controversial as examples of unfalsifiable claims. Some so-called "conspiracy theories," at least as defended by some people, are essentially unfalsifiable because of their logical structure. Conspiracy theories usually take the form of uncircumcised existential statements, alleging the existence of some action or object without specifying the place or time at which it can be observed. Failure to observe the phenomenon can then always be the result of looking in the wrong place or looking at the wrong time. Conspiracy theorists defend their position by claiming that lying and other forms of fabrication are, in fact, a common tool of governments and other powerful players.

The Moon Landing Hoax clearly specify the place, people and actions that took place. Some looneys (excuse the pun) might deny the evidence, but the theory in itself would be falsifiable by finding the evidence of the landing on the moon, either by going back or by photographing it with a telescope. The Moon Landing Hoax Theory is not a conspiracy theory by Wikipedia's definition. 2toise/2toise 16:00, 6 Nov 2003

Given that this suggestion has generated no controversy, I am going to change the name to Apollo moon landing hoax theory - if anyone disagrees, I would ask them to discuss it here rather than reverting it, thanks!2toise/2toise 17:10, 8 Nov 2003

:No controversy in a day. I'm moving it to Apoll moon landing hoax accusations. Maveric149/mav 18:09, 8 Nov 2003
::To be fair, it was three days...User:2toise/2toise

I changed the title but upon second thought maybe Apollo moon landing hoax allegation would be a better title.

accusation
n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the
act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal]
2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence;
"the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of
drunken driving" [syn: charge]

allegation
n 1: (law) a formal accusation against somebody (often in a court
of law); "an allegation of malpractice"
2: statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact that
you are prepared to prove [syn: allegement]

Maveric149/mav 18:31, 8 Nov 2003


That works for me, great!2toise/2toise 18:37, 8 Nov 2003

My first impression on looking at the title was "what an odd title". Then I went over the above discussion and got to know the history. I feel the title was a temporary patch to cool the fires and it still can be improved. My objection with the title is the word :
"accusations" the page is not just about the accusations but also the rebuttals.
Its ok if its the title of a redirect page, but not the main page. Jay/Jay 19:25, 15 Mar 2004

I'd be inclined to call this page exactly what it is all about: 'The Apollo Moonlanding Hoax Conspiracy Hoax' - I see no need to be nice about this or express the "NPOV". Some issues aren't neutral and can be scientifically analyzed. This is one of them. The hoax conspiracy claims are outrageous and we shouldn't treat it with kid gloves. The hoaxers make claims, we can examine them with the light of reason and science. Fair and unbiased treatment does not have to remain "neutral". Jscotti/jim 07:05, 16 Mar 2004
:Wikipedia policy is to be "neutral", not "scientific". I agree with you that these claims are completely bunk, but if we say this outright it will likely lead to edit wars. Remember that hoax believers are also capable of editing wikipedia articles - if we reject the claims they will get angry and rewrite the article. The only possible compromise is neutrality. Shibboleth/Shibboleth 18:57, 28 Aug 2004


What you fail to realise is that in some countries a movie or photograph is not admissable as evidence. The majority who beleived this incident beleived that the film was admissale for their judgement. You also fail to consider that unless the Wikipedia should be dubbed Wiki-"Anglo_centric views" that the majority of the world does not beleive in the moon landing and never did. Perpetuating a lie such as the moon landing is a dangerous thing and even the Encyclopedia Britanica attempts to appease for the moment both beleivers and non beleivers by a very sublime and almost generic writeup under the title Apollo program. It allowed them to talk about the program without mentioning anyone landing on the moon. However, Neil Armstrong gets a write up about landing on the moon. I suggest someone invent a way to burn E-Text.

:we are here to create an enclyopedia not appease anyone (otherwise the page on north korea would start NK is the best country on the planetly lead by the genius of kim joung il). Film is far from being the only evidence of the moon landings. Flim and photos are admissable in court in my country and indeed in most that I know of. I am not aware of high levels of disberlife in the moon landings in either india or china so your statement about numebrs of belives is probably untrue. Either way it is an appeal to popularity logical fallicyGeni/Geni 13:12, 1 Dec 2004

500

1800
Here's another moon hoax! [http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html] I wonder, should we turn this into a page on (alleged) moon hoaxes, or keep this one as an Apollo landing page and find another home for this?2toise/2toise 12:08, 1 Nov 2003


The Kubrik connection
It is alleged that in early 1968 (while 2001 was in post production) NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three moon landings. He initially said he was not interested, but, apparently, NASA convinced him using a combination of carrot and stick; exclusive access to the alien artifacts and autopsy footage from the Roswell crash site, and threats to publicly reveal Raul's (Kubrick's younger brother) links with the American Communist Party.

Kubrick is alleged to have spent sixteen months working on the project with a special effects team led by Douglas Trumbull on a sound stage in Huntsville, Alabama, with the Apollo 11 missionbeing staged in July of 1969.

Allegedly a Saturn V rocket was launched into low Earth orbit with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins remaining there while Kubrick's footage of the 'landing' was released to the press. The return to Earth and splashdown were, of course, real.

Several months later, the Apollo 12 mission was successfully staged in a similar manner.

Randall Cunningham was later recruited to direct a 'failed mission' - Apollo 13.2toise/2toise 12:24, 1 Nov 2003

http://moonhoax1.tripod.com/MoonHoax/id1.html

Suspicious Deaths
10 astronauts died under mysterious circumstances during Apollo.

Deaths:
*Ed Givens (car accident) [http://www.astronautix.com/astros/givens.htm]
*Ted Freeman (T-38 crash) [http://www.astronautix.com/astros/freeman.htm]
*C. C. Williams (T-38 accident)
*Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident)
*Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire) (outspoken criticism of the Space Program)
*X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut but had flown X-15 above 50 miles (technically he could be considered an astronaut along with a number of the other X-15 pilots).
*Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash shortly after reporting for duty to that program.
*NASA worker Thomas Baron was a murder and a coverup of a 500 page report on the Apollo 1 accident.

How many people believe it?
OK, I did some brief research on this, and it seems that the last serious effort was in 1999 with a Gallup poll which said that in 1999 about 6% of Americans believed the landings were faked. While this is small, it is also a significant number of people. We should be careful about bringing the number of people who believe in a theory aggressively into the first paragraph of an article, especially unless we want to treat all minority beliefs the same way (for example, see recent Gallup polls on evolution).2toise/2toise 12:32, 8 Nov 2003

:I have to dispute this comment about the Gallup poll. What source did you use? I'm skeptical that the poll really did say that. Oftentimes these polls will ask, "Is possible?" And then maybe 6% said yes. But saying something's possible is not the same as saying you believe it. Chan-Ho Suh/Chan-Ho 11:38, Jan 26, 2005
::[http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=1993] This is the link to the Gallup page on the poll they did in July 1999. But you have to a subscriber to really actually see anything like what question they asked etc. Evil Monkey/Evil Monkey → User talk:Evil Monkey/Talk 21:16, Jan 26, 2005

:Oh please. Evolution and this crackpot idea are not comparable. Evolution is a scientific theory that is held to be true beyond a reasonable doubt by scientists and has the evidence to support that claim. The moon landing thing attacks scientific evidence and states that there was, and still is, a mass conspiracy to cover up the "truth". Maveric149/mav 18:31, 8 Nov 2003

You can state that as often as you like, but how are they qualitatively different? What kind of falsifiable predictions does evolution produce that are any less flimsy than the moon landing? For the record, I believe in evolution, and do not believe in the moon hoax, but that's my point of view - we have to treat all theories with a certain amount of neutrality.2toise/2toise 18:43, 8 Nov 2003

:The moon hoax idea is ''not'' a theory! Evolution has been proved to exist in microbes, unequivocally. There is also a huge mountain of evidence to support the claim that evolution occurs in higher taxa as well. I didn't claim a qualitative difference, but a huge quantitative difference. But since you asked there is a major qualitative difference; the use of the scientific method. The moon hoax proponents don't use it while biologists do. Maveric149/mav 06:24, 9 Nov 2003

::Well, I guess the comparison was an uncomfortable one, since the moon hoax is a social science theory, or a thoeory of human behaviour, and so scientific method is less easy to apply rigorously (you can't easily perform experiments on human history) but I doubt that you are really suggesting that the fields of social science and political science really don't generate theories because they can't perform experiments on their subjects?
In fact (althought I am sure you can find some moon hoax proponents who don't) the moon hoax theory does use scietific method:

*Observations have been made about many aspects of the moon landings that throw doubt on the conventional hypothesis that NASA built a fantastically complex space program and flew people to the moon on multiple occasions over a number of years.
* A new hypothesis was generated; that in fact, it was not necessary to invoke a complex space program to explain the current facts, and indeed, the current evidence could be explained ''better'' by the hypothesis that NASA faked the landings. This hypothesis could explain all the current evidence, and the evidence that is problematic for the old hypothesis.
* Test:
**Predict: The logical consequences of this predict, for example, that there should be no lander debris or footprints on the moon.
**Experiment: This experiment has not yet been carried out, one can only speculate as to why, but the ESA has promised to use its VLT for this at some point.
* Conclude: Because this experiment has yet to be carried out, we can neither accept or refute the hypothesis at this stage (unless, of course, we have already made up our minds, and are so committed to the status quo hypothesis that we are unable to accept a new one, a common enough fault in scientists).

Where is the flaw in the scientific method? We're just waiting for the experiment.2toise/2toise 11:21, 9 Nov 2003

:Sorry, but there is a major flaw in your reasoning; if the result of that experiment does not conform to the moon hoax conspiracy theorists' beliefs then they will undoubtably not accept those data as valid and will in fact say that that is part of the conspiracy. They have already done the same thing with the moon photos, moon rocks and moon reflectors. You ''cannot'' pretend to accept the scientific method when you only accept experimental results that conform to your pre-conceived notions. This has been an interesting discussion, but I do believe that our disagreement over the actual article and its title are over, no? Maveric149/mav 11:34, 9 Nov 2003

::Absolutely - I don't think we disagree on the title or the article - just so you know, I'm sort of intending to merge the bullet lists into more of a discussion of the issues, I think the bullet lists are kind of kookey.
::Re the scientific method though, I think it's important to distinguish between individuals, who may or may not follow the rules, from the theory, which certainly can be made to. It's really important to do that, otherwise the whole excercise becomes about discrediting individuals rather than looking at the evidence (after all, we're talking primarily about the accusations, not the accusers).2toise/2toise 12:02, 9 Nov 2003

Kubrick "documentary"

Thought I should point out, since somebody's offered it as evidence further up this talk page, that the French "documentary" ''Dark Side of the Moon'', about Stanley Kubrick's involvement in the fake moon landings, is - interviews with genuine Kubrick family members and US Government bigwigs notwithstanding - '''not true'''. And not meant to be true. The out-takes during the credit sequence ought to be a dead giveaway, even for people who hadn't noticed that several of the interviewees were named after characters in Kubrick movies. (And that joke about the Acidic Jew - oy.)
*http://www.pointdujour.fr/Va/programmes/prog_fiche.asp?idProg=20965
*http://pub208.ezboard.com/fcanadianskepticsforumfrm8.showMessage?topicID=28.topic
—Paul A/Paul A 03:17, 16 Dec 2003

Falsify?
Can we go back to disprove? I think falsify is a little confusing in this context because of the possible interpretation of 'falsifying evidence'. We are talking about the relative easy with which the theories could be proved false, not faked. 209.102.127.144/209.102.127.144 03:20, 16 Dec 2003

totalism
'''Re:''' ''(+"No qualification is offered to support this claim of "more accurate" mirrors, nor is any correlation shown between the "accuracy" of mirrors to their placement in arbitrary locations on the moon.")''

I don't care to get in a revert match, but the statement above can not possibly be substantiated, because it is in a passive voice that fails to limit the scope of "who" is not offering such evidence, and says nothing about to whom the evidence might have been offered. Further, it is unlikely that an unpaid Wiki volunteer has conducted exhaustive interviews at NASA to determine what NASA has offered. The claim would have merit if the editor did the research and provided to us evidence of the comparative accuracy of the two mirrors, allowing for changes in the ability to accurately place mirrors by robot in more recent years. SoCal/SoCal 21:29, 19 Feb 2004

Bias
This article is biased towards opponents of a moon landing hoax. See statements like:

"That the hoax believers can only produce 2 other suspicious deaths amongst the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo indicates just how far they must reach to try to support their conspiracy theories.

:This is a wiki - edit it if you like - remember the principle that we should be writing from a Neutral Point of View! Mark Richards/Mark Richards 16:18, 19 May 2004

Slowed film?

I have heard a few people on some sites discuss that, after viewing moon landing footage and working out the approximate value of 'g' from observing dropped objects, that it is not 0.6g but indeed closer to 0.5, and that the footage may have been filmed on earth and slowed by 1/2. I dont have access to any of the films. Might anyone with some more experience or info on this care to add?
User:Flippant/Flippant


:and if you slow down an olypic 100M sprint it looks like your school sports day. this means nothingGeni/Geni 20:04, 25 Aug 2004

::Speeding up the moon landing footage by a half looks really, really, really weird. They walk like Thunderbirds puppets, dust still fails to cloud as it would in an atmosphere, the rover bounces wrong... ah, well, nice shot. Sockatume/Sockatume 04:34, 2 Oct 2004 Sockatume

Hoax proponents Vs. Landing skeptics

Just thought it worthwhile to have a bit here to discuss the language use (seeing it edited one way, then back). I personally don't have a problem with the use of either; the former says that they individuals in question propose that it was a hoax, and the latter states that they're skeptical of the landings. Frankly I reckon the latter's clearer, though. Sockatume/Sockatume 21:24, 19 Oct 2004

Suggestions To Fix This Issue.

1. There has been no evidence of a moon landing other than a film (for the majority of people)

:So what there is plent of other evidence avaible if you want.User:Geni/Geni

2. The fact that many people worked on a project is like claiming the government department of childcare knows exactly what the government department of chemo-toxic warefare is upto on the weekend.

:WE have a pretty good idea what they are up toGeni/Geni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004

3. The 358Kg of rock brought back from the moon could have been excavated from radiation blasting sites, meteorite deposits, or volcanic materials we have no substantiating proof of the sampling method used nor of the training the astronauts had for sample collection. (i would say they know nothing about them except for Neil Armstrong who later was involved with an oil mining company)

:evidence for any of these claims?User:Geni/Geni

4. The Photos can be either seen as a source of evidence or not. Those accepting them have different opinions to those that do not accept them. I can make for instance a short film of me floating on the moon.

:Really? Now makes hours of footage without makeing any mistakesUser:Geni/Geni

5. If we accept the Moon landing as an entry then there must also be an entry for the Greeks who landed on the Sun in 700BC.

Why? There is not comaprision between the twoGeni/Geni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004

6. The majority of people in the world do not beleive the moon landing was real.

:Evidence? Once again I must point out the above is a logical fallicy

We can go on debating because that is what a lie produces. It is not a cyclic argument but a spiraling argument towards the base or product of a lie. If you think it happened then the outcome of your conclusion is essentially based on two sources, a movie and writups from encyclopedias and books about this subject. I suggest that this encyclopaedia reform its content towards a propagation of truths rather than perpetuation of lies. So this is my resolution:

:We have/had a debate going on medern geocentralism. Must therefor we accept that that thoery is correct?User:Geni/Geni

Ommit all references to a moon landing. Talk about Appollo Program, Talk about the astronauts but never mention in any way that there was such a thing as a moon landing or even space travel. Neither of these things are a reality and neither of these things have been proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.

:yes they haveGeni/Geni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004

We may speak of attempts to enter into space and landing on the moon, but to suggest, imply or even ratify that they did is a falsification as it must also require the "creation of fact" or the use of created "facts".

:prove itGeni/Geni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004

Also, before I finish I would also like to mention that the more beneficial categorical entry for all these space and high technology space achievements is "How propaganda works?". We should consider initially the impact of delivering a non stop televised broadcast to multiple nations. We may consider how it has been used like a trademark or trend for the perpetuation of lies. Maybe we should also write about how encyclopedias are used to do the same.

:I seem to recall that we have an article on propagandaGeni/Geni 14:59, 1 Dec 2004


:: Consider this: of the countless nations, many of which were competitors in the Space Race or enemies of the United States, or both, at the time of the landings, not one- ''not one'' has come forth to stand by the claims made by landing disbelievers. Not at the time, not after the event, not now. That the most public face of the landing skeptics is an American guy wafting around a leaf blower in a dusty quarry to attempt to disprove space flight, and not the former head of the KGB, or one of the many then-USSR spies inside Apollo, speaks volumes. Sockatume/Sockatume 02:07, 2 Dec 2004

Kubrick

It is worth noting that during the lunar scenes in ''2001'' Kubrick's Earth appears as a white/great ball, rather than the continents clearly outlined... I think this is significant and should be mentioned.

Sightings by amateurs

I added the note about amateur astronomers and amateur radio operators tracking the Apollo spacecraft. I personally saw Apollo 13 through a 10" telescope a few hours before the explosion. Rsduhamel/Rsduhamel 23:38, 20 Dec 2004
:You've added that the explosion was seen from Earth. I always understood that what people saw was that the spacecraft started to be surrounded by a 'cloud'. Evil Monkey/Evil Monkey → User talk:Evil Monkey/Talk 23:49, Dec 20, 2004

If there is a conspiracy it involves not only NASA and the US government but all professional and amateur astronomers working at the time in all countries of the world, many of whom would have been
delighted to prove the US never got to the moon.

Exile/Exile 11:21, 20 Jan 2005