Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/Archive 14

Back to the Moon in 2020
On January 14, 2004 in the NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., President George W. Bush announced the New Vision for Space Exploration Program.

"Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods."

Could this statement not support the hoax-theory? In the 1960s NASA was able to put a man on the Moon in less than a decade. In the 21st century however it will take 16 years. Why such a long period to repeat an action of which NASA possess all the knowledge and expertise?

--Afopow (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What part of "Return to the moon" did you miss? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As always with evidence for the hoax, there is an answer to that point. I can think of two plausible reasons why they were able to do it so quickly last time: (a) they had unlimited money and (b) meeting the deadline was more important in relation to safety than would be permitted now. Man with two legs (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of those factors are important. Keep in mind that the last few Apollo missions were scrubbed because Congress stopped the funding. It's all about money and politics - and don't be surprised if Bush's schedule is not met, because people will say our money should be spent elsewhere - which was also being said in the 60s, but the Cold War mentality won out, until we achieved the goal, and then the enthusiasm for the program faded. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that it took 12 years just to get the Shuttle going. The focus of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo series was narrow and specific. The Shuttle program was a lot more complex and broader in scope, as would be the Bush moon plan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out that each Apollo mission built on the previous one, and became more complex. A good clue of early expectations would be the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. At that time, it was postulated that by 2001 we would have already been doing what Bush proposes doing now. Had the Apollo mission continued on, I'm sure we would have. Instead, Congress and the public decided there was no further need to go to the moon, and the Shuttle and other earth-orbit launches became the focus of NASA. Note also the continued evolution of non-human interplanetary explorations since then. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, it should be in the archives a few times. To put it in perspective, there was the Cold War and the Soviets were doing almost all of the "firsts" in space.  We (the US) wanted something that was far enough off and difficult enough that we could probably do it first.  And after Kennedy died there was even more emphasis on doing it before the end of the decade, as he had wanted.  There was a crash program.  They got all of the funding they needed.  There was an unofficial motto: "waste anything except time."  Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

re: timeframes
I've had similar discussions with several NASA folks, and the whole, "we can't do now, what we did then?" thing. Several items came up, not the least of which is: The safety considerations and requirements NOW, FAR exceed those that were imposed in the 60's. It is downright frightening how dangerous it was for those who lead the way into the unknown. In this day and age, we would never have allowed the early missions to have ever gotten off the ground, simply because it WAS so unsafe. Ched (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The youngsters who think it was a hoax have no idea what the climate of fear was in the 50s and 60s. We "had to" beat the Russians to the moon. There was no "what if" about it. And once we did it, interest (and funding) plummeted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, that even though we can leave the text and facts with Wikipedia, the emotions, hopes, and fears that shaped the world as it is today are often lost on younger generations. Too bad we can't plug the hardships, trials, and nightmares from those days into a blog or iPod.  Perhaps when this generation's children are grown, they'll think back to what we were trying to tell them while they were growing up.  Somehow, Marvin the Martian seems to appeal to a wider range of youth, than the actual facts of the day.  Maybe the Ron Howard, Tom Hanks film "Apollo 13" is as close as we'll ever be able to get to explaining what we were going through in those days ... guess there could be worse. (Had to add the Apollo 13 item to remain on topic ... LOL) Ched (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Every generation has its challenges. My parents lived through the Great Depression, which was WAY much worse than what's going on at present; and WWII, which was by no means a cinch in 1941. And I wouldn't wish the 1960s on anyone, either. And I cannot even fathom what it must have been like during the American Civil War. The number of men we lost in 10 years in Vietnam, we lost in 3 days at Gettysburg. For those who wonder what this nation went through on 11/22/63, I say think about what you felt on 9/11/01, and that's the closest I can come to it. Apollo 13 is a good comparison, as it illustrates what could and did go wrong, and how harrowing the whole thing was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When asked about "the right stuff", Chuck Yeager dismissed the idea, saying it was just "luck" that he survived all those harrowing test flights with the X-1 and so on. However, he also said that your odds of survival are optimized by knowing your machine. If you look a the various disasters and near-disasters in the space program, that has often been the difference. When the technology got away from people, that's when trouble arose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't forget one of the earlier Apollo flights, I think it was Apollo 10, in which they took the lunar module down to within 10 miles of the lunar surface, as per plan, but the thing started vibrating and scared the guys half to death. If they had crashed on the moon, that probably would have ended the Apollo program - just like Apollo 13 could have. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read that if they had not gotten the Apollo 10 LM under control in a few more seconds it would have crashed on the Moon (and it wasn't even trying for a landing). Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I recall, they were uttering some rather "colorful metaphors" during that stretch. The fact they were being broadcast live was suddenly of very little concern when their lives were in danger. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * sigh ... shame it was all a hoax eh? The 60's were all filmed on an MGM back lot.  MLK, RFK, Vietnam, Kent State, ... the only part I never understood was how they got that damn Pacific Ocean into a wading pool for the capsule splash-down.  hmmm .... maybe I should head over to DYK. ;) Ched (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If Cecil B. DeMille can part the Red Sea, NASA can fake the whole Pacific Ocean! ;) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cecil did it by matting film of trip tanks into footage of the Red Sea, which was obvious to anyone who knows how film effects are done. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NASA never faked anything, hence the various and well-known disasters that occurred (as with the Soviet space program also). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of photographs
I've moved an edit by  to the talk page because it appears to be more like a discussion posting attempting to rebut a statement in the article.

The text in the article is as follows:

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds. (http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm)
 * Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. Calculations are based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

200.69.59.241 added the following:


 * ''The gear was not simplified at all; they needed physical manipulation prior to each shot. And even though each astronaut did have it's own camera, they were not often used simultaneusly, as the shots can tell. Also, there are no pictures at all of several of the tasks they would have done on the moon, such as assembling the "Moon Rover". (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm).

--TS 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

 * "We've been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" — Charlie Duke, in the documentary In the Shadow of the Moon.[106][107][108]

I think that putting in a quote like this is unhelpful.

The obvious answer is money. Like movie sequels; why are so many made? Money. Charlie Duke gives a very facile argument in light of human nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incorrupted (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be in there. It is a direct response by someone who went to the Moon.  NASA didn't make money on it, it cost them money.  Even the canceled Apollo 18-20 had been 90% paid for.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay i will buy them trying to make cash on 1 or 2 sequels but not nine cause at that time no body cared if we were going to the moon it was boring. the quote dose give a oposing idea which is good for a diverse subject. 11 march 2009

I've removed the Quotes section. It's obviously just a petty insult at people who believe the landings were faked. Please see Wikipedia guidelines about editing articles. And in the future please use the sandbox before editing the real pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.102.90 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Fringe theories. Bubba73 (talk), 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Predominant hoax claims" perhaps a redundant section?
A part from the subsection "suggested motives for a hoax", I found the rest of the text therein a bit redundant or better suited for other sections in the article:

Point number 3. about the alien/cover-up claim: does not seem to match well neither totally or partially with any of the three common hoax points following the article's very first paragraph. In think it could be moved into its own section bellow as an extra.

The other two points try to draw a line between the complete or partial hoax accusations. In my opinion both possibilities are already covered in the first paragraphs in the article as they indicate that hoax theories agree to some degree (thus including total and any kind of partial alternatives theories) with those three major common points. Then total conspiracy, and the different partial hoax claims listed in point 1 and point 2. could be moved to "major proponents and proposals" section next to the corresponding conspirationist. What do you think? Discretoboy (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article inappropriately biased?
This article is supposedly about the various theories surrounding the Apollo moon landing hoaxes, yet the article seems to be focused entirely on "debunking" those theories, which is surely a separate subject, if not an entirely inappropriate task for an encyclopedia. A proper encyclopedia has no place "debunking" anything. Present the information in a neutral manner, let the reader decide what to make of it. Leave the mythbusting to the Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.155.93 (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This question is posted by the hoax believers periodically. Their idea of "neutral" is to state the so-called "theories" unchallenged, thus giving them false credence. The article as it stands now is neutral. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As much as it pains me to say this, 93 brings up a legitimate point. The article is written as a point by point rebuttal of Apollo hoax conspiracy theories and seems to go out of its way to debunk it.  Here's just one example of many, we have a single sentence "Hoax proponents say that blueprints for the Apollo Lunar Module, rover, and associated equipment are missing" followed by an eleven sentence rebuttal.  How is that neutral?  If you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a problem with original research in this article. The fact that the rebuttal of the conspiracy nuts is given more prominence than their ravings is not a problem, however.  We cover scientific subjects by giving the mainstream science view much more prominence than the frothings of conspiracy theorists. --TS 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the rebuttal taking more sentences than the hoax claim is a problem either. It only takes one sentence to say "there no stars in the photos" or "the flag is waving"  It simply takes more sentences to explain the facts, for instance why you can't see the LM from a telescope on Earth..  Like on an essay test, the answers are longer than the questions.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...this is a difficult one for me because I agree that they're nutcases (or just horribly naive). But when I read it, I get the impression that it purposely goes out of its way to debunk and therefore promote a particular point of view.  The question of whether the debunking of conspiracy should be given more prominence than the conspiracy theory itself, I'm not sure about.  It seems to me that to be neutral, both points of view should receive relatively equal coverage.  I skimmed the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and I don't really see anything that helpful.  Do we have any specific policy that would give us any guidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've succinctly described your problem: your belief that "to be neutral, both points of view should receive relatively equal coverage." The policy to look at is WP:UNDUE (a section of WP:NPOV), and also see the WP:FRINGE guideline. --TS 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read those pages. What specific parts do you think answers this question?  The closest I see is:
 * "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant"
 * Bubba, I understand your point but the The Big Bang Theory is more complicated to explain than "God created the universe in 6 days" but when I go to our Creationism you don't seen the Big Bang Theory getting most of the coverage. In our Young_Earth_Creationism article, the section on scientific criticism is barely a page long in an 11 page article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bubba, I understand your point but the The Big Bang Theory is more complicated to explain than "God created the universe in 6 days" but when I go to our Creationism you don't seen the Big Bang Theory getting most of the coverage. In our Young_Earth_Creationism article, the section on scientific criticism is barely a page long in an 11 page article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bubba, I understand your point but the The Big Bang Theory is more complicated to explain than "God created the universe in 6 days" but when I go to our Creationism you don't seen the Big Bang Theory getting most of the coverage. In our Young_Earth_Creationism article, the section on scientific criticism is barely a page long in an 11 page article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The bit you cite is relevant, but also "Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" (WP:UNDUE). WP:FRINGE gives guidance on how to handle articles about fringe views so it spells it out a bit more as you've shown. --TS 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is an article on a fringe theory. I'm pretty sure that section applies to (for lack of a better term) 'regular' articles.  IOW, that bit applies to the actual Apollo landing article, not the hoax article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's policy. It applies all over Wikipedia. The guideline you cite, indeed, say we can "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant." Giving equal prominence to a fringe view is not acceptable anywhere. --TS 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Giving equal prominence to a fringe view is not acceptable anywhere". Does any Wikipedia policy actually state this regarding an article on a fringe theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (reply to above) I wouldn't expect the Big Bang theory to be in an artice on Creationism. But there is probably an article on the formation of the Earth or the beginning of the Universe, and I expect the Big Bang to be a large portion of the beginning of the Universe article and Creationism have little or no coverage.  Creationism is an article of faith (no pun intended) and has nothing to do with facts.  In the hoax claims there are facts to examine.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to it's proponents. See Creation_Science.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've said many times in the past: This article is likely the most neutral and even-handed that you will likely find on the internet. It presents the questions, it presents reasonable answers, and it allows the reader to decide. It is more than generous to the fringe theorists, who generally don't know what they're talking about when it comes to this subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A discussion has been raised here: dougweller (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Following a lengthy but very helpful dicussion on NPOV Noticeboard, I withdraw my previous statements about NPOV in this thread. I was wrong. My mistake stemmed from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I thought that in articles on fringe topics, we had to fairly represent both sides of a debate as if they are on an equal footing. This is not correct. We're supposed to fairly represent all sides to an issue per reliable sources. It's the "per reliable sources" bit that I didn't get. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are any reliable sources that claim that the Apollo lunar landing was a hoax. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of reliable sources backing of that perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't Fox a reliable source? Oh I see, they aren't because they've promoted the "fringe theory". If they hadn't, they'd be reliable, right? --Лъчезар (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is definitely somewhat biased, particularly in the section where some of the "mechanical arguments for a hoax" are refuted. The vast majority of claims there are not cited to any source. For example "The ACs could only work in a vacuum." The statement about the lander leaving no impression is also not cited to any source. Neither are statements about the maneuverability of the craft.

I don't believe any of it was a hoax. But the fact so much of the material here that tried to refute the hoax is not cited to any source does leave some of the claims of "overwhelming evidence to support the moon landings really happened" pen to challenge. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then it should be easy to cite a lot more of the claims than are actually cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.72.127 (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Complete hoax — The idea that the entire human landing program was completely falsified from start to finish. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was insufficient or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections, and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.[15] What a wonderful bit of misdirection. The justifications in the second sentence are also used by those who believe Earth orbit was achieved, but transit to the Moon and the landings were faked. But the authors tie the second sentence to the first which contains the vague, "completely falsified from start to finish". What does that mean??? What parts were falsified? The Saturn rockets weren't real? The rockets were real, but the astronauts never climbed into them? Ambiguity at its finest! One clear example of what trash this article is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.21.140 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube as a source
There has been some heat on the subject of using YouTube as a source. Surely YouTube is a valid source where: and invalid where: In nearly all cases, it is clear whether the clip is or is not pushing a POV.
 * it is simply hosting a raw clip with no scene changes
 * where you can clearly see what is happening
 * the clip is edited and pushing some POV

I would agree that video from the original source is better where available, but in some cases YouTube clips will be seen to be reliable enough to be better than nothing. Man with two legs (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are problems with YouTube clips as sources;
 * Clips often constitute copyright violations. Wikipedia doesn't link to these.
 * The source of the clip needs to be verifiable and reliable. Anyone can put up anything on Youtube that may claim to be something it is not.  And often when the source is verifiable and reliable, its presence on Youtube is a copyright violation.
 * There is still an element of interpretation performed by the viewer. This may not apply to things said or written, but actions, even where you can clearly see what is happening, are often still viewed differently by different people.
 * It is often difficult to determine what part of a video is being used to support a statement in the article, particularly when it is combined with a degree of interpretation.


 * These problems don't completely rule out using Youtube cites, but I'd say they make most cites undesirable. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into copying clips from the DVDs and uploading them. The NASA material is in the public domain, so there are no copyright problems.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search in the |Reliable Sources Noticeboard Archives and the only exception I found to not using YouTube as a source was |this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Atomic clock?
Does anyone know anything about this line in the article: "The NASA atomic clock referred to is not the same clock as that used during the Apollo missions". The reference doesn't say anything about the atomic clock. Also, I don't see how it answers the claim. Bubba73 (talk), 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it dose not help the argument in anyway and relly is a unimportaint fact but it is a fact so i say even though it dose not help it dose not hurt either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.221.210 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it hurts the article because it doesn't make any sense. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't understand the point it is making, and it isn't cited either.  There's about a dozen things wrong with what Sibrel says; misinformation, exaggeration, hopeful speculation, glossing over of details to reach inadequately explained conclusion, and finally a illogical leap to a sweeping generalisation.  But this statement makes nothing of any of it. Basically the whole issue about a NASA atomic clock is a total red-herring.  What actual difference does the clock, or its workings, make to any of what is being alleged?   It's just hand waving in order to make it seem more significant.  Refuting it in this way is just following Sibrel's lead down a completely irrelevant dead-end.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have to include all of Sibrel's claims, especially if they haven't been covered by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take it out then. For one thing, it is under "missing data".  If he has it then it isn't missing.  But primarily I don't see the point he is trying to make and searching for it on Google turned up more hits than I can examine to try to figure out what he means.  The reply doesn't make sense either. Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed:


 * c) Bart Sibrel said "In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabeled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the Moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape 33 years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I. It contains an hour of rare, unedited, color television footage that is dated by NASA’s own atomic clock three days into the flight. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple takes of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery. Really! It means they did not walk on the Moon!"


 * The NASA atomic clock referred to is not the same clock as that used during the Apollo missions.''

Bubba73 (talk), 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Really want a GA review
It appears that this article was nominated by an editor who has not contributed at all to this article. Do the real contributors want to continue with this review process? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is OK with me if the GA process continues, but I don't have the time or energy to work on getting it to GA. Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me say bluntly that this article needs a ton of work. So if no one's willing to work on the article, then it should be withdrawn from GAN. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I work on the article, but I don't feel like working on it enough to get it to GA. Someone else might.  I did work on one to get it to GA, and it is a lot of work.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So do you want to withdraw now? If you're not going to work on it, and the nominator (who hasn't done anything to this article) will not? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will continue to work on the article, but I don't want to put in work just to get it to GA. I think the nominator (whoever that is) should be asked if he wants to withdraw it.  If there is no response from him, then withdraw it unless someone speaks up here saying they want to try to get it to GA.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be inadvisable to conduct a GA review or work on this article to GA at the present time not only because of the fact that it is a blatant quick fail for content dispute, it is also fully protected to prevent an edit war from continuing. -MBK004 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with it being protected. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even to the point that you are not allowed edit it at present (which the full protection has done)? -MBK004 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that. I have nothing to add for the time being, and spend time reverting. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also made a couple of contributions to this article. Although I don't have a lot of time at the moment, I would be happy to work on improving it if specific concerns are identifed ("needs a ton of work"?) - of course, that can only happen once it has been un-protected. Logicman1966 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nergaal has not responded on his talk page to my questions about this article. However, MBK004 is indeed right, this is a quick fail for edit warring. And I have just quick-failed it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit warring will probably never end for this article. It as been going on for as long as I've been involved with this article, which is probably about 3 years.  POV-pushers keep coming.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is unlikely to reach GA standard. The main problem lie with the fact it is, by its very nature, a loose collection of fringe theories of questionable notability. Added to that, most are easily debunked that it is very difficult to present them honestly without reference to mainstream facts that disprove them. Equally, there are many editors wishing to have these facts removed in order not to weaken the conspiracy theory and give it undue validity. They are therefore always open to challenge, both in their validity for inclusion in the article, but also in the neutrality of their presentation. It's a very difficult line to walk that Wikipedia guideline only offers a few pointers on. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the subject notable is that it's been talked about a lot. A fringe theory being notable has no connection with its "truth value". And despite the debunking, the same questions keep coming up. And Bubba73 is right, the POV pushers never give up. So it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo (cannot edit)
[snip] used on the be nearSaturn V rocket). [snip]

Somebody fix this typo please. I could not, because it was locked from editing. --Ernest lk lam (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd fix it myself, but I'm blocked as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is locked until next Monday, thanks to the vandals. Perhaps some friendly admin will see this item and fix it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be unlocked soon enough. I'd just wait until then.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I'm unclear on how it should actually read. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a space between "near" and "Saturn V". Right now, it reads "nearSaturn V".  15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't improve the sentence any. "used on the be near"??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It should read "(the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket)". More specifically, five F-1 engines were used on the first stage of the Saturn V. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And the first stage of the Saturn V is the S-IC, but I don't think it needs to be that specific in this article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, lose the "be near", which was inexplicably added in this edit: Since that was nearly a month ago, a few more days won't matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

✅ Bubba73 (talk), 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos & gamma correction
How to explain this http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:GPN-2000-001137_300px_gamma.png? It agitated me :) -- AS sa 13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AS (talk • contribs)


 * I don't know. Do you know what the original NASA photo number is?  It will be something like ASxx-xx-xxxx.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From information in the page on Russian Wikipedia: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001137.jpg. The effect is visible in the photo downloaded from that URL.  I presume the effect is an artefact of conversion to (lossy) JPEG. Man with two legs (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be. Notice that the border extends into the helment faceplate, which would seem to rule out a cut and paste.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is NASA photo AS17-134-20384.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It could also be an artifact from the film scanner. Stray light gets in and casts a slight shadow on the photo, but it is too dim to see and goes unnoticed.  So this might not be on the original negative.  But you might find the same shadow shape in other photos scanned at the same time on the same unit.  Algr (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the photo scanned in high resolution. I don't see the artifacts, but the gamma correction may have produced that. The one with the artifact is also low resolution, about 300x300. Bubba73 (talk), 18:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this -- AS sa 07:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameras
I hate to be using the talk page like this but one of my friends doesn't believe that we landed on the moon. His main point is "If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, how did the cameras get there?" I assume that it was a pod that landed near it, but and exact truth would be appreciated.Wise dude321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered on the user's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Animation of the two photos, showing that the flag is not waving."
Flag of course will not wave! There is no wind in moon.. How come you expect a waving flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.181.244 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the major claims of the people who believe that the landing was a hoax claim that the flag was waving. It was only waving when the astronauts had something to do with it.  The animation shows that it was not waving.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you watched the Mythbusters episode, it actually waves more in a vacuum because there's no air resistance to slow it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But only after the astronauts have been moving it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm speechless; this article is far from a neutral point of view. The article is written in a slanted and biased fashion; with little to zero amount of info explaining the beliefs of the so-called "conspiracy theorists." All the article concerns is attempts to deface the claims of the "conspiracy theorists," without giving any challenges to the challengers. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy and this article is in a complete violation of such. Yoitslinda (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times. Equal weight to fringe theories is not required, and in fact would violate neutrality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see 9/11 conspiracy theories and you'll see how a NPOV was accomplished. Btw, the 9/11 conspiracy theories have no solid background behind them, while a strong majority of the moon landing conspiracies have legit ground and background history behind them. Yoitslinda (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't, if you look closely. The hoax claims are based totally on ignorance. This article is, in fact, one of the most neutral you will find on the matter. The Apollo hoax stuff is notable because there's notable interest in it, not because of its substance, which is virtually 0. The 9/11 stuff is apples and oranges; it's not a fair comparison. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * without giving any challenges to the challengers. I know of no properly-sourced challenges to the challengers. Bubba73 (talk), 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal. 1) Rewrite the article with a NPOV or 2) Remove the article entirely from Wikipedia. Yoitslinda (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject matter has been deemed notable by consensus and ample citations; and the article is already neutral. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about give a properly-sourced rejoinder to the challenges? Bubba73 (talk), 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here: And to a prior poster: if the so-called "conspiracy theorists" are such a fringe group, how do you explain this excerpt? The Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists were initially labelled as crackpots and fools but recent Market Research studies have indicated that approximately 20% of Americans now believe that there is enough cumulative evidence to suggest that man never went to the moon - that the Lunar Landing was a hoax - a fake moon landing hoax - a Conspiracy Theory.


 * This seems to be the same old stuff that has been debunked. Bubba73 (talk), 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite true! The page at  is new to me and surreal in its absurdity. Unlike many of these conspiracy pages there is no attempt to make money, just a complete loony stating incoherent beliefs; he doesn't even believe in satellites or supersonic aircraft.  Of course it is useless as a reference in an encyclopedia. Man with two legs (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where "Facts about.." gets its info. But unnamed "recent Market Research studies" doesn't strike me as any thing like a reliable source, and more like "something we heard once".  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't believe in supersonic aircraft? They would probably accuse the Flat Earth Society of being too soft. Surveys indicating that level of interest in the Moon Hoax subject are what make the subject notable. It's the subject that's notable, not the truth value of it (i.e. the lack of). That's something Yoitslinda doesn't understand, though I tried to explain it earlier. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yoitslinda: I think you misunderstand what WP:NPOV really means. It does NOT mean that we give equal weight to a fringe theory. Instead, it means that we give weight according to what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Since few, if any, reliable sources claim that the Apollo lunar landings are a hoax, this article accurately reflects that hoax accusations are wrong. I'm one of the active editors on the 9/11 conspiracy theories and it is not NPOV. We're working to try to fix that. In any case, I direct your attention to this thread where I made a similar argument to yours. At the time, I was under the same misconception as you. At the end of the discussion, I realized that I was wrong and struck through all my objections. Although it is embarrassing to me now, it was a good learning experience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It need not be embarrassing. It's a tricky concept. It took me a long while to understand it also. We see this in many articles, where someone wants to post something that they sincerely state will put wikipedia at the leading edge of enlightenment on some topic or another. They completely miss the point. Wikipedia is not proactive, it's reactive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's Not Go Bashing NASA
Guys. When Gagarin made his first Space flight, NASA could have kicked holes in the claim made of the first manned orbit of the Earth, they never did. There are at least 12 or more Telescopes with no connection to the U.S.A. that can debunk the Moon Landing (if debunking is possible) by viewing Landing sites. They never have. India has just had a Satellite in Moon Orbit that could have photographed Landing sites and declared their existence, or none-existence, they never have. The people who have the opportunity to know the answer (Astronomers, Space Agencies unconnected with the U.S.A. etc). Not one person who has the ability to declare the Landings a Hoax (and their are 100s of such people), has ever come forward and declared the Moon Landing a Hoax. What does 'that' tell you?.Johnwrd (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * India's lunar probe Chandrayaan-1 doesn't have the resolution to prove a landing (5-10 meters according to the article). None of the current telescopes have enough power either.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It tells me that the people connected with such projects aren't so stupid as to believe in any of this 'hoax' claptrap, and aren't so vain as to waste time pandering to the idiot presumptions of a foolish minority. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It tells me how few people have the guts required to shout out loud "The Emperor is naked!"... --Лъчезар (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As to Gagarin, he was simply the first in a row of hundreds, almost for 50 years already. This was not the case with the Apollo Moon programme. Only a dozen people and only for 3 years. Then the show had stopped for almost 40 years now. --Лъчезар (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Item 12 - telescopes
12. Apollo astronauts took no telescopes with them to the moon.... First, I know of no reliable source that uses this as an argument that they didn't go to the Moon. Secondly, the reply doesn't make much sense. There was no room to take a large telescope, no allowance for the weight, and no time to use it. And the reason for putting a telescope in space is not to be 200,000 miles closer to something - it is to be above the atmosphere. Unless there are some reliable sources for this, I think it should be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed this part. First, I've never heard any reliable source say that the fact that they didn't take a telescope is evidence that they didn't go.  Secondly, I don't follow the arguement that they didn't take a telescope is in any way evidence that they didn't go.  Thirdly, the response is not accurate.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. It should stay out unless someone finds a good source. Man with two legs (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've read it as an argument of 'proof'. Apparently, packing a telescope is to be expected when visiting space and a lack of one is evidence enough that you weren't there.  Kind of like going to the Grand Canyon and not taking your camera.  Naturally it displays a basic lack of understanding of the purpose of the missions, and the costs and minimal value of taking a telescope to the moon.  I'll have a look see if I can locate a cite. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was posted a day or two ago by an IP. I'm surprised they didn't complain that the crew failed to bring along tricorders and light-sabers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting this mental picture of Armstrong, et al, schlepping a big honkin' telescope along on Apollo 11. They drag it out of the lunar module, set it up, point it to downward to the lunar surface, and say, "Yep, there it is!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All the landings were made in lunar daylight, which would not have been ideal conditions to use a telescope. It would be difficult to see stars (note that stars don't show in the photographs from the moon), let alone see anything about them that couldn't be seen from earth. Also, if you have ever tried looking through a telescope eyepiece through a spacesuit visor, you would be more than willing to leave your bulky telescope at home. JMG (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply put, there was no reason for them to take a telescope. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it depends on your definition of telescope, too. They had telephoto lenses on their cameras, and the navigational system included a star sight (which IIRC was used informally to track the LM at distance, though I would have trouble finding a source for that). Jminthorne (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They had a 6-power telescope in the sextant. I think the OP about the telescope is one to make proper astronomical observations.  Of course, that wasn't part of the misson goal. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who would of thought they may need a nine iron? Alizians... Alizians (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian Welch
The guy died in, what, 2001? How old was he? What evidence is there that conspiracists list him among the "mysterious" deaths? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

JAXA
The JAXA probe has been hi-def mapping the landing sites as it does it's runs around the moon, why isn't that mention here for "discrediting" the conspiracy theories. I mean they've found Apollo 15 and 17's landing sites already, the probe just hasn't readed 11's landing sight though - 121.44.81.8 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard that about Apollo 15 and 17 - do you have a reference? It doesn't have to get Apollo 11 - any one will do.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Link to [JAXA/Apollo 15]. This probably isn't clear enough to convince them.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added it to Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Need to mention it here, with link.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not really useful, idiotic believers of the conspiracy theory somehow infiltrated a Chinese news site(www.sina.com.cn) and written an article a whole year after the landing of the probe stating recent landing of the probe showed no signs of the Apollo mission. (since the probe cannot show anything less than 10 metres wide, the pictures can only be used as comparing the landscape as proof.) MythSearchertalk 09:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hare Krishna
There seems to be a gap in the article. The Hare Krishna lot believe that the moon is further away than the sun, so the moon landing must be false. They claimed this even when the moon landings were actually happening, and this predates the history in the history section. Others also expressed scepticism at the time I believe.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how they explain solar eclipses. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

B-1 or 1B engines?
Are you sure that Kaysing meant B-1 and not 1B engines (from Saturn 1B)? If 1B, this will coincide with one of the claims of Popov. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Kaysing said "B-1" engines. Furthermore, the Saturn IB did not use "B-1" engines, it used H-1 engines.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the first stage. So this must be a mistake of Kaysing then. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, and Kaysing says that "B-1" engines were hidden inside the F-1 engines. He doesn't say anything about them being the Saturn IB engines.  And you said that Pavlov Papov said that the Saturn V was a disguised Saturn I, which is completely different from what Kaysing said.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Popov said it's disguised Saturn 1B. Obviously Kaysing had mistaken or forgotten the engine name. --Лъчезар (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is not obvious. As I said before, I didn't find anywhere in Kaysing's book where he said that the engines came from a Saturn IB. He specifically says "B-1" engines, but B-1 engines were not used in the Saturn IB.  Kaysing was a technical writer for the company that made the F-1 engine.  And he doesn't say anything about the Saturn V really being a Saturn IB, as far as I can see.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but there is still some similarity between what Kaysing said ("B-1 engines were hidden inside the F-1 engines") and what Popov said ("Saturn 1B engines were inside the nozzles of F-1 engines", that is, there was something like a matryoshka - a Saturn 1B inside the Saturn V, see the preliminary version of the corresponding part of his book here, note picture 2). --Лъчезар (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't read Russian, but that is the end of a Saturn I or Saturn IB on the left and a Saturn V on the right. There is a similarity between what they said, so maybe Popov copied that from Kaysing.  Anyhow, we need evidence that actually was the case.  Just having a photo of the two rockets side-by-side doesn't mean that an engine from one on the left was inside one of the engines on the right. In fact, in the photo you can see that is not the case. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And if Popov did get it from Kaysing, it doesn't need to be added because what Kaysing says about this is already in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Popov came to his conclusions on his own and not copied from Kaysing because Kaysing doesn't mention the Saturn 1B, as you wrote. But if Kaysing also wrote something similar (albeit factually wrong because of his incompetence), this makes one think. As to evidence, on the end of the page I cited here and the start of the following one, Popov provided an evidence for his hypothesis that there was no real stage 2. You can use translate.google.com to read Russian text. The machine translation isn't very good but helps you understand his point. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Saturn V second stage: S-II. Bubba73 (talk), 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On page 37 of his book, Kaysing says that the second stage was real. Bubba73 (talk), 14:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Apollo 11 first stage separation.jpg The second stage pulling away from the first stage.
 * I see that the flame goes from the first stage. The second stage doesn't emit flame.


 * File:Ap6-68-HC-191.jpg flames from the engines in the second stage. Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that the flames are not going from the second stage engines and just surround the innermost surface of the interstage.

WP:REDFLAG applies. Bubba73 (talk), 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Having set foot on the Moon is an exceptional claim. According to Popov, the burden of proof is on NASA.

I don't know whether you've managed to understand Popov's text... --Лъчезар (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you can clearly see the flames in the second photo, and the second stage is pulling away from the first stage in the first photo. That proves that the second stage was real.  No, that we landed on the Moon is not an exceptional claim - the claim that we didn't is the exceptional claim.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Our dispute may be pointless as the J-2 used in the second and third stage burns liquid nitrogen hydrogen whose flames should be blue and barely visible. As to what's exceptional - well, if you deny that going to the Moon is an exceptional achievement, I stop here. And if we can't agree even on a point as basic as which side has the burden of proof, all argument is pointless. One more reason to stop here. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an exceptional achievement, it is not and exceptional claim. I'm glad we can stop.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above sentence of yours is exceptional too :) Anyway, thank you for providing the photos. Here is a film footage (video clip) at NASA at (25 MB) that shows the jettisoning of all stages but stage 2. And NASA says that there's no such record ("Although no close-up film exists of an S-IVB staging from an S-II..."). Are you aware of a video (film) that shows the staging as seen from the Earth? This must have been recorded. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is commonly seen video of the third stage pulling away from the second stage taken from a camera on the top of the third stage. I don't know of any film taken from Earth of the event.  The rocket was hundreds of miles away at the time.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give an URL for this video? Because NASA says that it doesn't exist (see the quoted text above)... --Лъчезар (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...it should be something like this video which shows jettisoning of stage 1, but for stage 2. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of one from the ground, but I'll try to get you one for the rocket. Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have probably seen this dozens of times, but here is staging as seen from the second stage: staging.mpg. NASA servers seem to be slow. Bubba73 (talk), 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this is the same link that I provided above :) --Лъчезар (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the same. This is what you linked, showing the first staging as seen from the ground.  This one shows all stagings as seen from the rocket.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided this link too, but earlier, and it's what I was meaning. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * this page has links to several clips, but the NASA servers may be swamped. Bubba73 (talk), 15:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! The NASA servers may be overloaded these days due to the 40th anniversary of the Apollo-11 flight. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time of that staging, the rocket was roughly 1,000 miles (1600km) out over the sea and roughly 100 miles (160km) high. Too far away.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11 2nd/3rd staging started at 100 nautical miles altitude, 883 nautical miles downrange. A nautical mile is about 6% more than a regular mile. So it was about 106 statute miles high (179 km), 936 statute miles (1,506 km) downrange. Ref:. The photo of staging above was when it was 35 miles downrange and 30 miles high. Bubba73 (talk), 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that even at 100 NM height, a telescope could still photograph it, but the problem would be to track its very quick movement. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But it was nearly 1,000 miles away over the ocean. That is a lot farther away, plus a lot more atmosphere to look through.  The air isn't transparent and it distorts.  You have to have 1000 miles with no clouds, etc.  Also, it may be over the horizon at that point.  The longect video I remember seeing follow the rocket until it is just a spot of light, and that is well before the last staging. Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it could be filmed from a ship :) Anyway, that's explainable, but why didn't they filmed the staging of stage 2 from the on-board cameras? Were there any cameras at the bottom of stage 3 or top of stage 2 at all? Because there was a camera at the top of stage 3 which filmed its staging. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It could have been filmed from a ship, but maybe they didn't think it was important enough to go to that effort and expense. The clip that I said that you've probably seen dozens of times is from two cameras - one on the bottom of the second stage; one on the top.  The first camera shows the first stage dropping off, then the interstage (that went between the first and second stages).  At the end of the clip you see the third stage leaving the second stage.  So there was a camera at the top of the second stage.  There was no camera at the bottom of the third stage because that stage went off into space and there would have been no practical way to recover the camera.  So if the second stage had not been a real stage, it would not have left the first stage behind.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/video/staging.mpg then I think you're wrong. The third caption of the film (for the last "scene") says "S-IVB staging", not "S-II" staging, and the cameras are at the top of the 3rd, not 2nd stage. What you see going away is the lunar module with the Apollo spacecraft, not stage 3. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the first part shows the first/second staging of a Saturn V (Apollo 6). The last part is the S-IVB staging on a Saturn IB.  The S-IVB was the second stage on the Saturn IB and with slight modifications the third stage on the Saturn V. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the first part shows the S-IC staging, the second part shows the staging of the interstage between S-IC and S-II, and the third part shows the staging of the S-IVB. The S-II staging is not shown; I wonder why. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The S-IC is the first stage of the Saturn V. The film is taken from the S-II, the second stage of the Saturn V.  You can see the engines of the S-II in the film.  You have shown other photos where you can see the S-II.   Like I explained to you, at the time of the second/third staging, it is 100 miles high and 900 miles downrange.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, at the time the third stage ignites, the rocket was traveling several times faster than it was with the second stage ignited. In the video from the ground of the first staging, you see how they have to manually keep the rocket in the frame.  That would be much more difficult when the rocket is smaller, farther away (even from a ship in the area), and traveling several times faster.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The telescopes have auto-tracking systems which could solve this task. Another question is whether they can move fast enough. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How many errors do we need?
Лъчезар, you are sprinkling errors here left and right. The second and third stages burned liquid hydrogen, not nitrogen. Also, I hate to break it to you, but the third clip in that film is (as it says in the page on Apollo 8) an S-IVB stage pulling away from an S1-B stage. All you have to do is read. It's not from a Saturn V flight at all. Also, if you'll read that same text more carefully, it says that the Apollo 8 launch did carry cameras, but that the film was only recovered from one of the four. When you are chucking film canisters from space, sometimes you don't get all your film back.


 * Thank you for noticing my mistake that I wrote "nitrogen" instead of "hydrogen". I now corrected it in text, striking the old text over. As to the rocket of Apollo 8, it was really a Saturn V, so there was a second stage S-II, staged from the third stage S-IVB. And the film says "S-IC", not "S-IB". --Лъчезар (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A real S-II? The third part of the film says "S-IV-B staging".  The S-IVB was used on both the Saturn IB and the Saturn V.  That one is from a Saturn IB. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 07:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that there was an S-II, that is, it did exist, but strangely, its staging was not shown, albeit the staging of the S-IVB was. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Well, whether it was a real S-II or not so real, I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out :) --Лъчезар (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The S-IVB staging shown in the film was when it was used as the second stage of a Saturn IB, not the third stage of the Saturn V. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From a Saturn 1B flight? With which Apollo? Because the URL of the film is "history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/video/staging.mpg", so I thought it's from Apollo 8. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know which one. Does it matter? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the text in Wikipedia, links to which you've provided (Apollo 4), quoted below. (So it's from Saturn V, not 1B):
 * A compilation of original NASA footage shows the jettisoning of the first stage (S-IC) and the interstage, filmed from the bottom of the second stage (S-II), both from Apollo 4. This is followed by footage of the separation of an S-IVB second stage from the S-II second stage of Apollo 6.  The glow seen on the jettisoned stages is due to the hot, invisible hydrogen-oxygen flames of the J-2 engines used by the S-II and S-IVB.  The footage also shows the more conspicuous plumes of the solid ullage motors as they pull the stages apart before the main engines are fired.
 * I believe that description is wrong about the S-IVB. See my comments on the Spaceflight project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.  The S-IVB on the Saturn IB had three ullage motors, the one on the Saturn V had two.  The one in the film has three, so it must be from a Saturn IB.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making a ton of basic errors that arise from you winging it instead of paying attention to the sources. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I make error just as you make errors - see above. (One more reason for my errors is that English is only the 4th language I learned.) We all make errors and should correct each other. To err is human, to forgive divine. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some basic information:

Hope this helps in your understanding. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saturn I
 * first stage: S-I
 * second stage: S-IV
 * Saturn IB
 * first stage: S-IB
 * second stage: S-IVB
 * Saturn V
 * first stage: S-IC
 * Interstage (between first and second stages)
 * second stage: S-II
 * third stage: S-IVB (slightly modified from one used on the Saturn-IB)

About the cameras and film: Apollo 4 and Apollo 6. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I hate to have to point this out
...but the S-1B first stage is the same diameter as the S-IV stage. And a simple calculation shows that nozzle of an F-1 engine is almost two-thirds the diameter of the S-IV. Is there any evidence that there is any widespread belief in this idiocy? Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Popov based his hypothesis about the first stage on the fact that the Russian RD-180 (based on RD-171 which in turn is based on RD-170 which was used in Energia-Buran) is used in Atlas V, instead of the F-1. My opinion is that Popov is wrong here, so I agree with you on this point. But he may be right that stage II was decorative, because we never see its engines work (again, liquid hydrogen engine flames are hard to see). He thinks that the explosion right after the stage I separation was intended to destroy that decorative stage. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The F-1 would be too large for the Atlas and they haven't been made for over 40 years. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After watching carefully this film, I concluded that the latter is not so. After the explosion, stage II remains, it's not destroyed. But why is the explosion so strong then? Watch it frame by frame to find out. What in fact explodes then? --Лъчезар (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That link won't work on my slow PC, so I don't know precisely which film you're referring to. Is that the film segment when they are high above the earth, and the stage falls away and starts to tumble? If so, that stage would burn on re-entry anyway - and a strong ejecting explosion would have been needed to be sure the stage is ejected and pushed away from the vehicle. If it failed to properly eject, it could be disastrous. Possibly, vaguely related - one of the docking tests they conducted during the Gemini program, where the shroud of an Agena docking vehicle failed to eject properly and they had to abort the mission. The still-attached Agena shroud looked like the open mouth of an animal, hence the astronauts' observation that it looked like "an angry alligator". But since I can't see the film, I might be describing the wrong stuff here. :\ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the staging of S-IC high above the earth, filmed from ground. I've already given a link to the same film before. Thanks for your explanation. So the explosion is the short (under 1 second) work of solid-state "ejection engines" or "ejection charges" (I'm not an expert and don't know how they're called). --Лъчезар (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After watching even more carefully the same film, ignoring the flame argument as hydrogen burning flames are invisible, I noticed that after the clear separation of the S-IC at time 0:14, the distance between the already jettisoned S-IC and the rocket at time 0:22 (8 seconds later) is half the distance at time 0:30 (16 seconds later). Therefore, there is no acceleration and S-II had not worked for at least 16 seconds after the staging! Why?! It seems that Popov is right here... --Лъчезар (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been to science class in awhile. Is burning hydrogen actually invisible? Then what caused the flames in the Hindenburg? Or was that from the skin and other solid objects? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here's what's written about the Apollo 4: "The glow seen on the jettisoned stages is due to the hot, invisible hydrogen-oxygen flames of the J-2 engines used by the S-II and S-IVB". Note that both Apolo 4 and Apolo 6 shown in that compilation are from the Saturn V tests. Popov doesn't question them but claims that after Apolo 6, the "fake" rocket (his words) was used instead of the real Saturn V. (I didn't know that it's from Apolo 4 and 6 earlier, sorry.) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Why would they use a fake rocket when they can make real ones?  Also, if the S-II had been fake, it wouldn't have even gotten into orbit.  How could it have gotten from 38 miles high and 55 miles downrange to 100 miles high and 900 miles downrange (and at a much higher speed) if the second stage was fake?  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Popov believes that in parallel with the real Saturn V which failed its last test on 4 April 1968 and because of that was no longer used, a "fake" Saturn V had secretly been developed for a couple of years which had the H-1 engines of Saturn 1B in its first stage, hidden inside the F-1 nozzles, an empty (decorative) second stage and a real third stage - a rocket which looks like Saturn V but is in fact a Saturn 1B inside. Its mass, despite the huge size, could have been equal to the mass of Saturn 1B (due to first stage only partially being filled with fuel and the decorative second stage), so it in his view could reach at least ballistic trajectory. There are also photos in a Hungarian book of Russian sailors finding a dummy Apollo capsule in April 1970, next day after Apollo 13 launch, in the Biscay Gulf. The capsule was later transferred to the USA in Murmansk. (Popov believes that Apollo 13 had been an intentional failure to add reality to the whole Apollo "show" since Apollo 8.) See this and this (in Russian) and this (in English, not by Popov). --Лъчезар (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As is discussed in those links to Apollo 4 and 6, the cameras were running at 15 times the normal rate. So what you see in that video is in slow motion.  It is 15 times slower than actual.  So If there is no acceleration for 16 seconds, that is just over 1 second in real time.  So maybe there was one second before the S-II engines fired so the S-IC would be far enough away.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this film. It's filmed at the same frame rate it is played back at, i.e. 24 fps, not at 15 times higher speed. The other film that shows staging from the rocket shows the events 15 times slower than real time because it has been filmed at 375 fps and played back at 25 fps. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that is at actual speed (or close to it). You can clearly see the rest of the rocket pulling away from the S-IC first stage, so the S-II second stage must have been real.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pulling away because the S-IC has been ejected by the explosion of the ejection charges, and it keeps its uniform motion away. But the motion is not accelerated, which would have been the case, had the S-II engines been working. Or had the engines worked at minimal thrust initially? If so, why? Is there any source that describes these details? --Лъчезар (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pulling farther and farther away, the film show that. Hundreds of thousands of people witnessed this in person.  I did twice (Apollo 8 and Apollo 11).  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that film is only one small portion of several longer ones. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, farther and farther away, but in a uniform motion, not accelerated. The energy impulse for that motion has been given by the exploded charge and so it moves, of course. But if the engines had worked, it would move not only farther and farther away, but faster and faster with time, so the distance in the 16th second after the separation wouldn't be just twice the distance in the 8th second, but significantly more. Please remember the laws of mechanics, you should had studied them in school :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No acceleration of what? I can't see that film, so I'm not following your logic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No acceleration of the rocket. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you do a frame-by-frame plot of the change in distance? What's your basis for what the change in distance should be? Did you take the camera angle into account? That is, it might be too small to measure over a span of just a few seconds. Also, have a you done a comparison with the launch of a shuttle, to see how the shuttle behaves? As I recall from simply watching, when the SRB's fall away from the shuttle there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of acceleration of the rocket going on there either. Or could it be... GASP! ... Is the shuttle fake also? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Frame by frame no, because there are several hundreds of frames, but measured the distance in 3 stop-frames and compared it. As to the "space shuttles", of course they're not fake, but please give me a link to a film of a staging of theirs to compare. Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, what does "GASP" stand for? --Лъчезар (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It stands for "gasp", all capitalized. :) I don't know where such a video would be. Maybe there's one on youtube. I'm guessing Bubba73 would know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to Google and put in "shuttle" "srb separation" and various videos came up. Here's one: It doesn't look like there's much or any observable acceleration during its 30 seconds or so. It might be overcranked (i.e. slow motion). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's slow for the qualitative (not quantitative) estimation of the event. Thanks for the link! If there's acceleration there, it's not much visible not only because the episode is short but also because the solid rocket boosters' engines keep working during this time too (unlike the Saturn V's first stage by that time), so they accelerate almost as much as the "shuttle" accelerates. I think that's why the boosters start to turn over, by the way. But indeed, the Saturn V staging film may also be too short. Is there a longer film that shows a longer time after the first Saturn V staging of Apollo 8 or later? --Лъчезар (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me, I have no idea. I must defer to Bubba73, the go-to guy for all things Apollo. I've seen one shuttle launch, and that's been the extent of my direct exposure to these things. Many of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo series I saw on TV, of course. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. It's great that you could watch it "live", it must have been spectacular! What a pity that there's no cosmodrome in Bulgaria :( --Лъчезар (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched it from across the intracoastal waterway, 10 miles away, and it was still spectacular. Unfortunately, there was a relatively low cloud ceiling, and it disappeared before SRB separation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I can't see that film, how much detail is observable on a film made in 1969 from a hundred miles away or whatever? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the film I'm talking about (which I'm not sure is the same one he is talking about) was made from the bottom of the second stage of Apollo 4 or 6. It is very detailed.  You've probably seen it.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still image: thumb|Still from footage of Apollo 6's interstage falling away (NASA). Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He says "it's the staging of S-IC high above the earth, filmed from ground." That would be different from the one I was thinking about, which was filmed from on-board. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, there is another one taken from the ground, when it is 40 or 50 miles away. You can't see many details - there is a lot of atmosphere in the way.  The rocket looks blue and you can't see many details. It looks similar to File:ALOTS-AP11-1sep.jpg but it is at more of an angle, and probably fewer details are seen in the film.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That close-up is the one I was thinking of. Is the distant shot depicting the same moment? If so, it's pretty high up. That's actually clearer than the usual TV video, which shows the Saturn (which was like 36 stories tall) emitting a flame that's bigger than the rocket is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 38 miles high, 55 miles downrange, it was taken from an airplane. The film shows the same staging but I don't know if it was the very same rocket.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to question above about longer Saturn V film: You are looking at only a tiny portion of the film of the Saturn V.  Here is a three-DVD set about the Saturn V - a lot more film there. "Disc 2 features footage from all 13 Saturn V launches, with multiple angles of each.", and disc 3 contains tracking film of Apollo 8, 11, and 12. There are also DVD sets about each manned Apollo mission.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather from your comment that you're saying the time interval on those clips is too short to be able to measure acceleration in a reliable way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that this may be the reason why there is no acceleration. But NASA says here (don't we have this image in Wikipedia commons?!) that just several seconds after the S-IC staging, the acceleration due to S-II engines working raises to about 8 m/s2. So, 16 seconds after the staging, the distance between S-IC and the rocket must be clearly significantly longer than just twice the distance between them 8 seconds after the staging due to this acceleration. But we don't see that. The motion of the rocket towards the jettisoned S-IC remains uniform, not accelerated. --Лъчезар (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is short and there are much longer ones available. However, it clearly looks to me that the rest of the rocket is leaving the first stage behind.  And in the other clip taken from the bottom of the second stage, you can see the first stage left far behind.  If the second stage rocket engines weren't working, the upper and lower parts would continue on their paths pretty much the same.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The other clip (filmed from the rocket) was taken on Apollo 4, but Popov questions only Apollo 8 and later. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about Popov's claims?
It has been entertaining in a sort of stupid way for me to track down Popov's fallacies, but really, it's established (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) that the landings occurred, and thus we don't need to address his theories to disprove them. All this talk of a phony Saturn V, for instance, doesn't need to be considered (not that it isn't completely ridiculous), because again, by Wikipedia's standards, the existence and working of the thing is established.

The only thing that needs to be established is whether he is reasonably notable. From what I can tell, he isn't. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, be civil. Don't Pop Ov. [I've been waiting for weeks to use that one.] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain what is "Ov" to a poor non-native English speaker :) Of course, nobody and nothing forces you to talk about Popov's claims. I think that he is notable with his scientific work in optics and lasers and his teaching and intend to create articles about him in Russian and English, which will of course include some of the information about him in this article, which thus won't be really lost :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A play on "pop off", meaning to speak out in a rude fashion. I can never bypass a punning situation. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now... OK. In my dictionary, "pop off" has several other meanings, all very interesting and relevant here :) --Лъчезар (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are probably all based on the same generally idea. Usually "popping off" will get you in trouble, as in a coach "popping off" to a referee ... or a citizen "popping off" to a policeman. I would say that use of the expression is akin to "blowing one's top", i.e. getting so angry that judgment is clouded. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say "popping off" is the polar opposite of "kissing up", which is why that guy Gates got in trouble with the cops, in his own house yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean Prof. Gates, I didn't know that but just took a look at this news. Sorry to hear that this had occurred. Hope things will settle soon. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Henry Louis Gates. At least no one got anything hurt except ego. But I think the police handled it poorly, especially once they realized he was the home owner. Obama criticized the police (I might say he "popped off" about the police), and got some criticism back, but as I learn more about the case, I think Obama was actually right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you mind if I move this talk page to the main article's talk page to avoid its loss in a couple of days with the deletion of the article, or you want to delete it too? --Лъчезар (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could post a HOLD ON to the delete discussion, and ask them to wait until it's merged. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? All editors besides you and me expressly state that they want the article deleted, not merged. But I guess that this is not so to the "talk" page. So I will go ahead tomorrow morning and move it to the main article's "talk" page. The discussion can always be deleted later from there, if someone wants too, albeit it will be pity in my opinion... --Лъчезар (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was just to ask them to give you a chance to copy or move this talk page material before they clobber it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also recommend that you copy-and-paste the page contents to a text file on your own PC, just in case you want to get any of it back once they've clobbered the page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I haven't already done so? Once bitten, twice shy ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't know what you might or might not have done. But I adhere to the sentiment. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

not a forum
I think most of this discussion has been a violation of "not a forum". I am guilty of violating that and I'm going to stop. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my fault too so I stop too. Sorry! --Лъчезар (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

the new poll by Engineering & Technology magazine
The new British poll (mentioned in the article) that 25% of people surveyed in Briton don't believe in the Moon landing surprizes me. I person I corresponded with in Germany estimated that less than 1% of the people in Europe thought it was a hoax, and belief in the CT was mainly an American phenomenon. Bubba73 (talk), 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on how they worded the poll. They might have "loaded" it with some of the bogus "clues" this article lists, and then asked the question. However, I'm not sure the modern generation is too bright about these things. That's why all the sci and tech jobs are going offshore. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what does "CT" stand for? Regarding your German correspondent, how did he do his estimation? --Лъчезар (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CT = "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist". As far as the correspondent in Germany, I doubt he did a scientific poll. It was probably his estimation. Bubba73 (talk), 05:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess that if that guy conducted a poll against the same audience and asked whether Pi, by law, should be set to exactly 3.14, he'd get an even higher positive response. Public opinion polls about science and technology are best used to line birdcages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Science and technology here are far less important than the prestige of the USA. I think that the scientific significance of the Apollo programme was much less than its political significance. But how many times in history the public opinion about some event has changed from one extreme to the other? It depends very much on the image that the mass media will impose on it, which image can change very quickly from white to black and vice versa. (So it's an information war in a sense.) What if some day this happens to the subject of this article too, as a result of events that now look too incredible to happen? A major rewrite of it would then be necessary, I'm afraid... --Лъчезар (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to rewrite the article. We base articles on reliable sources, not on trying to improve someone's prestige or to promote somebody's fringe theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We shall see, we shall see... perhaps as early as next year ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Next year, or any year, it's based on reliable sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a Murphy's law: "All constants are variable". --Лъчезар (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say the moon landings were genuine. If the reliable sources start to say something else, then we'll need to reflect that. Comprende? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oui, monsieur. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says that "these conspiracy theories have been generally discredited"?
In the lead section, there is the assertion that "these conspiracy theories have been generally discredited". It is not backed by any source and can therefore be qualified as "original research", which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I placed a "fact" tag there and very quickly, this tag has been removed. What's going on here? I'd hate to start an "edit war" and would like to ask why the rules are not followed here? Especially the lead section may not have any "original research". --Лъчезар (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is merely a summary. Every credible source on the matter debunks this idiotic theory. Ya follow? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, leads aren't supposed to have cites since its a summary of the article and the article is already cited. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, could you please add a source that claims that? (Sorry, what does "ya follow" mean?) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a source. The lede is simply summarising what follows in the article. "Ya follow" means "do you follow the explanation?" ie do you understand? 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "translation"! Yes, I understand you both, but I think that you're wrong. See LEAD. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The body of the article contains lengthy debunking, so there is no need for a citation in the lead, as the lead merely summarizes the body. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion, but the opinion of the Wikipedia "legislators" is different. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

←If you want to Wikilawyer, try this: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." From the very page you quoted, it's pointed out that consensus can determine if there is a need for citations in the lead. And, as you can see, consensus for some time has been that this phrase is so obvious, from the article's content, that citations are not necessary. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your armour is simply bullet-proof. Congratulations! But... wait just an year, and we'll talk again ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say the moon landings were genuine. If the reliable sources start to say something else, then we'll need to reflect that. Comprende? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oui, monsieur. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please let me just add "in the USA" to the end of the sentence, just after "have been generally discredited". Because to support that sentence, an US-only poll by Gallup is cited, but the polls in other countries show much more support for the hoax hypothesis - between 25 and 40 percent, which is not exactly "discredited". OK? --Лъчезар (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people believe in flying saucers, too. Big deal. As long as you cite the correlation between that ignorant disbelief and the percentage who hate the USA in general, and who answer the poll that way just to annoy Americans. As an example, since the Cubans teach that propaganda to their kids, it's no wonder they would respond that way. I wonder what they teach their kids about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Лъчезар is correct, that statement needs a citation. All declarative statements shoudl be sourced. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.". As soon as you find yourself thinking "it's obvious", that should start setting off alarm bells in your head. Also, I'm not sure where the "citations aren't needed in the Lead/summary section" is coming from, but policies and guidelines don't say that. It's not like adding a reference here will be difficult anyway... — Ω (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't need a separate reference. It summarizes the article. One could add, "...as the facts of this article will demonstrate...", but that's not typically how articles are written. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your stance contradicts WP:SYN. "have been generally discredited" is a conclusion of the Wikipedia editors that's not in the cited sources and this is not allowed. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides which, "In the USA" is misleading. Debunking has to do with facts, not polls. The ignorance of science and technology demonstrated by the ones being polled (and by those directly promoting the hoax) has nothing to do with facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree with my statement about WP:SYN and that of User:Ohms_law about WP:V, and as a consequence, that there is really a need of a citation, there won't be a need to put "in the USA" there. And so, do you agree with these statements of ours? --Лъчезар (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that a separate citation is needed, and in any case the facts debunk the hoax theory everywhere, not just "in the USA". In any case, now that the orbiter has begun photographing the Apollo sites, the "are" in the first sentence might as well be changed to "were", as the hoax claims are now officially rendered bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. I will replace the "are" with "were" but put the "citation needed" template after the full stop. Sorry! --Лъчезар (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue solved thanks to a guy from Beach Haven, NJ :) --Лъчезар (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious. It remains "are", at least until the last conspiracist website shuts down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LRO
Looks like the ball game is over for the conspiracy theorists: Now they can go back to trying to figure what really happened to Che Guevara. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't seriously imagine that this will even slow the nut-jobs down do you? If you were someone who could believe that all of those images and videos could be faked with 1960's technology - without computer paint programs - then you're going to believe that faking these new images of the landers on the moon (conveniently just in time for the 40'th anniversary) would be childs' play!  For those who are determined not to believe the mountain of evidence that the moon landings happened - disbelieving a few new photos should be a breeze!  No - I suspect we'll be treated to an entire new rash of "proofs" that these new images were faked.  They'll be out there measuring shadows and light levels and who-knows-what.  Just wait...you'll see! SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it won't stop them all, but it will cool their jets significantly. It will be like people still arguing the earth was flat, after Columbus discovered America. I note with some interest, the apparent lack of coverage of these photos by the major media. That suggests how little importance the hoax stories really have. The media don't consider these photos remarkable enough to even comment on them, although I expect some mention will be made as the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing occurs, on Monday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also worth keeping in mind that the moon hoax story didn't really gain momentum until some years after Apollo had run its course. The hoaxsters knew it was safe to make these claims, because we weren't going back anytime soon. To have said it was fake while it was happening would have been met with ridicule. So they built their false case over the next 30 years or so, while it was safe. But this is all happening right now - and if they say this stuff is fake while it's happening, they'll be made a laughingstock - assuming, as I say above, that anyone even cares what they think. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides, even if these pictures are legit, they don't prove that man walked on the Moon, only that NASA sent landers to the Moon. These missions could have been robotic.  Nor do they prove that the landers were sent in the 1960s.  Perhaps NASA just sent them a few years ago knowing the LRO would need something to photograph.  See, a creative conspiracy theorist can come up with something to cover anything. ;)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course, why didn't I think of that. NASA sent unmanned missions that included little robots that trundled around the surface leaving trails of mansize footprints, and they managed to blast eight Saturn rockets off from Canaveral in the last few years without ANYBODY spotting the unannounced launches. Well I never, who would have thought it. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, they could have created a diversion to distract the American sheeple while they sent up the rockets. I mean, we all know that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the CIA's secret weather machine.  That would have been a perfect opportunity for NASA to send up rockets without anyone noticing.  Or maybe it wasn't even NASA.  The Illuminati and Freemasons are pulling everyone's strings so maybe they had the Russians send the moon landers.  If anything, these pictures prove how desperate NASA is to keep the real truth from coming out. ;) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Give me photoshop and ten minutes and I could produce proof that a giant Scarlett Johansson is on the moon. mmmm. Numskll (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...NASA has lost the orignial footage...yeah, that is not suspicious at all is it? -AMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently they were re-used. It's no more suspicious than the inability to locate tapes of the first Super Bowl, or the early years of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Who had more manned spaceflight hours - USSR or USA?
The article states:

"Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight. By the time of Apollo 11, the US's lead was much wider than that (see List of human spaceflights, 1960s.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.252.55 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your question? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of hours varies whether you count astronaut/cosmonaut hours or spacecraft hours. But the ratio is about the same.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I clarified it and expanded it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mechanical issues section 6 unclear
The response/"debunking" to the claim that the lander should have made more of an imprint than the astronauts' footprints is unclear. It ends with: "If pressure determines the extent of compression, and with lunar sand several inches deep [50], the lander would have caused deeper impressions in the sand than the astronaught boot," which seems to be a response to the debunking, rather than part of it?

Also, "astronaut" is misspelled several times in the second half of the response, starting after the first set of parentheses. GranoblasticMan (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the mix of the use of "percent" and "%"? Should there be simply one or the other?
Why not just use '20%', or whatever, which is cleaner and tighter instead of '20 percent', that is longer - why the discrepancy?Radiojonty (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the one who changed it could address that. I don't know what the manual of style has to say about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't remember, but it was probably me, following Turabian style guide, sying to spell out "percent". APA and others are different.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of this edit by the guy with the Cyrillian name, who switched one item to "percent", and I think you switched it back. In any case, presumably there should be consistency. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just changed them all from "percent" to "%". I think I was the one that used "percent" when talking about the Gallup poll, following the style manual I had at the time.  Now I also have the APA style and Strunk & White.  APA says to ise "%" and several people have objected to "percent". Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. % seems better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Levitation by wire
I haven't really bought into the hoax stuff but I have found this really strange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&NR=1 at 2:14 where it appears one of the astronauts is "levitating" upwards. He clearly has support from the arm of the other astronaut but something clearly doesn't look right about the movement. -Rolypolyman (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in Talk:Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories/Archive_13 in the section "strings astronauts". Man with two legs (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

LRO images - the debate is now over, surely
Don't the new LRO photos of lunar modules on the surface, astronaut footprints, science experiments, etc, effectively draw a line under this particular conspiracy theory? Therefore shouldn't this be clearly stated in the intro? It would appear so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I found interesting yesterday is how little attention the media paid to these photos. Because the media have never taken the hoax stuff seriously, and there is certainly no valid source that will now. You could almost go so far as to change the "are" to "were" in the first sentence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the photos aren't all that impressive for the general public to really care. Pretty much only science geeks like us think it's cool.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being a little facetious. It's still "are" until the last hoaxster site cries "uncle". Rather than grumbling, they should reflect on what an extraordinary achievement the Apollo program was - a program that was killed not by some catastrophe, but simply by a lack of funding. There was a lot of hoopla at Apollo 11, and a lot of worldwide attention during Apollo 13, but after that it tapered off as Vietnam became the dominant story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if NASA faked the landings, they could have faked these latest pictures too, no? --76.117.164.50 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone leveling such a charge about the current mission would be compelled to prove it, and would not be taken seriously by any valid source (unless they could prove it, of course). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to have a laugh with you by pretending to be a hoax believer. You're right of course. I was making the point though that these people are already immune to logic. What difference will more data make to them? --76.117.164.50 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also still people who believe the earth is flat, but they are sufficiently marginalized that they don't matter. I recall when some of the debates were going on on this page a couple of years ago, that some of the hoax believers said they would recant if there was new evidence, such as exactly what we saw yesterday. We probably shouldn't whack on them too much, because there were all manner of conspiracy theories that arose in the 1970s, thanks to Nixon and Watergate, and carrying over from the 1960s assassinations, and a healthy skepticism about official sources is good. As an example from that era, I was once convinced that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, of which Oswald was only a part (I never questioned his involvement). I am now fairly well convinced that Oswald acted alone. That doesn't make either of those beliefs "right", it's just what I see as the "best evidence". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think back to the "Face on Mars" as one good example of serious and obvious photographic evidence having demolished a daft theory. I agree there are bound to be die-hards but on the whole this is devastating to the conspiracy theory and I for one am celebrating. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that most of the conspiracists will go, "Wow! It's for real!", and then educate themselves about the extraordinary achievements of both the US and the USSR during the late 50s to the mid 70s, which is part of the continuum of the current space program. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.". Im anxious to see the even higher resolution photos to come.DrNegative (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be cool if the LRO can image some of the Russian landers, too, such as Luna 17 and Lunokhod 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be good, but Lunokhod is smaller, about 5 x 5.5 feet. The best possible views of them would be about like the LM views now.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If they had had this kind of resolution from the lunar orbiters in the mid-1960s, maybe Armstrong would have had an easier time with his landing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested motives for the hoax theory
I see there's a section in the article on "suggested motives for a hoax" - for the sake of balance, shouldn't there be a similar section on "suggested motives for the conspiracy theory" or similar? Obviously making money from books, DVDs and TV shows would rank pretty high. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's something that would be better covered under the conspiracy theory article in general. There are plenty of reasons why conspiracy theories exist. Someone like Kaysing was apparently motivated to write due to anger over having been canned. And those who don't trust the government in general, are inclined to buy into those theories. It's hard to say how far back this kind of thing goes, but I can tell it goes at least as far back as Pearl Harbor, as there are still those who say that FDR somehow is to blame for it - the same sentiments echoed about 9/11. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Update to missing data
On 17 July 2009 I added current information about the restoration process of the surviving Apollo moon tape data by Lowry Digital. The project is supervised by NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was involved with the actual data during the live transmission. Xin Jing (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Bias
The article seems biased to the moon landings being real. Does anyone else agree it should be more balanced? There is indeed a chance it was faked, and I personally believe it was, and it honestly does seem the article is biased. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably the fairest article you'll find on this subject, especially given that the lunar orbiter information has pretty well demolished the notion that Apollo didn't happen. This is a fringe theory with virtually no valid sources. Much more time has been given to it than wikipedia rules would ordinarily warrant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is HIGHLY unbalanced
It looks like its only purpose is to refute the hoax accusations. By doing that it shoots itself in the foot and induces even more uncertainty. It also contains large amounts of unsourced statements. Try instead and construct two sections with evidence for/evidence against. Also, "proof" by NASA itself is per definition not credible enough, we need evidence from independent sources especially third parties such as Russian, Chinese, European or other nationalities. It shouldn't be too hard to dig that up shouldn't it? M99 87.59.79.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
 * The article is the most balanced you're likely to find about this fringe theory. There is a separate article on third party observations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah right... The header says it better than I do:

"Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced various theories which tend, to varying degrees, to include suggestions that the Apollo astronauts did not land on the Moon, that NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landings did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples, and that the deception continues to this day. There is abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings and many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.[1] A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the US public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.[2][3] A new set of images published by NASA in July 2009, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission show lunar landers (including that of Apollo 11) standing on the surface, science experiments and, in one case, astronaut footprints in a line between the Apollo 14 lander and a nearby science experiment. These images are the most effective proof to date that the "landing hoax" theory is not grounded in fact.[4]"

Anyone can see that is not balanced. It's one long refutation. I have no problem with the article reflecting current scientific concensus(it should) but this looks more like a soapbox speech. You should more try and model it after the creation/evolution "controversy" article, it has an infinitely better introduction. Also, I don't think it's fringe to express some doubts whether the first landing actually was in fact a landing, especially considering the high risk and the missing original tapes, etc.. But our opinions should be left out of this. What remains is that this article is unbalanced and does not live up to the standards of WikiPedia. It needs a writeover. Sorry but this is how it is... Good luck. M99 87.59.79.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Let's not confuse NPOV with "balance". Wikipedia does not need to be "balanced" about nonsensical and unproven beliefs. Denial of the Apollo Programme is just that - a belief. If you want to start an article saying that the earth is flat, you can, but don't expect it to be 50% confirmation that the Earth is flat. It will be 98% proving such a contention false. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, 98% of valid sources (if not 100%) will assert that the world is round. The best you're going to get from reliable sources about the "flat earth" is commentary on the Flat Earth Society. Likewise, the best you're going to get on the Moon Hoax stuff is commentary about it from valid sources. You're not likely to find any valid source that actually supports the notion that there was a hoax. This article gives far more of a platform to the hoaxsters than wikipedia rules would normally allow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The flat Earth believers are far fewer than the Apollo hoax hypothesis proponents. Besides, the so-called "conspiracy theories" are about human activity, not natural phenomenons like the shape of the Earth. Therefore, any comparison between the two is not valid. So, please stop doing such comparisons. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Flat Earthers believe in the flat earth despite all evidence to the contrary. Same with the conspiracy theorists and their pet theories. The psychology of alternate beliefs is an interesting social phenomenon. This is really about people's belief systems, not about the Apollo missions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An important difference is that the hoaxters prefer to think with their own brains instead of believing what they're officially told, whereas the Flat Earthers don't seem to think at all :) --Лъчезар (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The moon hoax proponents are nearly as ignorant of science and technology as the flat earthers are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "the", but "some". I don't know what percentage though. However, some are scientists with respected scientific degrees like Popov and Pokrovsky. And albeit I can't compare to their high level, I don't think I'm ignorant in science and technology either :) --Лъчезар (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The hoax theory starts with the "waving flag" story, which any junior high school science student could tell you is exactly how a flag would be expected to behave in a vacuum. Then there's the complaint about stars missing from the photos, which anyone who knows anything about photography could tell you is exactly to be expected. And it goes downhill from there. I would be interested to know what your respected scientists have said (if anything) about the current lunar orbiter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These two points were just the beginning. Much more serious questions accumulated in time, not mentioned in this article. (If it were to cover all of them, it would probably become huge!) As to the LRO, Popov wrote already several years ago that no photo made past mid-1990s can serve as an evidence because anyone can put even a pink elephant to it. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially any photos that would contradict his theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you compare it to the flat earth theory you show that you have completely lost grasp of reality and is instead trying to defend your own ego rather than the article. This is not about flat earths or waving flags but about NPOV. Get it? WikiPedia is NOT a soapboax. Have a nice day.. M99 87.59.79.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Well you finally got something right M99... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so would you like to climb down from yours now? BB is not "defending his ego", he makes a perfectly valid case. Maybe the flat earth theory is not the best comparison, but both are odd and illogical propositions by misguided groups that simply cannot accept the proof that is in front of them. All debate will be irrellevant when the higher definition LRO photographs become available in a few weeks time. Armstrong and Aldrin's footprints next to the already photographed Apollo 11 lander will be the final nail in the hoax theory's coffin. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 11:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean giving equal time to fringe theories. The hoaxsters have had much more of a platform here than wikipedia rules would normally allow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC Radio 4 in the UK today had a hoax believer "debating" with a scientist on their main news programme this morning. The hoax believer went through some of the usual points one a time - "how could their camera batteries survive in that cold" (answer: no transmission of "cold" in vacuam without radiation - local solar radiation is hot), "how could photo film survive all that radiation" (variation of the Van Allen Belt fallacy - the spacecraft moved too quickly for it to be affected and they used hi-tech film for the day) and so on and on. In the end, after about five or six similarly wrong yawn-inducing factoids, all of which were easily dismissed by the scientific guy, the hoax believer just went right back to point one and started repeating them all over, as if nothing at all had been said to contradict them. With that kind of total commitment to disregarding facts, no amount of logical debate is likely to help. However, to the people they try to con into buying their books and DVDs, the new pictures from the LRO (even better ones to come!) will be like the kiss of death and they will fight tooth and nail to have the evidence taken off. Like the Face on Mars saga, this one will soon be deflated and only the real blowhards left to mourn. Grin. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Confronting a scientist and an ordinary man is like confronting boxers from light and heavy categories. That's just a part of the information war against "those damn hoaxters" that has been going on for 40 years already and won't finish so soon as you hope, and if it does, not with the result you expect. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The representative of the "hoax believer" group in the BBC news programme was Marcus Allen, who is the leading British proponent of the hoax theory and publisher of conspiracy theory mag Nexus. You would think he might be well versed. Actually he appeared not to even know that they kept the camera films in a metal box on all space flights at that time, but there you go - facts never seem to be a big issue with some of the people in this debate! You can here this very revealing exchange at BBC website - Lunar Landing hoax debate - go to 1 hour 23 minutes on the slider for the start of the exchanges. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I heard only the short (5 minute) passage linked to at the page about Allen as my connection is not so fast to download so big audio files quickly. It was interesting, but Allen is just a photograph. His opponent is a professor! And Allen's arguments I heard were just about the photography. Probably there were other too in the large record which I didn't hear. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The hoaxsters have much less actual impact than they think they do. While the LRO story is gold to one side and radioactive to the other in this debate, the media (in the U.S. at least) paid almost no attention to it, since they don't need any "proof" of what is already well-known. I should point out that I remain open to evidence that Apollo was somehow faked. So far, the hoaxsters have shown me nothing that can't be shot down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the "hoaxters" have so little impact, why is this Wikipedia article so long? :) --Лъчезар (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC story highlights some of the fundamental flaws in the hoaxster argument. One is obviously ignorance of the subject. That's a given. The other is that they don't have any evidence. What they have are questions. Questions are fair. Questions are good. The problem is, they get an answer to a question, and they ask the same question again. "Like, Dude, what about the waving flag?" Respondent explains the behavior of objects in a vacuum. "OK, so, like, Dude, what about the waving flag?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the lack of evidence was claimed so many times, I can now tell you, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing (as you call it), with which I congratulate you, that I learned just a couple of days ago, that for a couple of years now there has been scientific evidence that the Apollo 11 Moon landing couldn't happen. A couple of papers proving that have been already published in a couple of scientific journals, with the due peer review, etc. In the next few days, I will probably provide more information on that. My question now is whether scientific journals are considered reliable secondary sources or not. Thanks in advance for the answer. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which journals? All Conspiracies Are True Monthly? Wacko Gazzette? International Journal for the Gathering of People Who Don't Believe Overwhelming Fact? 81.149.153.146 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, "Actual problems of modern science" and the Proceedings of a scientific conference in an university. The first one proves that the landings couldn't have happened, and second one explains the fatal obstacle that prevented them. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't locate any journal called "Actual problems of modern science" - do you have a URL? Is that a Russian journal? 81.149.153.146 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a Russian journal. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: ''" Also, "proof" by NASA itself is per definition not credible enough . . . I don't think it's fringe to express some doubts whether the first landing actually was in fact a landing, especially considering the high risk and the missing original tapes, etc.." (IP Address 87.59.79.233|87.59.79.233)
 * It is pretty much the definition of WP:Fringe].
 * Re: "on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing (as you call it), with which I congratulate you, that I learned just a couple of days ago, that for a couple of years now there has been scientific evidence that the Apollo 11 Moon landing couldn't happen." (Лъчезар)
 * This is going to be entertaining, as we call it. So glad I added this article to my watchlist.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest! I had added a couple of lines to this article about that 2 days ago, but obviously nobody noticed. Anyway, it's now in the article entitled "Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers". Read and enjoy! :) But note that "translate.google.com" doesn't do a very good job - there is a better, Russian translation engine especially written for Russian translations - "www.online-translator.com" :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's probably the same journal where they proved the bumblebee can't fly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you're joking, there's no such proof. --Лъчезар (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this particular Russian journal, but I think given the state of science in Russia generally and the long-running antipathy to Nasa programs from that country, we should approach it with caution. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the state of science in Russia is so bad, then why only the Russian "hoaxters" apply real science in their arguments? :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More importantly Russian tracking stations would have been able to locate the source of signals from Apollo 11 very precisely back in 1969, just as Jodrell Bank in the UK (and even a Brit grammar school who were famous for tracking this stuff) knew where the signals were from. Given the state of USA - Russian relations at that time in the Cold War, if there had been any doubt at the time that it was being faked, Russia would have gleefully and very publicly exposed it. I will look forward to reading "Actual problems of modern science" and having a good giggle. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the post-Stalin Soviet elite was so good, the USSR would still exist. Don't overestimate them. They attended the plot too. --Лъчезар (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At one time at least, we had a reference that the USSR did track the Apollo missions. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, the bit for footnote #18 - the book by David Scott and Alexey Leonov. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alexey Leonov is one of the hoax debunkers, but even he admitted yesterday that some scenes were shot in a studio :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give a reference for that? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, see this (you can use the Russian on-line translator http://www.online-translator.com to translate it, it translates Russian better than Google). --Лъчезар (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with NPOV in this article is that all evidence, including the most recent pictures taken by the LRO, strongly lead to the landings being real. I base my views on evidence, as do many others. The problem is, how do you keep NPOV in an article when there is strong evidence supporting an already accepted fact (the landings) from the scientific community? The hoax proponents need to understand that their lack of sufficent evidence cannot and will not substain this article with a true "50/50" NPOV. DrNegative (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not mean 50/50 presentation... it means we discuss the topic with neutrality. See WP:WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood NPOV. What you call a "50/50" NPOV is certainly not required and indeed would not be NPOV.


 * What NPOV means is that multiple conflicting viewpoints must be treated fairly. We should present the conspiracy theorists' claims, sure, but we should also balance them with the mainstream viewpoint.  NPOV does not prevent us from pointing out where claims made by conspiracy theorists are demonstrably false, misleading or illogical.  It does not force us to accept the conspiracy theorists' position as equal in validity to the mainstream position.  It does not require us to pretend that the generally accepted facts are anything other than generally accepted facts.


 * What it requires us to do is put the two sides of the dispute fairly, including the evidence on both sides, and allow the reader to decide which to believe. In doing so, it should equally point out the flaws in the arguments of both sides.  If the case put by one side is full of holes, NPOV requires us to point this out.  If this results in an article that makes the mainstream position look more likely - well the fact that a neutral presentation of the facts makes it look more likely is probably the reason why it's the mainstream position.


 * I agree 100%. If the article is trying to push the mainstream position too hard, the Third Law of Newton takes place :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not here to prop up the arguments of the conspiracy theorists. If their position doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that's not really our problem. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to prop up, but to present fairly. Come on, what are you afraid of? If you're so correct, you shouldn't be afraid of the other side. After all, all its arguments will be debunked, right? Or will they?! :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, do you have references from reliable sources backing up your belief that the moon landing is some big huge conspiracy? Wikipedia is about reflecting what reliable sources say; the reliable sources all say that people who think the moon landing is faked don't have a full grasp of reality (or are ignorant of the facts) and the Wikipedia article, as a result, reflects this reality.  Please read and understand WP:RS.  For example: NASA and The New York Times (both of whom accept the moon landing as a given fact) are reliable sources, some random blog or conspiracy webpage is not a reliable source.  Samboy (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bulgarian monthly analytical newspaper "Strogo Sekretno" ("Top Secret" in English) had a long line of publications on this (5 or 6 consecutive articles) last year. I haven't read all of them, but from what I've read, I believe that they mostly repeat the ideas of Popov from his book. Its last issue (July 2009) also includes an article that asserts this notion. The newspaper has a web page but it's in Bulgarian and contains only a small part of the material in the newspaper. Its editor Prof. Dr. Krassimir Ivandjijski has a biography in English here. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is unbalanced. Whether or not there is ample "proof" or not, many people such as myself believe it never happened, and for equality, the article should state that there is a chance it was faked, because no one knows besides NASA whether it definately was fake or not. Saying "It's real because NASA says so" isn't good enough proof. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedia editors, our opinions on the matter are irrelevant. What matters is the opinions of reliable sources.  If reliable sources say that the Apollo landings were real, it is not our place to tell them that they are wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best you're likely to find in reliable sources is comments about the hoax stories, typically making fun of them, just as they would for the Flat Earth Society. This article follows the IAR principle, in that it gives a significant platform to the hoax believers, much more than wikipedia rules would normally allow. If it went strictly by reliable sources, the current lead would be the entire article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "IAR" stand for? And please stop endorsing your favourite Flat Earth Society. Do even 1% believe the Earth is flat? --Лъчезар (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It means "Ignore All Rules when it will improve wikipedia". In this case, it means we are giving the hoax believers far more leeway than the rules would normally allow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything, it's unbalanced towards the hoax believers. There is no valid source asserting the flights were faked, and there is no evidence of it being faked either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your information is obsolete. The proof is already in the English and Italian Wikipedias and keeps spreading worldwide. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you actually have any reliable sources to back up your claims? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources quoted in the Wikipedia entry about that. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK: When I asked Cyrillic (what I will call Лъчезар from now on; if he has a better English transcription of his username, he should let us know) for a reliable source further up, he mentioned that some "newspaper" in Bulgaria as a source. His wording was The Bulgarian monthly analytical newspaper "Strogo Sekretno" ("Top Secret" in English).  I do not know if this newspaper is the Bulgarian equivalent of The New York Times (if it is, it meets WP:RS), or a rag published by some conspiracy theory group.  Based on Cyrillic's description of the article talking about how the moon landings are faked, and the web page of the newspaper I am leaning towards this newspaper being a Bulgarian version of the Weekly World News.  Samboy (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's an analytical newspaper. To believe that this is so, you can read the free articles with the Google translator, for example. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As to my name, its pronunciation is on my Wikipedia user page. No good transcription exists, sorry. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the English wikipedia, and it does not contain any such "proof". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no proof whatsoever that the Apollo flights were faked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one. Please read more carefully :) --Лъчезар (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point it out so we can make sure it is used appropriately and rebutted properly, as it is obviously incorrect :) Seriously though, where? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I already pointed to it 2 days ago when asked. Please read my earlier comments. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, if anyone published a reliable source busting the idiotic claims, it could be cited as the claims made by the hoax believers. (since if they don't say what the hoaxters claim, they cannot bust it.) MythSearchertalk 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If only 20% of the people believe in it, this doesn't automatically make it "idiotic". There is a [German?!] proverb - "Eat shit, a billion flies can't be wrong!" :) --Лъчезар (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to break this party up people, but can we focus on the article? All this debate on wether or not there is "proof" of the cover up, or inded "proof" of the landings is utterly irrelevant. This article is not about wether the landings took place. It's about the conspiracy theories that they did not. The distinction may be subtle (clearly too subtle for some) but if you want to discuss the "proof" the landings took place go to Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. If you want to create an article on why they did not take place go to Lack of evidence for Apollo Moon landings. This page deals (or should deal) with the conspiracy theories only, and more importantly this talk page should deal with improving the article - not peoples personal agendas. Pedro : Chat  20:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked as Лъчезар said there is a proof in the article now. I couldn't see it. Where is the proof in the current article? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's briefly mentioned in the current article and elaborated in another article the current article points to. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Лъчезар finds "proof" in a wikipedia article then s/he really has no notion of what an encyclopedia is. Pedro : Chat  21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the proof in Wikipedia, I added it there! --Лъчезар (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to comment on it further, please start another section in the talk page of the appropriate article. This section already increased to a really huge size and is uncomfortable to deal with. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Can we draw a line under this now please. No-one cares why Лъчезар believes whether this article proves the hoax theories or not. That is as irrelevant as the personal opinion of any other editor. All that matters is does the article present the theories accurately and neutrally? Unless anyone has any specific points in that regard, this conversation is off-topic and pointless. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Photographs and films
This section is worse than the page that is about to be shut down Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. It has almost no sources to the conspiracies and few for the so called debunking. Unless someone can come up with a very good reason for keeping it or can improve it to Wikipedia standards, I propose to delete it.

--Eric144 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can the problem be fixed? If not, I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who says this article is "about to be shut down"? Anyway, that article seems extremely good, detailed, factual and comprehensive - what a source! No wonder the conspiracy theory people would like it kicked, along with the devastating (for them) LRO evidence. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good article and with more sources, it will become even better. Of course, it must not be deleted. Wikipedia is not a censorship. As to the LRO, how many times I have to explain that it's interesting but not "devastating", and why not? --Лъчезар (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the deletion notice, which was placed there for POV reasons - we don't want material as good as that removed from Wikipedia. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The photographs and films are probably the central part of the issue. Bubba73 (if you can read this you can go to my talk page), 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it should be deleted is that in the other discussion Mr Rusty Cash said"I am responding to the request for a third opinion and I am agreeing with Bubba73 that the section "NASA uploading doctored pictures to website" should be deleted. The problem is that all the sources cited for the section are primary sources. WP:RS only allows the use of primary sources when the conclusions drawn from them are obvious and uncontroversial (like a straight forward plot summary of a novel or play)". Followed by "Thank you for your well-considered opinion. I appreciate it" added by Mr Bubba73. This section has virtually no sources so it has to go by the same logic. Can anyone provide an actual logical reason why totally unsourced material should remain when the section I put up in the photographs page was deleted ?--Eric144 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put it another way. There is no reason why I can't put up the very obvious photo changing section with no sources, is there ? --Eric144 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your point Eric144, can you explain further? There seem to be plenty of good references in that article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eric, there is a very good reason why you can not put up your "very obvious changing section with no sources"... Two reasons, in fact... WP:NOR and WP:V. I suggest you read them.  Or you can continue to ignore the rules, disrupt Wikipedia, and end up being blocked from editing wikipedia again (this time for longer than just 24 hours). Your choice. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a "refimprovesect" template to that section. Hopefully more references will be added. But I wonder how it could be initially written: didn't the editor who wrote it use any sources or has he "sucked the content from his fingers"?! Hopefully the former. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters
I am slightly concerned that the television programme Mythbusters is being overused as a source of 'proof'. I mean okay, it should be mentioned, but especially considering they do MythBusters Revisited where they admit that sometimes they are wrong! All I'm saying is that we shouldn't take what mythbusters says as absolute proof that the moon landing weren't faked, and it shouldn't be relied on so heavily in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeek-the-other-one (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People who admit they are sometimes wrong can be more reliabe then people who insist they are always right. Algr (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters performed their "experiment" in atmosphere, which scatters light, thus negating their results. All too conveniently ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.92.55 (talk • contribs) 20:03, July 23, 2009
 * ...what? I'm really not sure what you're driving at here. Something to do with the photography, I assume. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A point which does not seem to be addressed
I get the impression from reading this (as well as other material) that there is no evidence documenting any planning of a hoax, but the point is not addressed, one way or the other. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's kinda hard to prove something doesn't exist. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the whole trouble. The hoax accusers claim a conspiracy, yet they have no evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy actually occurred. All they really have are questions about the evidence of the flights. That's the totality of their so-called "evidence" for a hoax. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely we can either find some hoax-believer who claims such evidence, or a cite-worthy skeptic who says that no such evidence has been advanced. It's hard to justify the section on the rationale for hoaxing unless the hoax-believers have to speculate on why there's a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. The section is about why the hoax-believers... well, believe it's a hoax. Motives are ascribed to the "perpetrators" but no real thought has apparently been given to how it would have been coordinated. Evidence of the hoax is pretty thin, and I don't ever recall hearing someone claim they saw/were privy to any planning for it. Most hoax claims jump straight to the "studio," as it were. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the section Suggested motives for a hoax. There is some implication that motives have to be suggested because there's no direct evidence of a rationale-- that is, no record of someone saying "we need to put on this hoax because...." And I gather that there is also no paper trail or the like revealing execution of the hoax. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one place where the Apollo hoax allegations fall apart. They've got nobody they can pinpoint specifically as being behind the hoax, so they allege a huge, widespread hoax that somehow no one has ever confessed to. Compare that to the Watergate conspiracy, which fell apart quickly, and that was just a handful of guys. Some of those guys were alleged to be somehow involved with the JFK assassination, which is probably poppycock, but at least they have names. The best the hoaxsters can come up with is Stanley Kubrick. Yet anyone who has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey can see that Stanley's concept of the moonscape is significantly different from the reality as observed by the astronauts. The hoax believers, as usual, have got nothing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They've got nobody they can pinpoint specifically as being behind the hoax. THat's what I'd like to get a cite on, so we can say that in the article. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof mentioned in previous discussion
In a previous discussion a "proof" that the landings didn't take place was said to be in the article, and Лъчезар claimed to have added it. Лъчезар, or someone else, could you please identify the proof that you said is in this article in a previous section, as I cannot find it. Please give the diff where you added it, or an excerpt so I (and others) can find it easily. Please keep this thread tp simply identifying the passage referred to. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on the hoax proponents spinoff page, and it refers to a writeup by some guy who made certain assumptions about the rockets and concluded that the payload was insufficient to carry the entire Apollo lander. Basically treating Apollo films like the Zapruder film, trying to find hidden meanings. More bogus assumptions leading to bogus conclusions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlike the Zapruder film, it's an official film published by NASA. But how did you find out that he made assumptions and that they're bogus? Did you assume this? --Лъчезар (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Zapruder film was made by an amateur who was never accused of trying to "fake" anything. If the Apollo films were made by people perpetating a hoax, then any assumptions made from those films is questionable. Regardless, many of the hoax believers have examined films and photos, and drawn personal conclusions from them, and decided that, therefore, the Apollo program was faked. It never occurs to them to question their own assumptions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I already wrote (see above), that film is by NASA. As to Pokrovsky, he didn't assume it was faked, he just estimated the speed at that point and then, based on his estimation, concluded that. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So how do you know the film is even the real film of the liftoff? In any case, he's drawing conclusions based on the apparent speed of the liftoff? How does he know the actual velocity at takeoff, based on a film? To my amateur eyes, the liftoff films look somewhat overcranked, as with the typical NFL film, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This page shows that the film is the real film of the first stage separation (not at lift-off). What is NFL, by the way? --Лъчезар (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've at least started rewriting the passage to make it clear that these are his claims. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The NASA source you removed was just to prove the X-750 was really used. It's quoted in one of the cited sources by the way. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I do not know russian, can someone tell me if those are reliable sources or not? a lot of them are from a forum(which is determined by the link url with "forum" in the middle. MythSearchertalk 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used his words in these sources to support the article's statements that he made such and such claims, not to support his claims per se. The latter can be judged by reading the article in the cited scientific journal. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, it's not "proof", it's just his personal opinion, nothing more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a speed estimation using 4 different scientific methods, reviewed by number of scientists and published in a scientific journal. I wouldn't call that a "personal opinion". --Лъчезар (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which scientists? Other scientists who share his hatred of the USA and the old USSR? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15 other scientists. He doesn't mention names but I can ask him. I'll leave your comment about the hatred without comment. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He does actually mention a couple of names elsewhere: Alexander Budnik of the Institute for physics and power engineering and Vladimir Surdin of the Sternberg Astronomical Institute. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions about reliable sources
Wikipedia has a rule about only citing reliable sources. Is Bill Kaysing a reliable source? Are any of the moon-hoaxers reliable sources? Would this article permit YouTube sources or independent websites with new moon-hoax claims?

Ace Baker (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources that refute the Apollo program itself. There are reliable sources that discuss the fact that some people believe it to be fake. That's the basis for its notability. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I think we consider Kaysing (for example) a reliable source for what he said.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As with anything self-published, including blogs, presumably they are reliable sources for quoting someone's opinion on something, assuming it's verified that it's actually them and not an impostor. Not a reliable source for facts, just for an individual's comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't work that way on other articles.

Ace Baker (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean about blogs and such? As far as I know, blogs are acceptable as primary sources of what someone says. They are not reliable sources about facts. As an example, I could have a blog saying, "The earth is flat." That would be a reliable source for posting, "Baseball Bugs says the earth is flat." It would not be a reliable source for posting, "The earth is flat." See the difference? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think s/he means other articles in wikipedia does not work that way. I would have to perform the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:V and WP:RS display of policies just in case. MythSearchertalk 06:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about blogs, but let me add a note. In my understanding, a "reliable source" is a secondary source that it not too unreliable :) But I'm afraid that most think that only the "official" sources (mainstream media) are reliable sources. And an "official" source would never shout "The Emperor is naked!" :) --Лъчезар (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the USA they would. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an invisible but very sophisticated and effective control over the media, especially in the USA. "The freedom of the press belongs to those who own one". (Joe Liebling) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS, Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Most hoax accusations are not published by reliable publication process, yet counter arguments busting the accusations are. MythSearchertalk 09:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From the above rule of thumb, it follows that daily newspapers aren't reliable sources since even the editor has no time to check all the material. Whereas scientific journals are reliable sources because the material is always reviewed by peers before publishing. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which other scientists have reviewed that guy's claims about the Saturn rockets? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He doesn't quote their names, but I can ask him for them, if needed. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know him? Are you aware of WP:COI. His theory is simply disproved by counterexample without further recourse to argument, by the rather obvious fact that the NASA did go to the moon. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know him. --Лъчезар (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, but it seemed a little obvious. :) Some guy looks at a film recorded at an unknown speed, 40 years later, and concludes that that "proves" Apollo was faked. Yet they found the landing sites on the moon. Somebody's got it wrong. And my money is on the Russian Zapruder guy having gotten it wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the first things he does is to estimate the speed of the film :) --Лъчезар (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The keyword there is "estimate", or as we say in America, "guesstimate". So the best he can do is "estimate" that Apollo might be fake. He can't claim to have "proved" it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Estimate" may be not the best word. "Determine" is better. He determined that the speed of the film is really 24 frames per second, as its meta-data says. So he just verified that this is really so, not "estimated". My language is not always precise, sorry. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet they demonstrably did - so his estimates are wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Who is "they" and what they did demonstrably? --Лъчезар (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, he never said that something is fake. He just proved that it was impossible to land on the Moon with this flight. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My Russian is extremely scanty, but it seems to me that one probably can't meaningfully do all the angle analysis he's doing on an image that's severely foreshortened, heavily distorted, and shot through one of the longest telephotos in existence at an unknown magnification from an unknown location. Not that I'm a expert on this, of course. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. But he calculated a speed that is no more than half of the declared one, using four different methods. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, I mean that with each method, he proved that the maximum possible real speed could had been half (1.2 km/s) of the declared speed (2.4 km/s). --Лъчезар (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell that they are four separate methods. It's possible that there is a hidden assumption which underlies all four calculations which throws them all off the same way. Personally, under the circumstances my reaction would be to assume that my calculations were wrong and try to find where the fault lies before assuming on my own that I'd done it right. Failing that, I would submit my calculations to someone else for verification. That's where we have a WP:RS issue with this guy: we don't have outside confirmation that his calculations make sense. And I imagine that most people competent to do so are not inclined to spend time doing so. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reaction to submit your work to someone else for verification is the correct reaction, and that's exactly what Pokrovsky did. As to the methods, I can list them here, if you want. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * About the reliable sources, the scientific journal his work is published in is a reliable source by definition. At least much more reliable than some daily newspapers often taken as examples of reliable sources such as The New York Times :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he proved nothing more than he is using his own estimates on a remotely unreliable method. First, the video can at best show the outermost layer of the propulsion. Second, 24 frames per second is extremely not accurate for speeds up to that level, that is why high speed cameras have to be used in speed estimation, it is impossible to track a single particle traveling at 1.2km/h at 24fps when moles of other same particles are all rushing out at the same direction. Third, high speed camera shots used for high accuracy speed estimation uses relatively clear background measures(even simple black and white boarding could increase the accuracy by a lot) to have a high proximation on the distance traveled. Fourth, exhaust gases are facing turbulence when near the ground and once the rocket is further from the ground, where the gases are flowing at a more consistent flow, it is already far away enough that cameras at those times are not enough to capture enough resolution to do any accurate approximation. Fifth, the report showed no mention of the weight estimation on the actually launched rocket, in which it is improperble that an even lighter rocket could be made to fake the actual launch. Sixth, if the exhaust speed of the rocket is reduce in half, the actual launch force should be somewhere 1/4 of the stated, not 3/4.(by simple physics from F=ma and KE=0.5mv^2 with an approximation of v=a per unit time). More mistakes and irregular claims are made in what is in English in that article right now, and this is NOT the place to discuss about it. If the guy is so correct about this, why didn't he actually list the people who looked at his estimated calculations and endorse it? And why did no one ever even have the chance of openly having a copy of the estimations and calculation to check his work? Also, sometimes when something extremely wrong is presented to somebody, they simply don't want to comment on it, thus not saying a thing on the topic does not make them supporters of the theory. Scientific Journals are usually reliable, if they do carry the specific rate.  A fun thing is, some Journals are known to be specific on publishing fringe claims with no actual fact checking, or I should say, they have a fault checking method to ensure incorrect but shocking claims to be publish in order to increase attention.   MythSearchertalk 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * His report (on the Inconel) does mention the mass of the actual rocket - 2248 tonnes. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which would be highly impossible to have his estimated thrust speed to be used on such heavy rocket. The rocket can hardly achieve flight to orbit if the exhaust gases are half the speed but the rocket is more than 2/3 of the NASA spec(due to the thrust would be reduced by 3/4 if thrust speed is reduced by half). MythSearchertalk 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, his papers are open, so anyone has a chance to check them. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the papers are not open, it is his actual scientific methods of the calculations and estimations are not open. Claiming he himself watched the video and estimating the speed by locating a particle at 1.2km/s speed in an 24 fps film is already impossible. The method, no matter who used it, cannot obtain a accurate enough number on the thrust speed due to the fact that it contains too much systemetic bias in it(the speed of the exhausted gases if at 1.2km/s, can travel almost half of the rocket's length between 2 frames, and is impossible to track in the video's quality). MythSearchertalk 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the more detailed frame analysis of his (link quoted from the article). --Лъчезар (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I proposed to ask him for the list of his reviewers, but was immediately warned that I can be accused in "conflict of interest". --Лъчезар (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You asking him giving the list is not a reliable source.(assuming bad faith, I can pretend to have asked him and list a bunch of highly unrelated fake names who are impossible to contact, furthermore, assuming more bad faith, If I am him, I can simply make up a list of people who cannot be contacted.) MythSearchertalk 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, it's normal to have doubt on Pokrovsky's work but it's not normal to not have any doubts about the NASA claims. Lack of doubt always leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism is a very bad thing. But hopefully this discussion has brought the worm of doubt to your minds and you're no longer fanatics :) Now, I agree that this is not the place to discuss Pokrovsky's work. If you have questions and notes to him and his work, please write to him and discuss them with him. Let's end this discussion now. Thank you for your participation. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems are that the claims of NASA are at least logical, while the proposed Pokrovsky claims have a lot of logical pit falls in it. MythSearchertalk 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NASA's job was very well done indeed, but "the Devil is in the details"! It took a lot of time and analysis by Pokrovsky, Prof. Popov and his team and others to reveal the problems :) --Лъчезар (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving after replying to others is highly inappropriate. The link showed nothing spectacular. It does not show anything that justify the method being reasonable. None of the frames showed anything estimatable and only random shots of exhaustion. By a simple translation website,  It claims to have seen shock waves, where no method of "seeing" the shock wave from the low quality frames are given. The shock wave theory then jumps to estimating how the shock wave will influence the cloud of smoke, in which is highly turbulent but nothing it accounted for it. The calculation did not even account for the movement of the camera(which is rapidly moving to follow the rockets movement) The link is in fact more like a forum instead of a paper. I don't even want to go into details in photo five, where the estimation of the rocket length simply way too drafty. it is not even a popular site. Find a third party reliable source stating some guy made the claim, and another paper by another professor(who is acknowledged in the field) reviewed the paper. This guy did not even seem to be an expert on the field per Pokrovskiy SG methods for studying spatial-temporal characteristics of natural resources? We get like 280 results on this topic (the guy's name searched with moon in russian, all are either forums or blogs and I see no actual reliable published sources or Journals, not even a .edu link is present. MythSearchertalk 19:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you gave is not about him, but about another Pokrovsky. Stanislav Pokrovsky doesn't teach. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You wanted a better link. This is a better link, with the exact frame-by-frame drawings (click on the small images to see them in full) and calculations, also linked to from the article. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The camera movement doesn't matter as all movement is measured relative to the rocket. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mythsearcher, and until there is a WP:RS for this then it should be removed. It is clearly wrong, and a very poor example of hoax accusations generally. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you find out that it is "clearly wrong"? --Лъчезар (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am wondering where this guy's notability is. I think we should at least expect some serious mention outside the world of conspiracy theorists. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that he does mention the name of one of his reviewers who had the most serious notes about his work, Vladimir Surdin. I added his name there and a link to his site. The scientific journal he published his work in is a reliable source. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, there is yet another publication in the Proceedings of a scientific conference. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget also that Stanislav Pokrovsky is a Candidate of Technical Sciences (roughly equivalent to PhD). One of the cited sources also states that in July 2008 he was awarded the honourable degree "Member-Correspondent" of the International Academy of Social Sciences. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is written that Pokrovsky's work is well-known and has been given for expertise to the National Aerospace Institute of Russia. The result of the expertise was that no errors were found. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then quote the Journal, not 7 forum posts. The only not forum source I see is the worldcat, yet it returns no result. The library link did not show anything about the publication data, in which libraries do accept self publications and thus it is not a reliable source stating the paper is a reliable source. On the Profession.ru site, in turn gives a totally unreliable depiction of a person, since it is totally entered by oneself(a registered user at the site) and anyone can fake an identity in it. The only way that this is going to be added, should be having a reliable source(like the journal you stated) is quoted, instead of forums posts retelling the story. From a search on the ISSN provided, the title of the journal is Актуальные проблемы современной науки, meaning Actual problems of modern science''. The linked document(which is uploaded in a forum site and strangely, not a scan of the journal but the actual paper) in source 26 showed one of the worst scientific paper I have ever seen published(If it is really published) Not going in to forum like discussion, the very fun fact is that when I searched the ISSN number and the title of this doc, google only returned 2 results, all from that particular forum. I then move forward to searching the name of that guy and the ISSN, which got 3 results, none are related literature. The journal itself is not even focused in any field. Creates enough doubt that how reliable this whole thing is. Forum posts are always not reliable, stop using them if you want to further the discussion. MythSearchertalk 11:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added another two .DOC files for his second and third articles. Unfortunately most scientific journals either don't allow free view of their publications (one must pay to read them) or don't allow any access (free or paid). Therefore the contents of the issue 5 of the journal (click on "issue 5") I've quoted serves as enough proof that the article is really there. The contents of the article itself is also in some of the sources. So everything is covered. And it's not true that only forum sources are listed - there are currently 6 non-forum sources for Pokrovsky. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Supernovum is a forum like site, it is not a reliable source. There are blog as sources as well.  It does not matter if the sources are not viewable online, it is a matter of verifiability.  .doc files are not reliable since anyone can create one and put it anywhere.  Also, the expertise of that specific writer is also a big problem since his area of expertise is not aerodynamics or high speed photography but metallurgy and Nuclear.  Quoting more online sources of unknown reliability have no use in this matter. MythSearchertalk 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's first wait for the results of the deletion request (see below) before continuing this discussion. The Russians have a proverb - "Whoever has lost his head doesn't cry about his hair". --Лъчезар (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, with endless evidence that the moon landings occurred, one guy decides he's an expert on films and concludes that the moon landing wasn't possible, and we're supposed to take his word for it. Here's another proverb - "If you start with incorrect assumptions, you're liable to get interesting results." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, the question is who made incorrect assumptions? Here's a modification of the notorious joke about the boss:
 * Rule 1: NASA is always right.
 * Rule 2: If NASA is wrong, see Rule 1. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain open to evidence that it was fake. So far, there ain't any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire dialogue above is about a thesis whose author Pokrovsky calls the first direct evidence of the impossibility of the Apollo Moon landings. It has been published as a scientific paper and remains until properly refuted. To refute a thesis in science, an anti-thesis must be raised and defended up to its publication as a scientific paper, which has not been done so far. The mere non-recognition of the thesis by you or anyone else doesn't automatically make it wrong. (As a counter-example, Popov recognises it, as you might expect :) --Лъчезар (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His thesis is based on examining videotapes and drawing conclusions - like the guys who decided the flag was waving on the moon. Since the mountain of evidence (from NASA and non-NASA) indicates that we did, in fact, go to the moon, then there is obviously a flaw in his premise that he cannot or will not acknowledge. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is wrong because he cannot be right :) Popov "smashes all evidence to smithereens" and that's why he's "persona non grata" here too... --Лъчезар (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did he go back and recheck his figures when he reached an aberrant conclusion? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the "beta" version of his book was subject to a discussion lasting a couple of years on various Russian forums, but serious forums, with scientific arguments, etc., etc. This resulted in significant changes in his "reverse-engineered" version (i.e. his hypothesis on how it was really done.) Besides, as I've said, about 40 volunteers, most with scientific degrees, helped him with his book. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how many of his fact checkers (or himself, for that matter) were already on the "it was a hoax and I hate the USA" bandwagon? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, you may be surprised, but the "bandwagon" is exactly your position in Russia too (there are only 28% hoax proponents there). A significant part of the participants in the discussion at these forums are hoax opponents. In some of the forums they are the overwhelming majority. Second, if somebody is to be hated for the destruction of the USSR, that was first and foremost the CPSU leadership, not the USA. As Fidel Castro noted, the Soviet and East-European Socialism was not defeated, it just committed a suicide. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please keep the discussion about improvements to the article and not the collapse of the Soviet Union? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. OK. Sorry again. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers" up for deletion
Read all about it here. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  E pur si muove!  --Лъчезар (talk)


 * Crank (person). Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What's a good southernism for "touche"? Never mind, I think I got it. It starts with "F" and ends with "in' A". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before Copernicus, Galileo and Giordano Bruno, the "mainstream" view was that the Sun moves around the Earth, i.e. the Ptolemeus system reigned. It's not at all obvious that the reverse is true. But now even the Pope accepted the Copernicus system. It's not obvious that the Apollo landings were false, but this time not several decades but just 11 months will suffice for the world to accept this not so obvious to common people fact. As to your "southernism", I don't understand it, but let me remind you a proverb: "Whoever laughs last, laughs best"... Let's wait 11 months and you'll see what I mean. Why 11 months? You're asking too much - you'll see why in 11 months! ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * #3 "compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus". Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Sidney Applebaum. (For that to make sense, you have to have seen Love and Death.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "They call me mad, but one day, when the history of France is written, they will mark my name well: Sidney Applebaum." [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/love-and-death-script-transcript.html ] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't compare themselves with Galileo, I compare them. Yes, we're all considered mad, as the Bulgarian poet Hristo Botev has written, "The decent people are considered mad in this country". This is one of the reason why many people are shy of admittance that they are hoax proponents, to avoid being considered mad or at least, eccentric. This was achieved by a special psychological operation by NASA, putting forward some easy to "debunk" hoax claims, "debunking" them and thus labelling all hoax proponents silly. Very cleverly made, this must be admitted! --Лъчезар (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or that they're clueless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about that alleged prediction about the U.S. falling apart, I fail to see what that has to do with the historical account of the Apollo flights. Obviously, if it could be proven that it was all a fake, that would one thing. But so far the only evidence is that it happened. Which has nothing to do with the notion of the geocentric universe. P.S. If the U.S. falls apart, there will plenty of pain felt throughout the world, including in your homeland, so don't get too giggly just yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know... It's exactly this pain what the Soviets were trying to prevent when they agreed to refrain from denouncing the falseness of the Apollo landings... --Лъчезар (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conspiracies among even small groups are very difficult to sustain. A conspiracy on the scale you're describing is, to coin a phrase, "impossible". P.S. You changed "that" to "what", but "that" was correct usage. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting me. My English is far from ideal indeed. As to the myth that secrets can't be kept by large groups of people, Popov proves (with factual examples) that this is incorrect. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. This is not necessarily off topic. It refers to another article of interest to our Bulgarian editor, Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, which he contends will somehow be involved in proving that Apollo was a hoax. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:HandThatFeeds. This page is huge enough. Let's stop. My apologies that I sometimes contribute to "forum-like" discussions. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Major hoax proponents and proposals
How has it been decided who to include? If the subject has an article, or their book does, great. But they need to be significant in some obvious way if they don't have an article or book. Just having a degree or an article or book published isn't enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it started out with people who had written a book on the subject or produced a video. Then it seems to have gone a little far afield. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 06:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

lead - third paragraph
I think the third paragraph of the lead section needs major work. I doubt the paragraph even needs to be in the lead, perhaps somewhere else. First, the missing Apollo 11 slow-scan television tapes is not that important to the conspiracy. Secondly, it takes too long to state what is actually missing - only the Apollo 11 moonwalk and only the SSTV before the scan conversion. All other moonwalks are not missing and the takes and kinescopes made after the scan conversion are not missing. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV example: Should holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax?
Just thought I would let everyone know about this:. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Why not criminalise the Apollo Moon Landing Denial too?!? ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who, pray tell, proposed that idea? Yeh, we'll have a Nuremberg Trial, in absentia, for Bill Kaysing. Right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This one guy posted it and then turned right around and seemingly opposed it, so there must be more to this story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting idea indeed. But I think that there is already a de-facto Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for those damned Apollo Moon Landing Deniers. All heresy must be smashed in embryo, and it really gets smashed, as you can see from the deletion of the "accusers" acticle that will be done in a couple of days. Very good job, Monsignori, congratulations and keep up the good work! --Лъчезар (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me for that article's deletion. And since you've already captured the info, perhaps you could start weaving it back into the main article, as appropriate? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't blame exactly you, of course. The above was not directed to you. Monsignori (Monseigneurs) is plural in Italian. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what confused me. In America, we wouldn't say "Monsignori", we'd say "y'all". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, "you all" would be inappropriate here. By "Monsignori" I mean the higher Church ranks that attend the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But the problem isn't in them, actually. It's in the doctrine. Wikipedia regards science as something rock-solid, de-facto recognising only the mainstream view as the only "proper" view. This is very far from the truth. Science is not rock-dead, it's alive like a sea or an ocean, there are many streams in it, not only the one that is considered "main" (the "mainstream"). So in a sense, Wikipedia returns us several centuries back. It's a cyber-inquisition. This may sound shocking but the practice proves it... :( --Лъчезар (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... yeah. About that. The mainstream is "science that has shown to be repeatable and can be considered reliable/factual." Fringe is "science that has not shown itself to be repeatable or reliable." There's no "inquisition" here, we're just trying to stick with what actually works, rather than what people hope works. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The body of scientific knowledge is subject to change over time, especially when presented with new evidence that the current theories cannot explain. That fact has little to do with the Apollo hoax stories. The history of the space programs of the US, USSR, etc., are well-documented; they are not a "theory" in any case, they are a continuum of documented events. A few fringees come along with specific questions and claim those questions to be "evidence", despite the fact their questions have reasonable answers that fit within the space program continuum. This is one way to tell a consipiracy theory - the fact that there are many of them, and they are fragmented. Just look at the godfather of conspiracy theories, the JFK assassination: many, and contradictory, theories. But the evidence is all (or largely) explainable by the official version. Much more so with Apollo, where every question either doesn't make sense in the first place or can be knocked out of the park with more details. The problem comes when you provide a reasonable explanation and the hoax believers reject it - because it undercuts their premise. That makes hoax belief more like a religion than like science. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Flat Earth Society is perhaps not the best analogy, though we use it a lot. A better one might be the Bermuda Triangle stories, which you don't hear much about nowadays. They were based on taking specific events and twisting them a bit and concocting a mystery where there was no mystery. A book that examined the original evidence uncovered this fact, and demolished the entire Bermuda Triangle legend, which was, in effect, a hoax. Similarly, a close examination of the so-called "evidence" for an Apollo hoax is, in itself, a hoax. Maybe a well-intentioned hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the hoax "promotion" is itself a second hoax and this second hoax is clearly and reasonably refuted, a non-fanatic supporter of the first hoax would recognise that. For the people of this kind, the truth is above all. For example, User:Bubba73 gave me a couple of links to films (or as you say, "footage") at YOUTUBE where the S-II engines of Apollo 8 and later are clearly seen to be working, and on one film, I could measure a clear acceleration after S-IC staging. A fanatic would deny what he sees with his own eyes. There is a Bulgarian proverb that when a shop saw a giraffe with his own eyes, he said "There is no such animal!" :) But I didn't, and now know that the S-II must have been real, so Prof. Popov's hypothesis that it was dummy must be wrong. Which doesn't mean that he's wrong in everything, as I'll show you in a few days :) But not only believing in a hoax can be a religion, believing that the hoax is wrong can also be! As to the single official version versus many hoax versions, this is natural - if a hoax has really taken place, the officials' goal would be to impose a single version. Whereas the "reverse-engineering" that the hoax believers must do to find what has really occurred can not always be successful because it's hard to tell the whole truth by examining just some details... hence the many hoax versions. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What this shows is that people aren't reading WP:NPOV. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo staging footage
''I decided to move this dialogue from my "talk" page here. It might be interesting for more people to read. Feel free to delete it if you think it's not.'' --Лъчезар


 * I started that on your talk page to keep it off article talk pages. Bubba73 (talk), 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. I restored it on my "talk" page. An interesting conclusion was that the velocity read-out display of this Apollo 11 launch "footage" shows the absolute (including Earth rotation velocity) rocket velocity (starting from 0 and going to 2763 m/s!) instead of the relative velocity that must be at most 2400 m/s. 00ps! :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This, and the content of your talk page, is all original research. While it may be interesting to debate it, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's stop then. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific method applied to the available evidence" subsection
The whole subsection is an obvious "original research" in Wikipedia terms (see WP:OR), so I put the appropriate template:Section OR for that. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL- split section "Specific hoax claims examined" to "Specific Moon hoax claims"
This section comprises about 60% of the article, so it's natural to split it to a new article. Articles longer than 100 KB such as this one are recommended for splitting any way (see WP:SPLIT). The name of the new article is discussable, of course (it doesn't have to repeat the name of the section literally). --Лъчезар (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are already in subsections, it is what the article is about, and spin off articles of this typehave recently been deleted by discussion, which shows the communities view. Let's keep this together in one place. If anything we can trim the less notable people and crackpot theories. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't propose what's already there, i.e. to divide the section into subsections. Neither I propose to remove any content from anywhere. What I propose is to create a new article "Specific Moon hoax claims" and move there the current content of the section "Specific hoax claims examined", which amounts to 60% of the article. Thus the new article will become 60 KB and the original one will drop from over 100 KB to about 40-45 KB which is much easier to read and maintain. --Лъчезар (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, spin off article have recently been deleted, and those claims are the topic of this article hence they should be kept here. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on a separate article, as it might tend to marginalize the claims/explanations information and give the main article's subject more apparent credibility than it should have. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection request
As it turns out, all changes to this article made by me are rejected and I am required to ask for permission for each of them. But no other user is treated like this. I'm not your slave or servant and don't have to ask for permission before each change of mine just because my views are different from yours. This is a clear discrimination and I protest against it! Therefore, I hereby ask that the contents of the article be protected and only authorised users from a list of reliable editors be allowed to edit it. Thus I or other editors not in the list will not have to be humiliated with requests like this. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We go by a consensus of the editors. Bubba73 (talk), 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially as its a controversial subject, significant changes should be brought here first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I asked Лъчезар (and we discussed on my talk page), please justify the changes and additions you want to make. No need for protection. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Rover: Boeing or GM
AFAIK, the Lunar Rover was built by General Motors - Lunar rovers past and future.


 * Boeing and its chief subcontractor, General Motors, moved with amazing speed in the design, testing and production of the LRV. The first LRV was evaluated by NASA at Boeing’s Washington facility and approved for shipment to KSC two months ahead of schedule.

--Cesarakg (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My 10 changes that I'm required to put on discussion
My changes were the following (all sources are removed below to make the text clearer; you can see the sources in the history of the article):


 * 1) I changed "hoax believers" to "most hoax believers" in the sentence "Rather than proposing a complete narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated, most hoax believers have focused on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions." because some like Popov and Pokrovsky propose a narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated.
 * 2) More exact sentence: "Distraction — According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the stormy events in 1968 (youth movement, assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.) and Vietnam War; and so lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. In fact, the Apollo program was canceled 2 years and 4 months before the Vietnam War ended."
 * 3) Again more exactness and presenting the alternative point of view too. "Longuski states that it would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing. Alexander Popov, Russian senior research associate and doctor of physical-mathematical sciences opposes this, claiming that secrets known by a lot of people are common, giving several historical examples for such long kept secrets."
 * 4) Changing the sentence about the USSR space history to "Through their space history, the USSR had achieved:", then adding 2 more Soviet achievements – about the first space station and the first first and only fully automated landing of a reusable space vehicle (November 1988, Buran). Also fixing the word "spacewalk" by splitting it into 2 words.
 * 5) Changing all sequences of "however" to "in fact" because "however" is a word to avoid (see WP:AVOID).
 * 6) Adding the line "Sam Colby, webmaster of the NASA Scam website which, among the other things, provides information and photos of the site and the equipment said to be used for the hoax." to the list of the hoax proponents.
 * 7) Fixing the links of the reference on Clyde Lewis (were "dead").
 * 8) Adding the line "Robert R. Gilruth, Lunar Module chief designer and Apollo Program lead.(source: The illustrated encyclopedia of space technology, by Gatland, K. W., Salamander Books, London, 1989, 303 p., ISBN 0-86101-449-9) Alexander Popov claims that Gilruth was "the only film director of the Moon landing. Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski claim (source: One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski, Clairview Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1905570126, p. 127) that Gilruth "was the real film director of the Moon landing" ("war die engentliche Regisseur der Mondlandung").(source: Die Akte Apollo, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, 2002)" to the list of the accused hoax perpetrators.
 * 9) Adding the line "Michael J Tuttle: Some hoax proponents say that he took the job of producing fake photographs in 1994. Prior to the widespread availability of the internet, only a small subset of the photos currently in existence were seen. Sam Colby claims that many of the photos were created in the mid 1990s." to the list of the accused hoax perpetrators.
 * 10) Putting the phrase "Given SMART-1’s initial high orbit, however, it may prove difficult to see artifacts" in double quotes. Oh, I had forgotten to fix the typo here – "artefacts" instead of "artifacts".

That's it all, gentlemen. Now I know that you won't permit me to do most of these edits – well, I know that I've at least tried. --Лъчезар (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * #4 Changing the sentence about the USSR space history to "Through their space history, the USSR had achieved:", then adding 2 more Soviet achievements - I oppose that - that happened after the Moon landings so I don't see any relevance. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Salyut was being prepared for several years before 1969 and its launch was only a "crown" to their efforts on it. And it was before Skylab, so it's really a Soviet advantage. As to Buran's fully automated landing, that's another epoch indeed, but for me (not for you, I know) it's the single most advanced achievement of human technology in history. OK, don't include it but do include at least Salyut; it's highly relevant. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It all takes several years. Development of the Saturn rockets started about 1960.  Besides coming after the Moon landing, Salyut and Buran have nothing to do with going to the Moon.  Look at all of the accomplishments in the Gemini and early Apollo program that were fundamental to going to the Moon that the US did that the USSR did not.  The USSR didn't even get a rocket that size to work, besides several other things.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please elaborate, what Gemini accomplishments that were fundamental for the Moon hadn't been made by the USSR? --Лъчезар (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At one time the article listed technological achievements of the US that actually lead up to the Moon landing, but they were taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1-4 as giving undue wait to Popov and lack of RS, and per Bubba. Oppose 5 except possibly in some instances. Common sense should be applied. Oppose 6 unless there are RS that this is notable. Perhaps start new section on this. 7 seems ok. Oppose 8, Popov undue again, BLP etc. Oppose 9 unless there are RS and this is notable. Suggest starting an individual thread on this one. 10 looks ok. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, Sir, it's precisely what I expected of you after your command to me to ask for permission for my changes here. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disputed your changes or else I wouldn't have disputed them. Please drop the false sincerity. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not false. Please avoid personal insults. See WP:PA --Лъчезар (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Space_Race_1957-1975_.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Would this image be helpful in explaining the space race history in this article? [[User:Jminthorne|Jminthorne]] (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)]]
 * Well, it would be pretty good for the section about the technological Sovuet Union. For the entire article, I'm not so sure.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a source in English for Popov and Pokrovsky? Without a source most of us can't tell what their claims are, how seriously their claims are taken and by whom, and, of course, precisely why they are wrong. Man with two legs (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. He referred me to them online and I ran some of it through a translator (not the best one), and reading the automatic translation was somewhat difficult.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * #1 In Favor; if there is a single hoax believer that has published a coherent hoax narrative that they believe, then we shouldn't claim the universal negative there. I don't think this comment gives undue weight to the fringe theory.
 * Thanks! :) --Лъчезар (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If. Where is this coherent hoax narrative? I don't believe one exists, much less in an RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Popov who tried to reconstruct the events in his book. Also Pokrovsky, and also the Bulgarian monthly analytical newspaper "Strogo Sekretno" which mostly repeats what Popov wrote. I know that you personally deny them all, but they do exist. Do I need to give you specific sources which you will a priori regard unreliable? --Лъчезар (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a respected WP:RS that says his unsupported claims are a coherent hoax narrative? I see a lot of holes in his theory that make it incoherent (even ignoring the obvious flaw, the fact they happened). Please stop assuming bad faith, and try to follow our policies. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You even don't know what Popov has written since you hadn't read his book. I don't assume anything, just predict what will happen from my extremely bitter experience here. I know that I'll never be allowed to make even one of my changes here. I'm not so dumb to not see this obvious thing. But I'll keep banging my head against your wall while something is left of it. I'll struggle while I can. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * #2 & 3 Opposed for editorial reasons. This level of precision is unnecessary and awkward in this particular implementation.
 * They stress the importance of the difficult situation in 1968 and oppose the theory that secrets can't be kept by large groups of people, one of the key arguments of hoax opponents. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * #4 Opposed; neither Salyut 1 nor Buran are relevant due to their timing after the first moon landing.
 * #5 The "in fact" construction is awkward in many instances. If there are specific usages of "however" in this article that violate the spirit of WP:AVOID, let's look at them individually.
 * #7 In Favor; seems straightforward enough.
 * #8 & 9 Opposed; I'm actually not much of a fan of this section in general; naming the "accused" seems somehow inappropriate. Adding increasingly obscure people to the list therefore seems even more inappropriate.
 * OK, the word "accused" can be replaced with "people allegedly involved" or something like that. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, still too much. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Too much of what? OK, please propose a better title for this subsection then. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't have much of an opinion on the other two. I know you're frustrated, Лъчезар. I admire and thank you for your willingness to discuss these issues rather than constantly edit and force reversion like we've all seen so many times in other places. Jminthorne (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you (<-singular!) for the good words. Well, given my loneliness here for now, I have no choice but "play under your (<-plural!) whistle", as we say in Bulgaria. "You (<-plural!) hold both the bread and the knife" (another Bulgarian proverb), so I have to obey the rules imposed on me, or will be "thrown away like a dirty kitten" (another Bulgarian proverb)... --Лъчезар (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to write my own comment, but then I read Jminthorne's, with which I fully agree concerning 1–9. Hans Adler 06:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed item number 8 (on Gilruth). Please examine it again. In fact, Popov only cited the Russian translation of the German film. I found the German film in original, found the place where they say that, and translated it to English on my own, leaving the original German words as the reference. Now I hope that you regard the Germans as a reliable source (in that film, von Braun and his assistant Ernst Stuhlinger speak in German, their native language) and give me a permission to include at least that. Gilruth was really a very important figure. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's as you say, then surely there are WP:RS, and in English? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added one to the item above (One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski, Clairview Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1905570126, p. 127), and I think in this case we can add Wisnewski to the list of "accusers" – a film and several years later, a book, is a good attestation for this :) --Лъчезар (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs expert attention tag
This tag has been added to the article. I'm a member of WikiProject Spaceflight - how can I help? Bubba73 (talk), 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that you're a member there, so I called for more expert help. You already helped a lot, thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've always wondered what are those snow-like particles that drop around the Saturn V at lift-off time. Do you know where they come from? --Лъчезар (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest moving this somewhere else per WP:NOT. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I will ask this question to his "talk" page. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category discussion
This article doesn't contain astrology, quackery, occult, superstition or other similar subjects. (Quite the contrary, aren't those who believe in NASA's fantastic 1960s achievements without any doubts occultist and superstitious?!) Then who, when and why added it to the "pseudoscience" category?! This is a blatant insult to those who exercise their holy right of doubt to what the Government say, and to scientists such as Alexander Popov and Stanislav Pokrovsky. As your obedient servant with virtual handcuffs (as all my edits are reverted and I'm the only one required to ask for permission for even the simplest of them!), I hereby submissively beg you to have mercy on this poor article and promptly remove it from that category. Otherwise I will be forced to ask for a dispute resolution in the most formal way possible, if not blocked due to the holy wrath of some of you beforehand, of course. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience: A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. &mdash; The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy."

Note the phrase "assertions about the natural world". NASA doesn't belong to the natural world so you can see the whole absurdness of the situation. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The psuedoscience tag probably should be removed. (IMHO, the hoax theories aspire, and fail, to reach the level of pseudoscience...but that's neither here nor there.)  However, Лъчезар, removing that tag will not lend the hoax theories one iota of respect more than they currently, have, which isn't much, and framing it as some holy crusade against "The Man" isn't going to help you arguments either.  The situation isn't symmetrical -- one side has reviewed evidence, the other side doesn't.  Moon hoax theories are fringe theories, pure and simple.  You don't have to ask for permission, you've been asked to discuss major changes, just like everybody else. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. This is more of a conspiracy theory than a genuine pseudoscience (I never thought I'd put those two words together!) like creationism or astrology.  It doesn't make any scientific claims.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to remove the category, but the sales pitch for the two Russian cranks is besides the point. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand you. What sales pitch?! Please avoid personal insults, even more to scientists with degrees. See WP:PA --Лъчезар (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. Even the not very scientific papers we discussed earlier do not fall into pseudoscience (it might be missing a few steps and some incorrect presumptions, but it is not talking about something out of the common science knowledge) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 03:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got me convinced. It does not really fit the "pseudoscience" category. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, by common name these theories are often called pseudoscientific, and of course NASA is part of the natural world. Their rockets aren't powered by fairy dust. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your opinions! I think that there is a consensus now that it's not pseudoscience so I went ahead and removed that. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for more input from WP:FTN so a broad consensus can be reached. Though I don't think this is a big point, I think many people do associate several of these theories with pseudoscience, so we should get a wide input. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that, but you shouldn't have reverted my edit so quickly. [The rest of my comment was removed by User:Verbal] --Лъчезар (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the revert is not a very good action as quite a few feed back supported it and per WP:Revert, revert only as a last resort. As a consensus is pretty much confirmed on this article, a general consensus from the WP:FTN could be enforced later, it is not a big problem in reverting later.  Although I am not supporting the edits of Лъчезар in general, this revert do seem a bit harsh.  I was about to remove the category as well but figured I should leave the honour to the one who proposed it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  09:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The revert came moments after I had posted an objection. This topic hasn't been open long, and I've requested more input. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that both sides are editing in good faith, I am merely suggesting some actions can be avoided to prevent more arguments. Since this is getting off topic, I will not reply on this anymore.  More input would be good on this, I have no objection to that. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  09:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a pseudoscience--it doesn't make any systematic claims about the workings of the natural world. It's a conspiracy theory--the claim that a limited set of historical events didn't happen the way mainstream opinion thinks they did. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, that's precisely how I understand it too. User:Verbal, I give you the opportunity to remove the category yourself. If this isn't an assumption of good faith, what else is? ;-) --Лъчезар (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The conversation is still young, and the developing consensus (and evidence) on WP:FTN is that the tag is justified. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The pseudohistory tag has been suggested as a more specific tag in the pseudoscience tree. I think this is a good idea. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pseudohistory I could see, although lumping it in with pseudoscience is questionable. Pseudohistory is a more pointed way of saying the more PC "alternative history". But it's not pseudoscience, it's a conspiracy theory. Claiming the rockets were launched by pixie dust would be pseudoscience. Claiming the rockets were not capable of escaping earth's gravity is not pseudoscience, it's conspiracism and alternative interpretation of data. Actually the rockets were launched by billions of taxpayer dollars, but that's merely a metaphor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pseudohistory" sounds fine to me, since it is a historical event. Bubba73 (talk), 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have but one concern on "Pseudohistory", that is, the hoaxsters are an actual part of the history.(the history stated in the conspiracy theory is not, but hey, this article is pretty much scientifically debunking every one of them) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the pseudohistory tag. Pseudoscience plays a major role in the purported analysis of the Apollo historical record, but probably isn't an accurate description of the hoax theories themselves. Jminthorne (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar's point on the WP:FTN has kind of swayed me into thinking pseudoscience applies: "Are pseudoscientific claims discussed, and if so what are they? ... The section [Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories#Ionizing radiation and heat] clearly involves pseudoscientific claims". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive
This page is very long. Time to archive? Perhaps automatic archival of threads not edited for a week or two should be added. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good idea, and yes, auto-archiving is a very good idea (especially on contentious pages, since it's tough to reasonably accuse a bot of performing "malicious archiving"). — V = I * R  (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added MisziaBot archiving to the page, earlier today. — V = I * R  (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing
I've been planning on copy editing this article, primarily for style, for a while now and I'm basically prepared to begin doing so at this point. please note that I plan on sticking to editing, not authoring at all, so if there are any places where style and specifically worded content is or may be particularly contentious "speak now, or forever hold your piece". Note also that I'm personally a WP:1RR type of editor, so feel free to take or leave any contributions that I make here. — V = I * R  (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work! Jminthorne (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem... by the way, if anyone else feels up to editing anything, please feel free to jump in. — V = I * R  (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not encyclopedic at all but 100% propagandist and is rigorously guarded as such
Come on! With the recent argument on whether the article is pseudo-science or not, the denial of all my proposals to add, including the very well-sourced one about Robert Gilruth, and the closely guarding of all my actions during the last 2 days, it's all clear to me that this article is doomed to basically stay "as-is". Not a single gram of "undue weight" to "conspiracy theorists" and "pseudo-scientits" (even with the highest possible scientific degrees) is allowed anymore. Well, if you think that this article can convince any non-PAN ("hoaxter" in your terminology) in the reality of the Apollo Moon landings, then you don't have a slightest sense of reality on how people think. Any article trying to push a point of view (especially an orthodox one as yours) automatically causes a counter-reaction in the reader. It's the Third Law of Newton! The only way you it could be made persuasive is to present both positions and let the reader make his conclusion himself. Something that many of Wikipedia's articles do. But not this one! Well, Gentlemen, it's August and you should be on vacation this month. I release you. Go out and enjoy summer time! I won't cause you more trouble here anymore. Why waste my time when the result is not even zero but even below zero?! Obviously Wikipedia is not the media that can contribute to opening people's eyes in this case. Well, despite the mighty presence of it in all Google's search and mighty impact that Wikipedia has on people's minds, it's still not the only one. As a Bulgarian song says, "Боряно, Борянке, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли знаеш да пееш?" ("are you the only maiden, is it only you who can sing?"). There are other means to open people's eyes, and I'll surely use them as much as I can. Now you can reply that I don't know what Wikipedia is, that my goals are different than its, and this may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. To end, do you know what's the worst thing of all? It's that when the "mainstream" sources start to reveal the truth about "Apollo", you will all change your positions to 180 degrees according to the new "wind of change", and will suddenly forget what you've claimed the day before. Then, it will perhaps be time for me to come back here and defend the poor NASA from you. Until then (probably next year), goodbye and as I said, forget me and enjoy the summer, I won't bother you again – a good reason to rejoyce, isn't it? ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably the fairest article you will find on this subject. It cuts way much more slack to the hoax-believers than any facts warrant. If and when new facts emerge, i.e. '"mainstream" sources start to reveal the truth about "Apollo"', then the article can be changed accordingly. But not until then. Wikipedia reports information from valid sources; it does not originate information, which is what you seem to want to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your farewell sums up neatly what has been the underlying problem with most of your contributions in the last few weeks. You have always been on a mission to "get the truth out" and have viewed Wikipedia as a vehicle for this.  This shows a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia does.  You may think this unimportant in the light of the "truth", but I'm afraid that's how it is and how it must be if Wikipedia is to function.
 * By all means, once the "truth" is revealed please return. I'm sure there will be thousands of articles in Wikipedia that will require overhauls in the light of this truly staggering revelation, the size and ramifications of which would be unprecedented in the history of science and politics.  Your assistance would be welcomed.
 * Personally, I won't be holding my breath. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That summarizes the problem well, and it applies to any article that's about a fringe theory. For example, it's a constant issue at the Obama articles with the "birthers". Because anyone can edit, some editors think that means they can use wikipedia to push the "leading edge" of fringe theory info, to create artificial notability by having it turn up in wikipedia and hence in Google searches and the like. Some of that is misunderstanding and some of it is deliberate exploitation. It can be hard to tell which one, but it really doesn't matter, since it's a misuse of wikipedia either way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the heck brought this on, anyway? — V = I * R  (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's been fairly even-handed in his approach until the last few days. He started unilaterally adding stuff, and it got reverted, and he was advised to ask about it here, and most of it was rejected by consensus, so now he's mad at us. The problem is, he keeps falling back on this theory somebody has that the U.S. is going to collapse in 2010, and that somehow part of that collapse will be a revelation that Apollo was a hoax. Like that will matter if the U.S. collapses - it would be the least of our worries. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I'm sort of disappointed. I don't agree with his views at all (especially some of the WP:SOAPy behavior), but I was looking forward to having his input on copy editing choices. It's always helpful not to need to rely on yourself for "devils advocacy", you know? Hopefully he'll cool off and come back... (incidentally, there's an article here on Wikipedia on the Panarin conspiracy. Highly entertaining! :)) — V = I * R  (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He said something about vacation, so maybe he was missing his and we got scapegoated a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the first and major contributor of the Panarin conspiracy IS Лъчезар. Not very surprising and rather dull founding compared to the article itself. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  02:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, he actually split it off from the Igor Panarin article on May 22, 2009... Interestingly, he seems to have been a heavy contributor there as well... which suggests the possibility of some COI/self promotion that I don't want to delve into in order to avoid any possibility of an attempted outing claim. — V = I * R  (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYR, the Panarin article went from about 9000kb to 68000kb from his first edit there, and 13000kb to 68000kb between his first major edit on the split off part until right before the split, and the split resulted in the article reducing to 20000kb. Other editors only fixed some minor things and did not add materials dramatically to the article between the multiple edits he made.  I am just saying the fact, not trying to indicate anything.  It is usual to see an editor who have sources to edit a single article am add a lot of material to it.  whether those are reliable or not, I have no idea.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Panarin a Bulgarian? My assumption has been that Lambda was just heavily intrigued by the subject, not that he was Panarin himself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Panarin's a Russian. My take on this has been that Lambda is simply a fan of this guy and of other Russian conspiracy theorists. Lambda keeps referring to the predicted downfall date of June 2010, like he thinks Panarin is a prophet or something. He was also a big fan of those guys Popov and whatever, although their science has been shown to be flawed. In general, he's nostalgic for the old USSR (god knows why), as his user page shows. One of Panarin's theories is that we'll be overrun by immigrants. I saw something recently that immigration is on the decline, since the low-end jobs aren't so easy to get anymore (probably unemployed Americans are taking them). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is a talk page, we probably should keep the original section name (like our Bulgarian-IP random passerby suggested at random). Jminthorne (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)