Talk:Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the Moon

old talk
This is not a myth. It is a reported fact. However Nasa is trying to determine whether they actually survived or were inadvertent contamination from the return trip. GuyInCT 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The very references quoted for this article reinforce the credibility rather than the fallacy of this subject.  I have added a Totally-disputed tag to reflect this concern, since it appears to me if you trim out everything here that contradicts the references you don't have any article left. 79.77.6.186 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since some are still seeking to doubt this, I have edited the page to relect the 'official' NASA explanation which is that the bacteria did indeed survive on the moon. The contamination theory receives thorough treatment (although possibly still too much coverage for true balance).  Hopefully this is a compromise that will keep both sides happy.  It seems to me if we have to make a call one way or the other (which isn't Wikipedia's purpose in any case) then we should go for the NASA line. 86.130.81.171 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted an edit that sought to remove this assertion. If NASA's line has changed there must be some evidence to support it over and above "I was talking to this guy..." CrispMuncher (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

removed paragraph
I removed most of this paragraph: "Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is also worth noting that this claim has never been documented in any peer-reviewed scientific publication and remains a telling example of the phenomenon of urban myth. To quote David Hume: 'The gazing populace receive greedily, without examination, whatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder.'" because while true, seems to be a bit of editoralizing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA 1998
The content of this page is in direct contradiction with this still active nasa.gov site, albeit from 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.9.41 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Even more alarmingly, the sourced astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov site, published 2004, is in direct contradiction with this article. "A common bacteria, Streptococcus mitis, had  actually traveled from Earth on Surveyor and then back with the Apollo 12 astronauts...and survived. The bacteria was able to endure unprotected travel in space for its three year journey to the Moon and back."  I am now assuming vandalism and flagging the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.9.41 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Hoax?
Two NASA links are given. One is broken and the other (published 2004) is direct contradiction with the content of this article. A NASA link I found from 1998 also contradicts this article. (See ==NASA 1998==). The chief contributor to this article, User:Mpallen, has made significant contributions to only about four articles and is no longer active. 74.130.9.41 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a hoax to me, but the article does seem very POV. MLilburne 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A side question
Should this even be an articel? Wouldn't it be best as a subsection of, say, Surveyor 3? 68.39.174.238 00:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Massive Anon Edit
An anon edit indicated a bias towards this being a hoax so removed most of the article. The remaining article did not mention the possibility of it being a hoax at all. I reverted. If the article is POV there are better ways to fix it. Robert Brockway 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

sources??
There are very few sources given here. I don't want to add a CN tag to every paragraph but that is what this needs -- if this is considered an "urban legend," who considers it that and why? Wikipedia should not be making these assessments. csloat (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

testable
I removed a clause that said that "this phenomenon is not testable". Of course it is--we could send a probe back to the moon with the same contamination, replicate the conditions as carefully as possible, and see if the organism survived.

Therefore I consider that clause opinion and not factual.Johnny Mnemonic (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NASA Study in 2007
..Did they ever complete said study? What did they find? I am looking for information on it right now, but have not found anything useful so far.. Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look around last time I was working on this article. I didn't find anything either. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit
The article reads that the Surveyor camera was not put into a sterile metal box as had been done on the early Apollo Missions. Apollo 12 WAS an early Apollo mission. There was only one mission to precede it, Apollo 11. Corrected this quibble. Kjdamrau (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)kjdamrau

OK....did NOT correct this quibble. I don't see the "edit" hyperlink necessary to make the change. Perhaps somebody else could do that for me. As it stands the sentence is incorrect and misleading. Kjdamrau (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)kjdamrau

NASA's official position appears to be different
"New information, however, strongly suggests that these were contaminants, probably introduced on the trip back to Earth from the Moon. Other more recent experiments, however, have shown that some microbes can survive weeks of exposure to space, so the general idea is still valid -- it is just the Apollo data that were probably misinterpreted. "

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=892

66.75.230.183 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing
None of the sources given on the page is available today (March 2012). The article can therefore not be considered trustworthy. The text refers to a paper that is not referenced and may not exist at all. The given references are just other web sites the trustworthyness of which is unclear, since they do not exist any longer. Newspaper Web sites are not appropriate sources for a scientific encyclopedia article anyway. This article needs a lot of repair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.247.247.239 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a source issue and it is wrongly sourced (the claim about foam NOT from the article sourced but facebook comment on there!)

However, when little info exists and data is cheap, might as well have more than less, and if someone is interested enough to look deeper they will have a place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.235.109 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)