Jump to content

Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.168.10.241 (talk) at 16:35, 17 September 2010 (→‎Missing data). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeMoon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

moon rock paragraph

"President Nixon gave 135 nations of the world, all 50 states and the U.S. territories each an Apollo 11 Moon rock and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock." I don't believe that there were enough Apollo 11 rocks for that, unless each one got a tiny fragment of a rock. Even the Apollo 17 goodwill rocks given out were fragments of one rock, see Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?),

Apollo 11 alone brought some 20 kg of moon rock home. If, say, 1 kg of those was set aside to be distributed among some 200 recipients for goodwill, each of them would receive about 5 g. That's not exactly a landslide, but a small pebble. What's wrong with that? --Syzygy (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, which may be wrong, is that was not done with any Apollo 11 rocks. It was done with one rock from Apollo 17. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the USSR try to do it?

I've reverted this edit which says it's significant that the USSR didn't try to take a man to the moon. Well they did have significant successes in unmanned exploration (Luna 9 (1966) and during the Apollo era the robotic systems of the Lunokhod programme (1970, 1973).) A plan to send a man to the moon was reportedly being considered by Sergey Korolyov at the time of his death in 1966, but it's clear that the USSR's space program never had the kind of industrial resources that NASA could command at the time of the Apollo program. --TS 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were working on it, see Soviet Moonshot. But they didn't have a crash program like the US did. I think they were expecting to land about 1974. Also, their equivalent rocket, the N1, had four catastrophic failures in four attempts. (In contrast, there were 32 launches of the US Saturn - all successful.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Apollo 6 launch vehicle had some problems, but of course it made it to orbit. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't all perfect. Some engines shut down prematurely. But the N1:
  1. exploded at 69 seconds
  2. exploded ~30 seconds
  3. exploded 51 seconds
  4. disintegrated at 40 km.

Other factors are that the USSR had no experience with some essential things that the US did in Gemini. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 06:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fostering of conspiracy theories concerning the Moon landings?

Could an argument be made that there is a fostering of conspiracy theories concerning the Apollo Moon Landings by those so willing to disprove them?

I came to Wikipedia some time ago with the specific intention of learning about the conspiracy theories concerning the Apollo Moon Landings. First I read the page concerning the Apollo 11 mission only to find no mention at all about conspiracy theories. At the bottom of the article there was a link to “Moon landing conspiracy theories”. It is not easy to find.

What surprised me while reading the “Moon landing conspiracy theories” article was the obvious bias in favour of the non-hoax perspective. This bias in itself arouses suspicion because if the Moon Landing really happened, then there should be no fear among those that believe in dealing with the conspiracy theories and objectively and dispassionately contesting them.

Within the rather poorly written introduction to the article there is the statement: “There is abundant third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.” The inclusion of statement reads as an attempt to discredit the different theories before they have been properly explained. Is the sole objective of the article to disprove the different conspiracy theories?

The Origins and history section begins with: “The first book dedicated to the subject, Bill Kaysing's self-published We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was released in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ceased.” Should not some of the stronger accusations within the book be noted before jumping to a fantasy sci-fi movie that involves a fake mission to Mars?

Is the Linda Degh quote referencing a Hollywood adventure movie really applicable to an article about Moon landing conspiracy theories?

I suggest that the article begin with a brief explanation of the subject and then a list of the various conspiracy theories beginning with the most favoured. Then each theory can be explained in further detail culminating in evidence that attempts to contradict or disprove each assertion. As it stands the article is very disordered.

My argument is basically the tone of the article is fostering a suspicion of a hoax by its very tone in trying to disprove it. Nmollo (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead to the article summarises the content, that is why it mentions rebuttals before 'properly explaining' the hoax claims. Unfortunately, by their very nature, it is impossible to properly 'explain' the hoax claims, as they are a never-ending regressive rabbit's warren of nit-picking and erroneous analysis. Indeed, many of the hoax theories are contradictory, making them difficult to summarise cohesively. I also don't know any way of establishing which one is 'most favoured'.
Overall, I think this article is remarkably neutral on a subject that attracts almost universal criticism among those who have studied the Apollo landings and features so many contradictions. Any non-hoax bias, if there is one, is easily explained by the fact that the opinion of reputable experts in the field, and the public in general, is that there was no hoax. There is really no problem with an encyclopaedia reflecting that. However, please feel free to add anything that you think requires greater explanation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Your statement regarding "the obvious bias in favour of the non-hoax perspective" shows a profound misunderstanding of the proper "balance" or weight to give fringe theories. You might read WP:WEIGHT, and especially WP:VALID, which states that we need not (and even should not) "give equal validity" to minority views. This is not "bias", this is factual (and fair and balanced) recognition that fringe theories are "fringe" for good reasons. (And not because of some conspiracy by "the government".) This article is not trying to disprove these theories, it simply presents the evidence that a reasonable person would need to evaluate the claims. To NOT include such evidence would be an incomplete and censorial bias.
  And you should read the FAQ at the top of this page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From its own sources the article states: "A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[11] In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon.[12] Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.[13] so roughly 1/4 of every segment of the worlds population polled do not believe or are unsure of the facts and evidence presented for this space program. That is not a fringe element. I've found that if you mention the moon landings in any size group there will always be more than one that will say they think or have heard that it was a hoax. This subject deserves serious attention, if for no other reason than to educate the public awareness of the indisputable evidence and end the uncertainty if that's truly possible. I read the FAQ, and I'm not impressed, it just seems like an attempt to end the discussion/debates before they start...This article IS slanted, you can tell because it doesn't clearly present any of the conspiracy theories, while it thoroughly debunks them or mostly announces that they have been debunked by various debunkers. The result: a person coming to learn about the theories themselves doesn't learn much more than generalisations about them at all only their rebuttals by so called experts and qualification for members of the very government organizations and their proponents that are under suspicion. It makes little attempt to go into detail about some of the notorious photographic theories such as the extra astronaut in the visors, no shadow from the flag, weerd objects in the horizon, etc which is one area I thought would be covered in detail since it is easy to present the evidence for that on wikipedia. There is no mention of some of the other theories growing in popularity besides the obvious "they didn't land on the moon" theories.Such theories that suggest the actual cover up was that men had already been to the moon and beyond, and that NASA was a mock version of a much more advanced space program..now maybe that one might fall into the fringe category. What about the supposed video footage and geological analysis of ancient ET structures and supposed landscape correlations with the layout of the great pyramid complex in Egypt(I'm not talking about the one supposedly found on mars.) This article I expect will probably grow as more interest shifts in its direction. Especially with more and more NASA personnel supposedly coming forward to reveal other "secrets." I think if more time were spent exploring the theories, and less trying to assure the reader that every theory has been debunked, we would have a respectable article on the conspiracy theories themselves. Is it really the mandate of the WP to debunk them while only half-heartdly presenting them? Why have we ignored ignored the wildest most interesting conspiracy theories? Just because they've been debunked? It doesn't help the skeptics cause to gloss over everything. Still its not a poorly organized article, just very obviously slanted at the moment.24.1.202.55 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the content of the article, you may want to read WP:FRINGE in addition to the FAQ (which is intended just as you said, to prevent starting these debates that occur over and over. Wikipedia is not a forum.):
  • "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth."
  • "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."
  • "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."
Keep in mind that the fact that 1/4 of people believe the conspiracy theories may make them notable, but that does not mean they are not fringe theories; that distinction is made by relevant academic sources. As for the other conspiracy theories you mentioned, if you can find some reliable sources (i.e. not internet forums) that talk about them, feel free to add it to the article. This article and its sub-articles are in fact one of the most thorough accounts of the conspiracy theories on the internet; the section on the photograph in fact grew so large on this page that it was determined we needed to move it to its own article: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. Mildly MadTC 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Page at All Necessary?

There aren't any groups, that I have found, which give this view to being an agreed view/ there are no pages that address the rumour that was floating around after 9/11, as to the idea all Jewish people were warned to go out of the world trade centers before the 747's crashed. Is there really justice, then, for a Wiki-article, which is egregious in the fact it significantly bolsters a pre-existing iconoclast lunatical "theory"? I thought wikipedia was about things and places that occured. WHY INCLUDE THIS ARTICLE IN THAT?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet those are ones which have had reliable third-party articles written on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles about fictional books, fictional TV shows, fictional movies, and even fictional characters. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) A lot of us here would rather that these conspiracy theories don't exist ;-) However, the very fact that there exists such a large amount of media (books, films, documentaries, news articles, etc.) about the moon landing conspiracy theories--whether or not they are sympathetic to them--makes this article fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There is an important distinction to be made between correctness and notability. This article's purpose is to document what the conspiracy theories are, but in accordance with WP:V, it must (and does) also state why they are incorrect.
For more specific policy, you may be interested in reading WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Thanks for your concern! Mildly MadTC 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cymbelmineer, WP reports about the existance of a conspiracy theory, not about the existance of a conspiracy. (Pretty much like WP will summarise the various religions, but will not try to prove or disprove the existance of God.) So, as long as there are enough people concerned with a conspiracy theory, it has its place in WP, IMHO. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are entire books dedicated to debunking the moon landing conspiracy theories, so I'd say there's plenty of third-party source for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing data

Is there a list somewhere about what was lost form the Apollo Project ? Has anyone been made responsible or any inquiry about the loss and cost to the taxpayers ? --79.168.10.241 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I think the "loss" of the Saturn rockets, their parts being burned up in the atmosphere, was planned into the project from the beginning. ;-) There is no point in keeping the construction designs over an extended period of time, when there is little chance of more Saturn V's being built, and when in all probability the majority of required parts wouldn't be available anymore. To assess the financial loss resulting from the erasure of some tape or the decay of an old space suit is difficult, to say the least. --Syzygy (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been claims that the difficulty today of returning to the moon is due in part to the missing data. Replicating the machines would take only a couple of years, if we consider adjusting for technology evolution, in 3 years man could once more walk the moon surface. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories&oldid=385381706"