Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Archives

Archive 1 | /Archive 2 | /Archive 3 | /Archive 4 | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8 | /Archive 9 | /Archive 10

Note: due to page renaming, some of these archives point to different talk pages.

Trivia

"There's the almost endless list of song lyrics and obtuse references to video games, bits of film script and random TV shows. I don't see what any of that stuff adds, but I am not a fan of bloated "trivia" sections in any article." - I respect your point of view that you are not a fan of trivia, but pop-culture references are important to some people, indeed, who are we to judge whether or not pop-culture references are the most important thing? Scholars of popular culture will value the section more highly than the science. This is what NPOV means when it comes to editing - we cannot make value judgments about the importance of factual, verifiable information based on our own prejudices. Gravitor 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For certain classical music pieces, for example the William Tell Overture, the Ride of the Walkyries and Beethoven's Ninth, there are separate "trivia" or "pop culture" pages due to the large quantity of them. There is also a separate page for the Statue of Liberty in pop culture. It becomes a judgment call as to the relative size of that section vs. its importance to the main point of the article. Wahkeenah 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Apollo moon landings in popular culture" article? -- ArglebargleIV 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'Apollo Moon Landing Hoax in Popular Culture'? Otherwise you're going to get a 'huge' article. Carfiend 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could also argue that the hoax page by itself should constitute the "popular culture" page. Wahkeenah 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

lol! There is more than a comedy argument there - I saw in the archive a discussion about framing the article as a "social phenomena". In many ways it would be easier to write in that context, and (if I may be so bold) represent the majority viewpoint of the topic (not trying to troll, just stating it as I see it). For the avoidance of doubt, I am not planning to go there again. Also, an article/list of "cultural references to the moon landing hoax social phenomena" does not exactly trip off the tongue, sadly. LeeG 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just checking the Loch Ness Monster page, and I see it has a separate popular culture page also. I could argue that there is more evidence for Nessie's existence than for the moon hoaxsters' "theory". However, the "social phenomonen" approach was tried before and was shot down by the hoaxsters, as it's one of those things that's patently obvious but also (1) hard to cite calmly-written references for and (2) hard to write about without it sounding like POV-pushing. It's similar to the debate over "conspiracy theory". In fact, it's essentially the same debate: conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists. Wahkeenah 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for splitting off the trivia as an incremental approach towards WP:SS. I'd probably want to augment the origins of the hoax with some of the sources which link the ideas of the hoax to pop culture. This link [1]has some stuff that would be applicable and allow us to include the social phenom thing in the origin section and link off to a separate Appollo moon hoax in pop culture article that would absorb the trivia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Right - how does this look for a separate article "The Apollo Moon Hoax in popular culture". Link it from here with the following introductory paragraph: (on this page)

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax in popular culture

The moon landing hoax accusations have been referenced in many aspects of popular culture, often in the form of parody.

(new page)

Introduction

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations

The Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations are a set of allegations that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. A number of groups and individuals have advanced alternate historical narratives which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:

• The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the Moon;
• NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing[s] did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
• NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.

According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, 6 percent of the US public believes the landing was faked, while what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority", some 89 percent, did not. The hoax claims are widely dismissed as baseless by mainstream scientists, technicians and engineers, as well as by NASA and its astronauts. These accusations have been referenced in many aspects of popular culture.

In print

• Sir David Attenborough, as part of a special celebrating BBC TV's 40th anniversary said "(Apollo) was an enormous event, of course, and overtook the country and the BBC television center too. We devoted 24 hours of television to it, from the big studio ... And it was thrilling - we cleared all the programs and, of course, the Americans had a reserve spacecraft ready, in case something went wrong with the first one."
• President Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, states (on page 156): "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
• Norman Mailer in 1969 wrote "The event (Apollo 11 Moonwalk) was so removed, however, so unreal, that no objective correlative existed to prove it had not been an event staged in a television studio---the greatest con of the century--- and indeed a good mind, product of the iniquities, treacheries, gold, passions, invention, deception, and rich worldly stink of the Renaissance could hardly deny that the event if bogus was as great a creation in mass hoodwinking, deception, and legerdemain as the true ascent was in discipline and technology. Indeed, conceive of the genius of such a conspiracy. It would take criminals and confidence men mightier, more trustworthy and more resourceful than anything in this century or the ones before. Merely to conceive of such men was the surest way to know the event was not staged."
• The Loony: a novella of epic proportions (published in April 2005) by Christopher Wunderlee is a work of hysterical realism that's primary plot revolves around an astrophysicist's role in assisting NASA in faking the lunar landings. In the novel, the astrophysicist is hired by agents to assist a film crew in making footage "look" real. He is then embroiled in the coverup and is blackmailed to keep the secret.

On film

• The 1978 film Capricorn One portrayed a fictional NASA attempt to fake a landing on Mars.
• In 1971, there was a brief sequence in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever, in which the action takes place in a "Moon" setting where astronauts were being trained. Agent 007 steals what appears to be a Moon buggy from the model set, and drives it off to escape from an enemy compound. This scene may have helped to spread the idea of the Moon landings being a hoax^{, p. 62}.
• In 2002, William Karel released a spoof documentary film, Dark Side of the Moon, 'exposing' how Stanley Kubrick was recruited to fake the Moon landings, and featured interviews with, among others, Kubrick's widow and a number of American statesmen including Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. It was an elaborate joke: interviews and other footage were presented out of context and in some cases completely staged, with actors playing interviewees who had never existed (and in many cases named after characters from Kubrick's films, just one of many clues included to reveal the joke to the alert viewer).
• In the 2004 film Man on the Moon , Richard Fortunato fictionally explores the links between Apollo 11, the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon, a Russian spy in an effort to explain the staged moon landing
• In the 1992 movie Sneakers, the character "Mother," played by Dan Aykroyd mentions "It's the same technology that NASA used to fake the Apollo Moon landings, so it shouldn't give us any trouble."
• In the movie Looney Tunes: Back In Action, as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are in Area 52 they browse the videotape shelf, one of the videotapes searched had "Moon LANDING DRESS REHEARSAL".
• In the movie RV, a character comments that the family's vacation spot is "where NASA faked the Moon landings."

On television

• A television drama called The News-Benders, the key plot device of which stipulated that all major technological advances since 1945 had been faked in some way, aired in January 1968; it postulated a "Moon landing" falsified with models. It was written by British writer Desmond Lowden.
• In an episode of Fox TV's Family Guy, a flashback shows the ending of filming the hoax, with Neil Armstrong walking out of the studio and a pedestrian seeing him. When the pedestrian asks why he is not in space, Neil Armstrong makes a feeble excuse about "solar winds" before killing the man. In the episode "If I'm Dyin', I'm Lyin'," Peter said that his "healing powers" were a fake, "like the Moon landings".
• In an episode of Friends, Joey asks Phoebe for a good lie, and she responds, "Okay, how about the whole 'man-landing-on-the-Moon' thing? I mean, you can see the strings, people!!"
• In "Roswell That Ends Well", an episode of Futurama, when the crew is mysteriously flung back in time to 1947, President Truman requests that Zoidberg, an alien, be taken to Area 51 for study. When informed that Area 51 is the location for the faked Moon landing, he replies, "Then we'll have to really land on the Moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies!"
• In an episode of The PJs, Thurston said that if people can fake a Moon landing, anything's possible.
• In an episode of King of the Hill, conspiracy theorist Dale Gribble suggests that the Super Bowl is pre-selected and is filmed in an unidentifiable location where they filmed the fake Moon landing, months before the game ever began.
• An episode of the Showtime TV series Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on May 9, 2005, dealt with the lunar landing hoax accusations, and took a position thoroughly against such accusations.
• On the June 7, 2006 edition of The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert said "Tonight's guest is a pioneer in Mars exploration. Hopefully tonight he'll explain how they faked a space landing there too." This was followed by laughter from the audience.
• On the July 27, 2006 episode of The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert said "And here's the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum, where you can see the original rocks from the soundstage where they faked the Moon landing. It's a part of Hollywood history." This was followed by laughter from the audience.
• In February 2007, Craig Ferguson commented that the Lisa Nowak scandal was the biggest thing to happen to NASA "since they faked that moon landing thing in the sixties."

In video games

• The video game Duke Nukem 3D contains a level (Episode 3 Level 5) with a motion picture studio containing a lunar landscape set.
• Worms 3D, a video game by UK Software developers Team17, contains a level depicting a movie sound stage with Moon landscape and a lunar landing module.
• One level in Midway's remake of the classic arcade shooter, Area 51, takes place on a Moon landing set, complete with a cardboard-cutout astronaut, fake LEM, lunar lander, and lunar rover.
• In the movie studio in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, there is a fake Moon landing set in one of the warehouses.
• In Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there is a "caller" on one of the radio stations on the game said "Of course we never landed on the Moon, it was just a big hoax". Also the character named The Truth states "we never landed on the Moon" and other government conspiracies after CJ questions the tinfoil in the van.
• In the Nintendo 64 video game Body Harvest the American level also has a room containing a lunar landing set and video cameras.
• The plot of Activision's 1998 computer game Battlezone is based largely on the idea that while the lunar landings did take place, both the United States and Soviet Union had already spent considerable time on the moon and were actively waging war against each other on the lunar surface using equipment based on alien technology and materials discovered there. In the game's universe, the Apollo landings were a hoax of a different kind, using only technology that had been admitted to the public, rather than the highly advanced and secret alien technology.

In music

• The REM song "Man on the Moon" implies that the Moon landings may have involved sleight of hand ("If you believe they put a Man on the Moon, if you believe there's nothing up my sleeve...").
• The Men From Earth song "I Faked the Moon Landing" tells an imaginary story of someone's deathbed confession to assisting with the hoax. Among the many references in the song to popular hoax accusations is the line "that wasn't Buzz next to the LEM / just a guy who looked like him."
• The group Looper have a song called "Dave the Moon Man" on their album Up a Tree. It features a character who does not believe in the Moon landings and repeats several of the major conspiracy arguments.
• The video for the Rammstein song "Amerika" depicts the band on a movie set wearing NASA suits and a theme of the video is the faking of the Moon landing.
• There is a song by metal band Margret Heater called "Apollo Conspiracy".
• Swedish experimental punk band Refused recorded a song called "The Apollo Programme Was a Hoax" for their final full-length album, The Shape of Punk to Come.
• The Beta Band song "Eclipse" ends with a series of lines stating opinions such as "and the roads are not very clean" and "and the food we eat is not very healthy", after which another voice replies "okay, we're agreed on that." The final line is "and the moon is a big ball with nothing on it, but I don't think anyone's ever been there", to which the second voice replies "ok, so we're KIND of agreed to that."
• The Tullycraft song "Sent to the Moon" includes the phrase, "we watched it all with our folks...it was the world's biggest hoax", indicating a possible NASA conspiracy involving the Apollo moon landings.

Other references

• A 2006 commercial for Red Bull features astronauts who, after drinking Red Bull, "have wings" and are unable to actually set foot on the Moon. They are instructed by Houston to return to Earth so the scene can be shot in a studio instead.
• Major League Baseball player Carl Everett has said in interviews with Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy that he doubts the validity of the Moon landings. Shaughnessy would go on to nickname Everett "Jurassic Carl" due to Everett's assertion that dinosaurs never existed.

References

any thoughts?

Condense the "Individuals featured in the controversy" section

Since this section was moved to Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers, there's no need to keep Individuals featured in the controversy as it is, since it's nearly identical to the new article. Can somebody tackle condensing the section? -th1rt3en 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto - here is my suggested replacement for the section. I know we are meant to "be bold" and go ahead and edit, but there's being bold and being suicidal, so (bearing in mind Gravitor's parallel article comment) what do we all think of... (it's about 1/4 of the size)

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers

• Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) an ex-employee of Rocketdyne, (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket). Kaysing's self published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle^{,, p. 157}, made many allegations, effectively beginning the discussion of the moon landings possibly being hoaxed. NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book.
• Bart Sibrel, (dob-), a filmmaker and self proclaimed investigative journalist, created, inter alia, a film in 2001 called A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon furthering the idea of a hoax. Again the arguments put forward therein have been debunked.
• William Brian, an engineer (mechanical, electrical, civil...?) self-published a book in 19XX called "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program", in which he disputes the Moon's surface gravity. This claim has again been debunked by NASA and other parties.
• David Percy, TV producer and expert in audiovisual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is co-author, along with Mary Bennett of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (ISBN 1-898541-10-8) and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon?. He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blower" accusation, arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.
• Ralph Rene is an inventor and 'self taught' engineering buff. Author of NASA Mooned America (second edition ASIN: B0006QO3E2).
• Charles T. Hawkins, author of How America Faked the Moon Landings,
• Philippe Lheureux, French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a t-elle menti!.
• James M. Collier (d. 1998) American journalist and author, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? in 1997.
• Jan Lundberg a technician for Hasselblad.
• Jack White American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
• Marcus Allen (publisher) - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."
• Aron Ranen directed Did we go? (co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco). He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts.
• Clyde Lewis, radio talk show host.
• Dr. David Groves (who works for Quantech Image Processing) and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.

I am unconvinced we need the whole list here - especially with a whole other article to this section. Any comments....? LeeG 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that a few key individuals could be mentioned. Kaysing, certainly, as he seems to be the most often quoted hoaxster. Maybe the hoaxsters on this page could suggest a few more that they consider to be key arguers for the hoax. Wahkeenah 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general list looks good. You're probably right in it not needed everyone. But, at least for now, the above would work well. -th1rt3en 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's important that the list be comprehensive. The ones that have their own article can be cut to a couple of sentences, but I'm still concerned that we should keep the biographic info on the bio pages, and the hoax stuff on this page. I am worried that this is just turning into another attempt to remove factual, verifiable information. Gravitor 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They could all be listed here, as long as it's sufficiently brief. The page doesn't need to become "Who's Who in Conspiracy Theories", as that's already to be covered in the more detailed article. Wahkeenah 20:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I have not been accused of this for a minute, but I am not trying to remove any data or hide anything, I am trying to shorten this article, and have several sub articles where the big sections used to be. Looking at the bio article in isolation I have here an exact duplicate of the information on that page for all names after (and including) Renee. I appreciate from the text that Renee seems to be more than a bit player, so I would propose that we zap all those after that, replacing with something along the lines of "several other individuals make further claims doubting various aspects of the landings. They, and their claims are explored in more depth on the Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers page." If that is too much to bear, can we just have names and occupations rather than an information repeat? It's also an opportunity here to expand the bio page for these guys if we have any more information.

I am also concious that the "accused" section is repeated on the other page, my vague plan for those guys (will post some text in a bit) was just to list out name and position at NASA (or wherever) at the time of the landings. Any takers for that? LeeG 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done it - changed the article to be as above. LeeG 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me -- nothing's removed, just moved and summarized. -- ArglebargleIV 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. There's still a generous amount of info in the umbrella article, with much more detail in the spinoff article. Wahkeenah 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good news. There are two more sections that can (to my mind) be spun out in similar manners. The blow by blow debunking, and the cultural references. The first of these is the hardest to do fairly, but has the compensation of being an interesting article in its own right, as I think it's well written and it covers a lot of science, photography and other topics. The first stage of pulling it out would be to have a page dedicated to itself, and leave this article intact until we are happy with that page. Even the title of that page is fraught with problems. "rebuttal of the moon landing hoax arguments" is not a great title. "Examination of claims..." smacks of original research. The next issue would be how to frame the article. It needs an introduction, the text from this article would be fine, and I think it needs a quick bit on Occam's Razor, and the burden of proof, and the two stories bit. That would give it some context. Then do the "apparent anomaly" followed by "explanation" section.

More of an issue is to decide how this page should remain. There is lot of stuff here, and a simple list will not shorten the article, as it needs the explanation attached to it. Could we "group" the accusations as (e.g.) Photographic anomalies - hoax protagonists claim several anomalies within the photographic record that they claim prove the landings were a hoax. Each of these is explained with a basic understanding of the Lunar environment and photography. I'm sure couching it like that will be dubbed as POV pushing, but it's a start, and it's here on the discussion page not the article. I note that two regular denizens of this page are currently blocked, I await their return and input on this (and the last edit) with interest. LeeG 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The cultural references could definitely be spun off, as many other articles do. That part is basically "fluff" that doesn't add any information except as an amusing sidebar, anecdotally demonstrating peoples' reactions to the hoax accusations. They could be interpreted by hoaxsters as adding to the criticism to NASA, while they could be interpreted by conventionalists as ridiculing the hoaxsters. They could also be doing both at the same time. Regarding the question-answer stuff, there is already a spinoff page that goes into the picture-related questions in great detail; again, a situation where it used to be in the primary article. It is hard to label this stuff in a politically correct way, but it's worth a try. I tried at one time, by replacing "accusations" and "claims" with more neutral wording like "challenges" and "responses". As long as the page doesn't have just the questions without the responses, it could be fair. Then the long, detailed list could be in a spinoff. Wahkeenah 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the debunking of the hoax claims should be removed. As an alternative, I think all of the claims could be in one or more sections and the debunking could be in a section (or sections) below that. I think that would make the article neater, but retain the important information. Bubba73 (talk), 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't spot the spin-off photography article. This has spawned articles all over the place - seemingly more than the articles on the landings themselves. That amazes me, but if it makes people read it and learn some real science, then it's worthwhile I guess. It's important that the claims and debunking remain on the same page. I would even contend that this is as good a manner as any to do it, separate sections may make a lazy reader just see one side. I was trying to work out how to reduce the size of this article, and that section takes up vast swathes of it; it's an "easy" way to reduce the page. I'll have another think tomorrow. LeeG 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to think that wikipedia has an opportunity to be one of the few sites (or maybe the only one) that tries to present this topic without going off on a rant in either direction. That's what most of the defenders of this page want, I think. It would be nice to do a brief overview, or maybe just the most-frequent complaints about the NASA saga, with more details on the spinoff page, if it can be agreed on how to do that without the hoaxsters accusing anyone of censorship. Wahkeenah 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

LeeG said "It's important that the claims and debunking remain on the same page. " I agree. Having separate pages would be a POV fork, which is a no-no. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the claims and counter claims together, but I think we can break the various sections out into separate interleaved articles. The current article is way too long and most of the details are "important" (Yes, I used scare quotes) in some regard. See WP:SS for a way to handle long-ass articles with lots of interesting details. Numskll 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version states this about Bill Kaysing: "NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book." And about Bart Sibrel: "Again the arguments put forward therein have been debunked by numerous sources,". I regard these statements as childish POV, and I am removing them (once) as a principled act of making this world a better place ;) Axlalta 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I popped them back as they are simply statements of fact, not POV, and run with the context of the rest of the article. Plus, they have been stable for a long time in this most unstable of articles! LeeG 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How was Armstrong's descent from the ladder captured on film?

There is video footage of Armstrong allegedly descending the ladder to walk on the moon's surface for the first time. But if so, then how was a camera placed there to record him? Did Armstrong climb down, set up the camera, then climb back up, and pretend he was doing it for the first time? Or did the lunar module have a long robotic arm that held a camera out of the side of the craft? EvaXephon 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The famous video of Armstrong going down the ladder was from a television camera on the side of the lunar module. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The camera was mounted on the inside of a hatch door that was opened by remote control before Armstrong exited. The hatch door was designed to hold this camera at the correct angle to capture this image. I was 12 years old at the time and remember this being explained on TV. --rogerd 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguing with Landing Believers is like talking to Young Earth Creationists. There's no reference to evidence by either. Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the descent was filmed in a studio? You can see the 'hot spots' of studio lights as he descends, and the lighting is all wrong for the Moon. I'm not saying that the whole landing was faked, but this piece of footage definitely was - and you can understand why - "a remote control robot arm filmed him"? Please. We did not go 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are willing to believe that a thousand NASA employees can keep a secret for 35 years, and the entire world scientific community can be duped, but putting a camera on a door to capture a planned historical moment is too much for you? Please indeed. Algr 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho Ho! Where did you pull the thousand number from? No hoax proponent talks about that number - that's FUD made up by AstroNots! Gravitor 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Or a hyperbole for the sake of explanation. In any case, the information I can find states it was mounted on one of the legs. Does any one know of any images that show this, or somewhere with more detailed explanation (not that I'm doubting it)? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More details are at Apollo TV camera. Bubba73 (talk), 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't even realize that article existed, thanks. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had to restore the section about the Apollo 11 LM camera. (You might have missed it.) That article used to be linked to in the main hoax article, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I notice that the article itself doesn't have many articles linking in either. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's described to some degree on page 491 of the Neil Armstrong book, First Man. The article cited by Bubba73 gives the same basic info. One thing the book mentions is that Armstrong was so focused on his egress he almost forgot to pull the lanyard to open the MESA and thus activate the camera, and someone at Houston had to verbally nudge him about it. Wahkeenah 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This topic was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_18#Apollo_11. Bubba73 (talk), 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, technically it wasn't "filmed" as such, it was a live TV picture and a kinescope or some such was made from it. Bubba73 can correct me if I've got that wrong. :) Wahkeenah 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The famous black and white video of Armstrong going down the ladder was from the TV camera. The original SSTV was recorded as data, onto the "missing" tapes. After conversion for standard TV, it was recorded on kinescope, videotape, or both. (Probably each network recorded it onto videotape, since they replayed it shortly afterward. But I've also read of it being recorded on kinescope, with is a 16mm camera pointed at a TV,) There is also color 16mm film taken out the right LM window which shows the descent (and much of the walk) from above. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha. So they had a film camera right next to the TV camera, so they could get a live picture and also a more permanent record, especially in case the TV hookup failed. Backups R us! Here's a funny coincidence: The "classic 39" Honeymooners episodes were shot that way, with a live camera and a film camera right next to it... the point of the coincident being Ralph's oft-used but of course never implemented threat to slug his wife: "To the moon, Alice!" :) Wahkeenah 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NASA would gain more credibility if they came clean on this one. The hot-spots from studio lights are clearly visible. The 'original' tape is 'missing' - it's a shambles. Faking this for publicity is not the same as faking the whole mission - it makes perfect sense that they would have made studio shots of these for propaganda purposes. Gravitor 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The original computer data tape of the Apollo 11 moonwalk is missing. The original videotapes are not missing. The original kinescopes are not missing. Recordings of the other missions are not missing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't "come clean" if you've been telling the truth all along. Djcartwright 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, the TV camera was on the side of the LM (until they dismounted it and put it on the tripod). A 16mm color film camera filmed the scene from above, through the window of the LM. I'm pretty sure that both videotape and kinescope copies of the TV broadcast were made. When I read about the kinescope copy being made, it described two copies being made so that when the reel of film had to be changed on one, the other was still filming. Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) this link talks some about the video from Apollo 11 on the moon. He mentions that the TV networks used videotape and NASA used telecine, which is similar to kinescope. There are 12 minutes of the broadcast recorded on 8mm film of the SSTV before the scan conversion. Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, only part of the 8mm film is of the pre-conversion SSTV. The US TV networks recorded it on videotape. The Austrailian TV network used kinescope. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Technological capability of USA compared to the USSR

Why is the USSR putting the first woman in space added in this section? Does it require greater technological capability to put a woman in space than it does to put a man in space? 212.140.167.99 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've just read the next part where it says that some of the 'firsts' listed were not advances in technology.212.140.167.99 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, putting a man in a studio in Area 51 was not a huge technological advance, but it caused a stir! Carfiend 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR and such

I would point out to User:Gravitor that I was making clear to stay under 3RR when User:Carfiend reverted me within two minutes. If you note that I was undergoing a rather large edit of the material independent of the revert after that and the database did not catch up with Carfiend's action. --ScienceApologist 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gravitor and Carfiend act as one, thus giving them 6 reverts per day, and the admin is not willing to take any action, so it's well nigh hopeless. Wahkeenah 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, it's fine for you to support edits of users you agree with? More double standards at work. Please, please, don't revert war - the talk page is there for a reason! Gravitor 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not right. They are acting as meatpuppets and perhaps even sockpuppets. I will report them now. --ScienceApologist 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you report yourself, Wahkeenah, Branson3, Lunahkod and Numbskull as well! Gravitor 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add comments: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. I think that the evidence is pretty strong: they act in tandem, tag team, and have very similar editorial styles. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another pathetic attempt to push your POV in the face of a number of users who disagree. Anyone who does not share your POV gets harassed in the form of complaints (that are never upheld by admins), accusations of sockpuppetry (that have been shown to be false). You never seem to tire of false accusations. Sooner or later, you will have to discuss your ideas on the talk page, and make a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Until then, I guess, you could keep trying to fling mud. Gravitor 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)