Talk:Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

Neutrality Dispute???

This article allows both conspiracy theorists and NASA speak for themselves. Why a neutrality dispute? (This article could use a copyeditor, though.) All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality tag was put there by hoax believers. I think it can be taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag was added but no discussion on the talk page, so I removed it. Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this page be Examination of Appollo moon photographs? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT unsourced speculative POV

It is clearly sourced from webarchive log, it is not a POV

--Eric144 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is your speculation that it is doctored. And in fact, if you knew about the history of the photograph, you would know the first one was altered and the later one is the original. Bubba73 (talk), 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea of the history of the photograph because the original appeared in Time magazine in 1960 and it looks exactly like the 2000 one, not the 2006 one.

--Eric144 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant 1969 obviously and the logical deduction would that the later one had been changed. NASA put all 29 versions up themselves.

--Eric144 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to put up any lies that NASA may have issued to cover this up (for example saying the original was the 2006 version), but my edit is perfectly correct. They CHANGED the photograph and it is recorded.

--Eric144 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they uploaded different scans of the photograph, but the rest is pure unsourced speculation. Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that "The later ones disguise the fact that the original shows the luminosity of light diminishing with distance from the subject" which is absolutely true. It doesn't say it was deliberate. I can add a sentence that says 'some people believe it was done deliberately which NASA denies". How about that ?

When I say the original website photo, I mean the 2000 one.

Here is the Time Magazine photo on the NASA website

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903-Life.jpg

One would have to twist reality a great deal to believe they gave Time an identical photo to the 2000 one in 1969 when they had an original which wasn't revealed until 2006.

--Eric144 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is pure speculation on your part. As you can see from the website you cited, even in 2003 the version that was on the website was on that was altered from the actual photograph. Bubba73 (talk), 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the last message was completely unintelligible. The fact is that the photograph went through a series of changes from a dark, high contrast version to a bright, low contrast version. That is completely beyond dispute. I am using logic, you are speculating.

--Eric144 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The original photograph hasn't changed, only the scan of it on that website. The current version is a more accurate scan. Look how much sharper the detail is. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is unfounded speculation. This page is about a potential conspiracy. The scans have changed in such a way as to disguise changes in luminosity. A court would laugh at the idea that the scan published in 2006 was closer to the original than the 1969, 2000 or 2003 versions, even if it is higher quality. I think readers of the page should decide for themselves. As I said, you are entitled to add your view later even if it is irrational. You are trying to block my addition for absolutely no good reason at all. The fact you think it is wrong is irrelevant.

--Eric144 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that NASA changed the file 29 times - that is wrong. Wayback machine COPIED it 29 times. Only the few dates that have an asterisk by them were new uploads. Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

wp:REDFLAG applies here: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. " Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That rule does not apply here. No onewould believe other than I have claimed. The photographs have been updated by NASA, it is 100% clear and proven by the link I gave. You have comprehensively lost every single stage of this discussion. Changed 29 to 6 without checking to see if you are correct/

--Eric144 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG, WP:OR, and WP:RS all apply to your edit. Bubba73 (talk), 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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). Any conclusions about a primary source that are in anyway not obvious or controversial need to cite a reliable secondary source. Therefore to make this section stick as written you would need to provide a reliable secondary source that drew the same conclusion about the photos that the section asserts; just citing the photos themselves is not enough to support the conclusion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-considered opinion. I appreciate it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a couple of professional wikiyanks with little wikimedals called Rusty and Bubba would be personally acquainted by any chance ? Let me put this in extremely simple language so that both of you can understand. This page is headed "Those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax often engage in examination of Apollo moon photos. Their accusations and common responses from landing believers are listed here.". I have put up an accusation. If any yankee doodle wikidudes want to put up a response to that, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Using either Clavius or NASA as primary sources in this article is just plain stupid unless it is for primary material like photographs but of course that is what is under dispute. I do not like being ganged up on and will continue to use demeaning language until someone with basic honesty and intelligence who can understand logic joins the discussion.

--Eric144 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have been in this position before with another American. he was an editor and had lots and lots of little wikimedals and he had a rank just like a little soldier. His only argument was to get threatening and officious. The only way you could ever win this argument is by the use of bureaucratic force and I know that's what is coming next. I don't know that 'Rusty' is American but it seems a reasonable guess.

I have tried to be polite and use very simple language but am being faced with complete misunderstanding. --Eric144 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Again. This page isn't a statement of fact about the world, it is a statement about conspiracies. The primary source in this case would be me as I made the accusation. Please indicate that you understand that.

--Eric144 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I commented on this page after seeing a request for a third opinion at WP:3. I don't recall ever having interacted with either of you before and I certainly am not personally acquainted with either of you. The rules for third opinions would more or less prohibit me from offering one if I were. There is no real concept of rank on Wikipedia when it comes to disputes over article content. However, there are rules and policies that guide editors in the process of building an encyclopedia. If you are not familiar with the most important of these you might want to start with WP:NOT which explains things that Wikipedia is not. The most important of these with regard to this issue is "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." I hope you can see how this would conflict with your statement that "The primary source in this case would be me as I made the accusation." None of this has any bearing on or connection to whether or not your accusation/opinion is correct; just that it has not been published in a reliable source. Given the nature of Wikipedia it is not assumed that editors are experts on the topcis covered by an article. That is why they are required to stick to conclusions/opinions that have been published in reliable sources, not their own, even if they happen to know they are correct. This can be be frustrating, but it is essential to producing an encyclopedia; otherwise anybody could insert anything into an article. I hope this explanation helps. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we are

Shepard duffed the first ball and hit the second one fairly cleanly. Houston joked to Shepard "That looked like a slice to me, Al.", yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow on the ball. This is impossible without an atmosphere'

That is an unsourced, unofficial claim attributed to no one like mine, isn't it ? Why didn't the Bubba delete that ? I am not the only person to have noticed these doctored pictures, it isn't an original idea, so is perfectly valid.

For all I know , both of you might be NASA or other (de facto) US military employess because there is no RATIONAL reason for deleting the section.

Bubba

Why don't you debunk what I wrote and add it on ? It is what this page is meant to be about That's why I think you are behaving dishonestly. I genuine believe no intelligent human being would be on your side in this debate and you are deleting the section because as you have comprehensively illustrated, you haven't a clue how to debunk it. As you can see, I don't have a record of involvement in techo conspiracies on Wikipedia.

Unless you can come up with some kind of coherent respobnse I will re- submit the article.

--Eric144 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole article has citation problems, which is why it has a needs more citation banner on the top. As for the text you mention the article provides adequate sources for the muffed shot but you are correct that the "yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow on the ball. This is impossible without an atmosphere" text needs a source at least to show that someone claims it is a problem. I found 2, [1] and [2]. Neither is an ideal source but they suffice to show that the claim that the "golf shot slice couldn't happen without air" has been used to support the moonshot was a hoax theory. I will add them to the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact there is a general problem with this article in that it does not provide sources for the hoax claims, but rather only for the responses. This is a problem that needs to be fixed, but the solution is to find sources for the material as I have done for the case above, or failing that to delete the unsourced material. It is definately not an excuse to add yet more incorrectly sourced material. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rusty. Now we have established that my contribution was consistent with the rest of the article. I was totally correct and both of you were totally wrong. You changed one item I pointed out but none of the rest. I haven't seen Bubba racing to correct the article either. I cannot see that either of you have any leverage in this situation at all as you point out mistakes but don't correct them. The article is a complete mess but Bubba was only interested in my section which is completely correct.

As the section is an equal or higher standard than the rest of the article, I expect it to be edited LAST. If any techno geeks want to put in a rebuttal, they are perfectly entitled to do so.

--Eric144 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to be patient and explain the relevent policies WP:OR (no original reasearch), WP:NOT (what wikipedia is not, and WP:RS (reliable sources) that explain why the material you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have been responsive to your comments where as you have continually ignored the thrust of my comments as well as those of the editor you started having the dispute with. The crux of the matter is that your contribution is, as you yourself have admitted in your comments, original research. It is original research because you are the person who has looked at the photos and websites in question and reached the conclusion in question rather than those conclusions having been reached by a published secondary source. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia — This is one of the core principles of the project. Nothing about the state of the rest of the article can justify that. If there is other original research present in this article, and I note that in the only example of that you put forward I was able to find sources that showed that it was not in fact original research, it should be removed, not increased. Despite clear explanations from two other editors about why the text you contributed is not appropriate you have readded the text. I have reverted your recent edits. I note that the other editor involved in this dispute has now requested comment on the whole issue. I would hope you would wait for further debate on the subject before engaging in more edit warring and disruptive editing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on recent edits

A RfC is requested on recent edits to this article. Is the added section appropriate or original research? Bubba73 (talk), 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

response to RfC

It has already been established that this page is a total mess. It is not scceptable for highly biased individuals to change one section because they don't agree with it. If anyone thinks he can debunk the claims, he should do so in a manner consistent with the rest of the article. That is the only correct response unless he decides to apply the same standards to EVERY section. I am not prepared to be pushed around when I am clearly winning the debate. I am being sarcastic and demeaning to anyone who thinks he can get away with vandalism. When Rusty and Bubba behaved in a decent manner, they were treated with respect.

The reason why this is discussed is because of the luminosity of the archived photos. It is very obvious and has been discussed on Clavius and elsewhere numerous times. Bubba gave the stock response of the 2006 picture was the actual photo. I hardly think it was an original idea. and that is clear evidence of a debate. It doesn't matter whether you think otherwise.

Please join the discussion if you want to edit this page.

--Eric144 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at commenting on this. Please read (or at least skim) WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Primary sources are not acceptable when the content is controversial. Find a secondary source and present the conclusions in a neutral manner, and this conflict can go away. Be agressive in removing unsourced materiel. There is still quite a few unsources clames throughtout that need a source or need to be removed. The opinions of individual editors carry no weight in these debates.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law The problem here is that this pathetic mess was created principally by Bubba73 and he and his little pals are selectively picking on one section even though it is consistent with the rest. If they want to delete one section, they have to delete the rest.

There are no conclusions. It is a simple statement of a well discussed conspiracy (whether geeks agree with it or not). I will not retreat until someone intelligent acknowledges the difference between a statement about conspiracies and one about the world. There are holocaust and global warming conspiracy pages. If any of you dudes wants to follow in the bubba's footsteps and argue the case, please do. Please first observe how badly he lost.

Rusty

You agreed that my section was no different from the rest. Why don't you delete the other ones ? Please try and respond in a coherent fashion.

--Eric144 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

...No, not really. I could pick apart what you're saying here, but then this becomes a personal thing between you and I, which I have no interest in becoming involved in. Let me simply recommend that you st least skim over the three vital policies that I've linked to above, and then also recommend WP:NOT. Your confrontational attitude is not at all constructive, and it leads to dismissal of your arguments anyway.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"I could pick apart what you're saying here". I am absolutely sure that if you could, you would have. I am having a problem with people who cannot engage in discussing the substantive issues. I am being confrontational because they comprehensively lose the argument then change the article anyway. I am not interseted in arguing with you in any personal way.

I am asking them a number of questions they seem utterly incapable of answering. One more time. This is a conspiracy page. The claims do not have to be justified, they aren't claims made by me. They only have to be conspiracies and I have given three links that show they are believed..

--Eric144 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me pull out a few relevant policy quotations for your review. Please keep in mind that I'm honestly trying to be helpful here, not "officious". Hopefully you can see why you're experience seems to be so frustrating so far:

• WP:SOAP

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectivelyabout such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

• WP:OR

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

and the whole subsection at WP:PRIMARY

• Probably the most important policy for this discussion is: 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 areliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

What is above is by no means exhaustive, but it pushes the main point that I'm attempting to get across. It really doesn't matter what you personally think. This should have nothing to do with you personally. It's all about verifiability. Whether anyone thinks that one or the other of you is "right" is almost completely irrelevant.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: The article needs to be cleaned up, as it does not adhere enough to WP:V, WP:SYN and WP:PSTS. Also, reading the above discussion, it seems to me that Eric144 is sometimes not being civil. Eric, you need to try to be more polite all the time, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and reacting uncivilly when another editor edits in a way you do not like is not acceptable. LK (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility comment This discussion seems unproductive because of a lack of civility, which seems to be instigated by Eric. I make a stronger echo of the above comment in that (a) I hope that this conversation becomes more civil and productive and that (b) if the name-calling, insults, and sarcasm from Eric continue, I will direct Eric to Wikiquette or AN/I. Awickert (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

With one exception, blanking his talk page on Wednesday the 22nd, he has done no editing since Monday the 20th. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't show back up in the next day or two, I'm guessing that this RfC can be closed as it seems there's a consensus among all of the other editors. Awickert (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I read alot of these discussions, and ERIC - all I have heard from you so far is "I am right, you're wrong - I dont have any REAL proof, but I am NOT backing down until someone who agrees with me and is intelligent comes along. Since that hasnt happened yet, and I haven't won my case other than claiming I have, I am being ignorant on purpose because you guys are all wrong."

You will not get far with that type of attitude. I dont know what the last few comments here say because I Stopped reading after awhile, so if it was resolved Im sorry. But in the future, you should try to be more respectable and polite. Damn, now I forgot what I came here for in the 1st place, something about the article ill have to go back and check now.173.62.181.145 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to website

This is currently mostly Original Research... The claim needs attribution so that readers know who claims that the NASA website has changed/doctored the photo's on its website, and can assess their reliability. We need to cite someone who has linked all of this "evidence" together and reached the conclusion that NASA uploaded doctored pictures. If this originates here, with a Wikipedia editor, then we have a clear case of OR. What we need is a citation to where this claim is made... not "proof" (cited to primary sources) that the claim is "True".

And there are other problems. First is the claim that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation". I have removed the two Youtube videos used to cite this... the first was simply a montage of different versions of the photo set to music, and did not discuss the claim at all. The second does discuss the possibility of doctored photos... but in a journal, NOT on the NASA webpage (in fact, it uses a photo from the NASA webpage to argue that the journal photo was doctored) In other words... neither Youtube video discusses the Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to the website in any way... nor do they support the statement that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation".

That leaves the citation to the Education Forum website... I will leave aside the fact that a forum is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia... and focus on whether the website actually supports the claim being made. At least this one mentions the fact that NASA updated the photos on its website... but it does so in passing and not in the context of being a conspiracy accusation. So it too does not support the statement that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation".

So... who does make this accusation? Without a source that claims all those updates on NASA's webpage (and they did it 29 times, not 6 as was stated in the article) means that NASA doctored the photos, we have to assume that this is OR. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The adjective "clearly" that someone added here (or was it to another article?) betrays editorializing on the part of hoaxsters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was here... I have removed it. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an original 1969 16x20 photographic print of that photo (i.e. not a poster and not printed by a magazine), stored at my parent's house. I'm going to ask them to get it so we can see which is closer to the original. Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free... but I must remind you that what you observe can not be discussed in the article (that would be OR). If this section is to stay, then we must refer to reliable published sources that discuss the idea that NASA has doctored the photos on its website. It does not actually matter whether they did so or not... what matters is that a reliable source says they did. (this is a problem throughout the article, but especially in this short section... people are attempting to prove the various theories are right or wrong... when they should be discussing what reliable sources that discuss each side of the issue have to say on the matter.) Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the question - are there any reliable sources that either claim the photos were doctored, or more importantly, any reliable sources that report such a claim? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes... that is the question. I am willing to give people a bit more time to answer that question (or at least indicate that they are trying to answer it). But if no one can, then we have to assume it is OR and delete it. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The dilemma is that there are no reliable sources that support the hoaxsters claims. The best you can get is someone reporting on the fact that those claims exist. Oh, and in case you missed it, the LRO photos of the landing sites were released today. Game, set, match. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the photo I have would be OR. The editor that added that section first claimed that he was the primary source for it. Now it is referenced to a forum, which is not a RS. Bubba73 (talk), 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only OR if you make any specific claims about its content. If you simply post the photo and caption it factually ("original photographic print"), then you leave it to the reader to draw conclusions, rather than drawing them yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For a comparison, if you post a photo of Niagara Falls and say "Niagara Falls" (slowly I turned!) then it's not OR. If you say, "Breathtaking, Spectacular, Niagara Falls", that's original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to give this one more day out of courtesy... but unless someone can come up with a reliable secondary source that at least reports that this claim is made I will delete the section (and as I mentioned above, both the two youtube videos and the forum posting that were cited are not only unreliable as sources, but do not actually discuss the claim being made). Last chance. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... OK, it's deleted. To return it please provide reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very frustating to be met with a total absence of the most basic intelligence and honesty in this discussion. I do not enjoy skull crushing wikipedia bureauractic wrangling with Americans who absolutely love anything to do with rules, regulations and numbers. I have read Brave New World three times now (Ford be with you). Please excuse the sarcasm but you are so totally wrong that I cannot avoid it.

Apart from the Shepherd section I pointed out before that one of the bots added a link to, here are the other sections that don't have ANY references to the conspiracy beliefs.

Issues with crosshairs (fiducials) that were etched onto the Reseau plate of the cameras

a) In some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered. b) In the 'classic' Aldrin photo, the reticle (etched crosshair on the camera) is too low. Since the crosshairs are in a fixed position on all the images, a lower reticle on this image indicates that the image has been cropped. This is the case even on the 70mm duplicate transparency NASA issues. The 70mm transparencies should show the entire 'full' image. Hoax proponents say that the only explanation for this is if the original full transparency needed to be cropped because of an embarrassing artifact like a piece of stage scenery was in the shot.

The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent

Identical backgrounds in photos are listed as taken miles apart

The high number of photographs

A clearly altered photo was published The 1994 hardback version of Moon Shot by Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton contains a photograph of Shepard playing golf on the Moon with another astronaut. The picture is an obvious fake, there being no one else to take the shot of the two, and the artwork was poor (such as the grapefruit sized "golf ball"), and yet it was presented as if it were a real photo.

So

1) Why has only my section been targetted ?

2) Why did no bots even bother to check the other sections never mind change or delete them ? It's totally outrageous.

3) The conclusion is one of EXTREME partiality and bias. Possibly by NASA or other US government employees.

Any reference to the webarchive page for the Aldrin photos on moon conspiracy pages are about the fact the photographs had been changed. No amount of brain surgery would suggest otherwise because that is what the page does. It records changes. Please do not make deeply retarded suggestions otherwise.

I do not enjoy playing with wikipedia so please do not interfere with my text again. Delete if you must.

--Eric144 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the two sources you posted, one is a blog, which is right out. The other is a list of links, which is of no use either. That leaves us with a couple of totally uncited sentences. Hence, it adds nothing useful to the article, and is deleted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. I think the problem may be that you don't understand the issues under discussion. Please read the rest of this talk section.

--Eric144 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You accuse anyone who disagrees as being NASA employees, so don't go lecturing others about ignorance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. I said POSSIBLY nasa or US government employees were interfering with this page. There a complete absence of rational debate considering a number of other sections are WORSE than mine so I wonder what's going down. I dont believe you are a NASA employee. --Eric144 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you also retract the "retarded" comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. The retarded comment wasn't aimed at anyone. It was a request to desist from a FUTURE action. The problem I have here is that you 'guys' are a bunch of dedicated anti moon hoax activists on Wikipedia who are deliberately ganging up on me. In real life I deal with difficult people by going above their heads in their hierarchy and eventually one finds someone intelligent who can see what's going on. It is the complete refusal to address the points I have made that is the dead give away. --Eric144 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In real life, it is the hoaxsters that are the liars and obfuscators. I'll resist the temptation to call them "retarded" or "stupid". You can reserve those words for your own use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To put it another way, the so-called "evidence" of a hoax consists of either ignorant or willful distortion. The lunar orbiter has spotted the landing remnants - which comes as no surprise to anyone who actually knows anything about the subject, hence the lack of media attention to it. The hoax stories were never more than a cult, and with the latest evidence have now been marginalized to the point of absurdity and ridicule. By all rights, there shouldn't be more than one sentence about this subject in wikipedia. The fact that there are at least 3 articles on the matter indicates a willingness to bend far over backward to try to accommodate this fringe nonsense. So kindly cease your verbal assaults on wikipedia editors, who have given this absurd subject way much more space than it deserves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. Didn't you complain about me being insulting ? It was probably a bad move to be insulting in return. "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" as it says at the top. Why don't you address the topic at hand Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots ? Why don't you debunk my section Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots ? It should be really easy for a smart guy like yourself Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. --Eric144 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that there is a "complete refusal to address the points I have made" yet when you made an allegation that another part of the article lacked a source and thus might be original research, I went out and added a couple of sources to make it clear that it was not. Your "points" seem to boil down to:

This article has problems (which is true), this article has text that violates the rules about orignal research and reliable sources" (which may be true). Therefore I should be free to add more text that is original research and lacks reliable sources; thus making the article even worse.

That hardly seems like an argument worth adressing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He also continues to post blogs and personal websites that are NOT valid sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Erik, you really need to read Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines... Especially WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. You don't have to like our rules... but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you do have to follow them. I would also suggest reading WP:No personal attacks. If you continue along the path you are, it will only be a matter of time before you are banned from editing.

Now as to your three questions above...

• Why has only my section been targetted ?

First, it is't "your" section... once you post something in an article it belongs to the entire community. But to answer your question, the section isn't the only one that will be "targetted"... several other sections have similar issues. I happened to address this particular section first, because it was a posting at WP:NORN about this section that drew my attention to this article.

• Why did no bots even bother to check the other sections never mind change or delete them ? It's totally outrageous.

This isn't being done by a bot... and as I say above, other sections will be questioned and if needed deleted.

• The conclusion is one of EXTREME partiality and bias. Possibly by NASA or other US government employees.

No, it isn't. I explained what the problems with this section were, and how to fix them. I waited several days for before I acted, to give you a chance to respond. You didn't. There was nothing biased or partial about my decision. I do not work for NASA or any government. I am, however, an experienced and (I hope) respected member of the Wikipedia community. If you think I have acted inappropriately, I suggest you complain to an admin... you can do it here: WP:ANI. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Eric144, the problem is simple. For a source to be used in Wikipedia, it has to pass wp:RS. The sources you are providing are self-published. If someone had a website and some Youtube videos that said that Alan Alda visited the moon as a child, we wouldn't include those either. Until the sources are deemed reliable by a consensus of editors, it's not useful. Try running your sources past the reliable sources noticeboard to see what they have to say... they are a group of uninvolved editors who will tell you the same things that are already being told here. Now, if you find a news source that says "such-and-such group has some doubts about the photos", anything in that news source becomes fair game (couched in the appropriate language, of course). NJGW (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1969 print of Aldrin photo

It took a while to get it from my parent's attic, but here is a 1969 print of the Aldrin photo (20"x24", not 16"x20"). It clearly shows that original prints do not have the brightness dropping off in the distance. Bubba73 (talk), 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving to other sections

Erik does have one valid point in the above thread... the section he wrote about the NASA website isn't the only section with issues. The entire article is full of problems. The first I want to address is WP:Notability... specifically whether this article passes the criteria laid out in that guideline. It may well be a notable topic... the problem is that, if it is, the article does not properly establish that notability.

In other words... we need to demonstrate that examininations of the Apollo Moon photos is something that is discussed by more than just a few conspiracy theorists on one side and a few debunkers on the other.

This leads to the next problem... there are far too many citations to various forums and personal webpages. Most of these are unreliable. However, I will pause here and ask that we address the notability issue first. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

After looking over the article I concur with Blueboar in that the whole article is problematic and that a systematic review of the article is needed. I will comment as to WP:Notability once I study this in some depth.--LexCorp (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the WP:Notability guidelines it is clear that the first thing editors must do is to substantiate the article topic as notable. This must be done by showing substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The guidelines also tell us that fork articles like this one (Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories article is presumed to be the hierarchical ascendant) cannot justify their inclusion in Wikipedia by invoking the notability of their hierarchical ascendant but must find independent and reliable sources that show independent notability. See WP:NRVE. Most of the sources in the article are blog entries or sources not independent of the subject thus I personally find the claim of notability lacking. WP:FAILN also guide us as to what to do with an article that fails notability but lets first see if there is consensus one way or the other before going into that. Hope this helps.--LexCorp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources that may help . NJGW (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly I could not find even a passing reference in the first 10 links as to the examination of Apollo Moon photographs. Bear in mind we are not disputing here the notability of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories but of the Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. The distinction must also be made in the sources that try to substantiate notability.--LexCorp (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as notability, Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories cites polls saying that 5% to 25% believe that the landings were a hoax. There are several books and videos about it and they all seem to have something about the photos. The book Bad Astronomy has a chapter about the "hoax", and it is all dedicated to the controversy over photos (not not as many specific points as are in this article). Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the 20-page book chapter addresses five topics and two of them are about photos. Bubba73 (talk), 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of this article, I see it was created close to 3 years ago, as a spinoff of the main article, because the main article was getting too large. A lot of the hoax premises seem to be based on interpretations of photos - as with other conspiracy theories, especially the JFK assassination, which is kind of the godfather of the conspiracy theory "movement", so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for editor Blueboar but as for myself I am not disputing the legitimacy of the article just trying to conduct a systematic review in order to bring it more in line with Wikipedia Policies. One must ask himself why it is that most of the sources in this article are blogs or WP:OR sources when there is out there presumably a body of reliable sources that could be used instead. If this is a legitimate fork of the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article then why were not the reliable sources also forked at the same time?. The answer could be as simple as sloppiness by the forking editor or as complicated as that they weren't any reliable sources in the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article to begin with (having said this now I am afraid to look into Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories). Any way I agree that given that a whole chapter is dedicated in the Bad Astronomy book to this subject then it is a valid reliable resource that substantiates notability. We are in the right track here but we need more sources so any editor that could identify more sources please do so.--LexCorp (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

as per Bubba73 correction only two of the five topics discussed in the 20-page Bad Astronomy chapter relate to photos. Does this substatiate notability? I am starting to have my doubts. Anyway we need multiple sources to substantiate notability so keep them coming.--LexCorp (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're starting to open the door to, is the basic question of the notability of the hoax story itself. A good deal of latitude has been given to the hoax promoters here, in the name of fairness and balance. With the lunar orbiter having demolished the core of the hoax story, maybe it's time to start reigning this whole thing in and applying proper Wikipedia rigor to it all - and probably watch it collapse like the house of cards it always has been. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt in my opinion neither article is encyclopedic material but lets follow WP in order to try to improve them. I haven't the strength nor am I prepared to spearhead a charge to have them deleted (I just finished a ridiculous long discussion on a crystal clear matter in another article that exhausted my strength).--LexCorp (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The theory that the moon landings were a hoax is most definitely notable (we even point to the main Moon Landing hoax article as an example of a notable fringe theory at WP:FRINGE). I think what we are now reviewing is whether specific claims within that theory are notable enough for their own article. I actually lean towards the "notable" side (I am influenced, for example, by the fact that Mythbusters addressed some of the photo theories). But if the photo theories are notable, then we need to establish what makes them notable (and we need to do so in the article and not just here on the talk page). Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like it was sort of like this (my take and recollections, anyway). There aren't many reliable sources for the hoax claims. The books by Kaysing and by Ralph Rene are self-published. Most of the rest comes from TV shows or personal websites and YouTube videos. We allowed the hoax proponents some latitude in presenting these views. For one thing, they were vocal about presenting all of them. The rationale was that they were reliable sources for what their claims were, even if they were not reliable sources for their claims being true.

On the other hand, there aren't that many sources on the other side. There is that one chapter by Phil Plait (and more on his website), an article in Skeptical Inquirer, and the Mythbusters episode (and maybe more). There is the brief mention in the biography of Neil Armstrong, etc. The book that NASA commissioned was canceled. James Oberg said that he wanted to write it anyway, but a year or two ago he said that he had not been able to get a contract from a publisher. The hoax claims have largely been ignored by the scientific community. The Clavius website (and some others) are a good source of information, both stating the claims and responding to them. It could be debated whether or not they are a RS, though. (I would say yes, even though it is a website). Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this leads to an issue that I was going to bring up later... but perhaps it should be addressed now. What exaclty is the focus of this article? Is it to discuss the fact that various theories about moon photos exist?... or is it to discuss the various arguments for and against the theories? Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article and about three others were spun off from Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories because it had gotten so large. The discussion of the photos was the largest single topic in the main article. In fact, I think this was basically one section that was moved. Naturally, that caused a loss of notability justification. Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this article and its spinoffs might be an example of taking IAR to something of an extreme. It's not so easy to find valid sources that talk about the hoax, but if you go strictly by valid sources you'd be left with an article that's about a paragraph long. But people who never heard of this subject might wonder what it's about. So that led to a lot of detail. But if the detail is left to stand on its own, it gives undue weight to a fringe theory - hence the need to "answer" each question raised. I've said this is probably the fairest article on the subject that you'll find: Instead of calling them "crackpots", the article calmly gives them their say and then calmly demolishes their claims. So there may be a lack of wikipedia rigor, but there is a lot of useful information for anyone who wants a fair picture of what the hoax stuff is (or was) about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I just took a look at the section Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories#Photographs and films... I think that section covers the same ground quite well, and discusses the claims and rebuttals in the context of the broader conspiracy theory. So that raises the question of whether this article is even needed. Perhaps the best solution is to merge/redirect this back to the main article. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I compared them, this one was more in depth. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think that is exactly the problem... In the attempt to achieve that depth, this article steps over the line into OR. The main article restricts itself to simply summarizing what the claims are, and what the counter claims are. That summary is itself boarderline OR in my opinion, but that is for another discussion. This article clearly crosses the OR line by including arguments as to why the claims or counter claims must be "true". A lot of this article consists of primary source "evidence", cited to "prove" that one view or the other is correct. The fact that this article is even handed in doing this (in an attempt to adhere to NPOV) does not negate the fact that this is an OR problem... violating one policy to make an article adhere to another is simply not acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we just state that something is true rather than explaining why it is true? Bubba73 (if you can read this you can go to my talk page), 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't be attemting to state or explain "truth" at all. When dealing with conspiracy theory claims and counter-claims (especially when reliable secondary sources are few and far between) is usually fine to phrase things as attributed opinions, but we ususally have problems when they are phrased as being facts... ie we should phrase things as "According to Mr. A, X is true while according to Mr. B, X is not true" (with proper citations to where each said it) rather than attempt to prove that "X is true/not true". (In text attribution would go a long way towards cleaning out both the WP:V and the WP:NOR issues... Discussing who is examining the photos is just as important as what they say about them.) Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it has been PRODed. We need to discuss that. Bubba73 (if you can read this you can go to my talk page), 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the best, in my opinion... I certanly am not going to oppose. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is to be deleted, someone needs to make sure that any references in this article that the other article needs are copied, as well as any text and photos that the other article may need. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I Suggest you copy anything that you feel can be used over to your user space. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone who wants to delete this article should save the worthwhile stuff and put it in the other article. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really a practical suggestion, Bubba... I suspect that most of the people who think this article should be deleted will not think there is anything worthwhile here. So as a matter of practicality, if there is something you think is worthwhile... it's up to you to ensure it is saved. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only half serious. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal

The section on Venus over the Apollo 14 LM has been revised to indicate that the referenced page now exists in the main Journal text, rather than the working copy. Antimatter33 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work, a good reference. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rene's book

Ralph Rene's book was self-published (spiral bound) in 1992. It is out of print and not even used copies are available from Amazon, B&N, Alibris, or eBay. www.bookfinder.com doesn't even list it. The library doesn't have it either. Can you give some time to come up with the references? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. How long do you think it will take? (I'm not trying to set a strict time limit, just an idea of how long I should wait before raising the issue again).

That said... before you spend time and energy finding the ref... given what you tell me about the nature of the source, I do have to seriously question it as a reliable source, and ask whether we should be discussing Rene's claims at all. Are we giving something from an unreliable source WP:Undue weight? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it might not be a RS. Getting it seems unlikely too. However, there are at least two other books

• Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers
• One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space

that might have the stuff. I can get them through the library, I think. That would take 2-3 weeks. I could buy them but I don't want to. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Several of the TV shows and YouTube videos repeat Rene's claims - these books might too. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the claim is discussed by other theoriest, then I would certainly use them instead of Rene... I do understand that most of these claims are not going to come from respected academics, so my concern isn't so much with who says it as where they say it (ie reliably published). Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent

Given that this is one of the few claims that actually has gained public awareness and notability (through the Mythbusters episode, if nothing else)... shouldn't we discribe what the claim actually is? Surely this one has been discussed in a reliable source? Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a statement of the claim other than the title of the section. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

clavius as a source for the claims

clavius seems to be a debunking site... as such, it may be a reliable source for refutation of the claims, but I don't think it should be used as a source for the claims themselves. We really need to cite these to the people who make them. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD resulted in Keep ... so on to fixing the problem

As I suspected it would (I was more than willing to carry the burden of argument for deletion... but the main reason why I didn't nominate it myself is that I knew people would not be able to separate this from the broader conspiracy theory article in their minds... turns out I was correct.)

So, it's back to fixing the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:Undue weight issues one by one.

I will start with what I think is the easiest... Undue weight. At the moment, all of the claims are given equal weight in the article. We need to fix this. Some of these theories are far more notable than others. In accordance with both WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, we should discuss various theories and claims in proportion to their prominence. This means that we should be discussing a claim such as the "The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent" (which has achieved significant coverage in the mainstream media and on shows like Mythbusters) much more articles space than other claims (such as the "hotspots" claims - which is vertually unknown beyond a few conspiracy theory websites.

And yet in the article as it currently stands, we have exaclty the opposite occuring... the "Shadows" claim is barely mentioned, while there is a large paragraph on the "hot spots". we are giving undue weight to the "Hotspots" claim. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should review the article systematically starting from Challenges and responses downwards and concluding with the Lead section once the review is done. The article is so full of WP:OR and WP:NRS that to go about any other way is a waste of time. The review of each section should address all the problems with it (including WP:Undue). Also I think it will be easier for editors that want to contribute to the article improvement to concentrate all their attention in one section at a time. As a first suggestion the very title of the section Challenges and responses is already unfit. I suggest a more encyclopedic and accurate language is Allegations and refutations--LexCorp (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it the very structure of the article could be subject to review. It seems the actual structure of allegation followed by refutation may have contributed to the inclusion of all the WP:undue and WP:OR problems.--LexCorp (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way? I recently rewrote much of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article to follow WP:NPOV using a claim-rebuttal format. So far, it's worked out OK. The trick is keep it in your watchlist in case someone tries to add WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think LexCorp just hit the jack pot on this issue... a non-notable claim may require a lenghty refutation, while a very notable claim might be refuted with one or two sentences. With a "claim-rebuttal" structure we end up giving more weight to a non-notable claim, simply because the refutation is more complex.

So I think a restructure might be an excellent idea... I am, however, not at all sure of how to restructure. Ideas? Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here allegations and refutations are separated by bullet points, indentation and italics format. In 9/11 conspiracy theories they seem to be integrated into coherent and continuous bodies of text and not just one allegation immediately and abruptly followed by a refutation. My thesis is that if we structure the article more like the 9/11 conspiracy theories article then the problems like WP:OR,WP:RS and WP:Undue will become more apparent and also more manageable.--LexCorp (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I was thinking of the main Apollo hoax article as an example when I rewrote the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. When you get to the Main and Other theories sections, it does contain one or more paragraphs of allegations followed by one or more paragraphs of refutations, but it doesn't follow the bullet point, indentation and italics format. But for the most part, there should be a clear separation between the fringe theory and the majority view point in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. (BTW, I didn't rewrite the entire article. I got burned out when I was about 2/3rds done so some crap remains.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, I don't have any better ideas, and no serious objection. I am willing to give it a try if others are.Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A notice such at this [4] might be helpful. Also, our article on Intelligent design might be a good example as it's reached FA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking of getting one of the more mainstream books on the hoax claims to use for references. (The only one I have is Kaysing's. Rene's is hard to get and expensive.) I can't find cheap copies, and the available ones are more than I want to spend. I thought about getting it through the library (interlibrary loan), but then I won't have it for future reference. I haven't decided what to do yet, but I'm leaning toward buying one or maybe two of the books. Also, "Allegations and refutations" is likely to cause problems, because hoax believers don't believe the allegations have been refuted. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 01:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They may not like it but it is correct English. From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

2  : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>

--LexCorp (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets start with

Moon hoax proponents point to various issues with photographs and films apparently taken on the Moon. Some experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counterintuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that "whistleblowers" may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.

Issues I see problematic

1. The purpose of this section (I guess) is to describe what the article is about. I am of the view that the article by title and content is ambiguous as to what should be the content here and for that matter in the article.
2. The first, second and third sentences must be referenced as each one makes a particular claim about the actions of particular groups of people.
3. Apparently in the fist sentence must be dropped per WP:Weasel and WP:undue. Just because we are dealing with a fringe theory doesn't mean we have to take the view of the fringe minority over the mainstream view. (That the photos were actually taken in the moon)
4. In the second sentence the even those unrelated to NASA is redundant and while sometimes counterintuitive must be either cited or dropped as per WP:OR.

--LexCorp (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum:5. The last sentence could be WP:UNDUE if this allegation is not notable or prominent.--LexCorp (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If the purpose of the section is to describe what the article is about, then it should be part of the Lede and not a seperate section. Perhaps:

• Those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax often engage in examination of Apollo moon photos. Moon hoax proponents point to what they see as various anomalies with photographs and films taken on the Moon. Scientists and experts in photography respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counterintuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real moon landing.

Then go on to discuss what the various sides of the debate have to say. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree on moving it to the lead. I suggest we delete this part complete and sustitute the Lead with:

• The examination of Apollo Moon photographs is an endeavor undertaken by people engaged in the debate as to the merits of the (multiple/various) Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories. A number of allegations and refutations with a variable degree of notability are put forward due to this examination. <-- then we follow (as per WP:Lead) with a summary of the surviving sections once we review the article -->

Also of notice is that by explaining it in this form I think that no reference is necessary as we are making general claims that will become apparent in each subsection -->--LexCorp (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly made the changes discusses above with slight modifications.--LexCorp (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This may not directly address the problems but I added some references and corrected some dead links. I added several photos so now every section has some of the photos in question, except the section about "too many photos" and the coke bottle. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Venus

"Venus has a higher surface brightness than Earth, and is indeed visible to the unaided eye in broad daylight from Earth, given a sufficiently transparent sky."

The second part of the above sentence is nonsense. Venus is much too close to the sun and therefore can only be seen around dawn and dusk. And owing to the low angle at that times of day it loses much of its brightness.--80.141.195.122 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is right. I've seen it in broad daylight. Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

see Venus#Observation. Bubba73 (talk), 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I once saw it at around 1:00pm after a rainstorm had cleaned the air. Man with two legs (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it in daylight all the time, in fact most amateur astronomers prefer to observe Venus during the day, as the extreme brightness makes night observation without dense filters almost impossible. To observe Venus during the day, one must obviously learn to find it first. Old hands can easily find Venus on a clear day, by standing in the shadow of a building or tree so that the glare from the Sun is suppressed. Photographically, since Venus has a higher surface brightness than Earth, any film exposure that correctly records surface features on Earth will necessarily show Venus. You can try your own experiment to prove it - any camera focused at infinity and adjusted to normal daylight exposure, then pointed to the area of the sky where Venus is known to be, will record Venus. To get a correct exposure of Venus, you should stop down by a full stop, or decrease the exposure by half. Antimatter33 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I've seen it in the daylight, I knew it was near the Moon and I used that for a reference point. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

new material

This new material about AS11-40-5961 doesn't make sense to me. It says that it was vertical, but the horizon is clearly tilted quite a bit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The photo is not "well leveled" - look at the horizon. Also, the writer is assuming that the camera is being pointed directly away from the Sun, and it isn't. You can stand with the Sun at your back but pan the camera left or right, which puts the shadow in the opposite side. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody is free to propose an image rotation of AS11-40-5961 so that an authentic photo results. But one has to consider the Lunar Module, the flag and the solar wind collector – and only secondarily the horizon.

No precise assumption of the direction of the sun is made. But in all cases the photographer should stand on his own shadow. If the photo were rotated about 20° counter-clockwise then the shadow would point to the photographer’s feet, which are vertically below the central crosshair. Andrew199 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It it an authentic photo. The photographer is standing on his shadow, but the feet are not in the frame. I looked through my camera out in the daylight, and you can take photos like this if the Sun is not exactly straight behind you and you are pointing the camera to the side. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are three photos from Apollo 12 taken in succession, showing how the shadow can be at the side. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• 
  AS12-46-6751
• 
  AS12-46-6752
• 
  AS12-46-6753

The left (AS12-46-6751) and the right (AS12-46-6753) photo are similar to AS11-40-5961: the photographer is standing beside his own shadow.

I have added the photographer in the following two photos – seen by an observer straight behind the camera. Only in the right photo the feet of the shadow and of the photographer coincide, but then there is something wrong with the background. Andrew199 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Photographer added
• 
  ... and additionally rotated

Where are my feet?

Here is a photo I took this morning. Where are my feet? Am I standing on my shadow? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Apollo 11 there are many photos of the landing site available, plus additional information in the Lunar Surface Journal. The fact that the photographer is standing on his own shadow is mainly derived from this general information and not only from AS11-40-5961.

To solve the puzzle “Where are my feet?” without extra information is different. The single photo shows only a small area. It could therefore have been taken in various ways: e.g. as described above, by standing on the ground and tilting the camera, but the photographer could also have been hanging upside down on a tree. Andrew199 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you are saying that the astronaut taking the photograph (Armstrong) is standing on his shadow in AS11-40-5961? Put your outline of a person on my photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: This is not a Third Opinion but is, instead, a request for clarification. On first blush, at least, this discussion appears to be more a discussion about the topic of the article than a discussion about how to improve Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's procedures, policies, and guidelines. It would appear to be trying to draw an analysis or conclusion about the photograph, rather than merely discussing what reliable secondary sources say about the photograph. It would help if you could you please explain what Wikipedia issues are involved in the foregoing discussion, since it would seem to be improper original research to give a Third Opinion merely about how to properly analyze or understand the photograph. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not propose a third opinion. The examination of AS11-40-5961 is done with basic geometry, and it is easily possible for anybody to verify it with a digital camera.

It is more a principal question whether Wikipedia shall be open for such facts even if they are contrary to the “published opinion”. Andrew199 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is about material added to the main article by Andrew199 on July 15. He is saying that photo AS11-40-5961 is fake because the photographer's feet are not directly below the center of the photograph. His reasoning that the photographer's feet must be directly below the center make no sense to me and is disproven by the other photographs. This is really more about the technical aspects of the photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Andrew199: Wikipedia may be open to such opinions, if they are published in a reliable source, but it is not open to your personal opinion or analysis. Please read the verifiability policy and it would probably be well if you also read the fringe theories guideline as well. Wikipedia is quite willing to report theories or contentions which are contrary to mainline opinion, but only if they have been reliably reported (and "reliable" is a defined term; it does not have its ordinary English meaning, click here to learn about it). Even then, however, the mainstream opinion is given primary attention. The fringe theories rule explains this much better than this quick summary and I recommend it to you. Third Opinion: The source for the assertion in the July 15 edit about this photo does not appear to me to be a reliable source, and it should therefore, in my opinion, be removed or should be {{fact}}-tagged for a few days to allow a reliable source to be added and then be deleted if a reliable source is not provided. If a reliable source is provided, then the source says what the source says; counter-assertions from other reliable sources can then be provided and the competing assertions adjusted to give proper weight. The merits of the arguments made in either the currently-suggested source or in any reliable sources which are hereafter provided are irrelevant except for purposes of weighting, and what any editor believes about those merits, theories, or arguments is not only irrelevant but also a violation of the original research policy. Discussion about those merits for any other purpose is unacceptable under the last bullet point of the Behavior that is unacceptable section of the talk page policy. If an additional opinion about whether the currently-provided source is a reliable source is desired, I would suggest making an inquiry at the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First a comparison with an accepted source: The first paragraph under “Inconsistent color and angle of shadows and light” references to clavius.org, where only various directions of the shadow are shown on a totally different photo. Clavius is obviously accepted as reliable. Aulis.com is a similar internet site.

In the actual case of AS11-40-5961 the referenced paper is published by Aulis, but here we have a clear author, Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK. This academic reference is therefore fully in line with Wikipedia Reliable Sources-policy “third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”.

As suggested I have just set-up an inquiry on the reliable sources noticeboard. Andrew199 (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to it: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Publication_from_Prof._Colin_Rourke.2C_University_of_Warwick Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has now been archived here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

@Bubba73: You have deleted the body of the article "The photographer's shadow ...". Why? Please restore it; or give a sound and official justification. The Warwick University is still a reliable source. Andrew199 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there was a clear consensus here and on the reliable source noticeboard. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for this Warwick paper was "exceedingly reliable", "appears to be …" and "review status not known". The reliability is therefore higher-than-average.

Ironically the text body with two references to NASA has been deleted and the title with the reference to the Warwick paper remained. In this way the quality of the article has massively been degraded. I therefore have restored the text body of the article.

If parts of the article were deleted again without providing a clear and official justification, and if this were tolerated by the Wikipedia administrators, my interpretation would be that Wikipedia just does not want information which is not in line with the officially published opinion. Andrew199 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstood it. They said that the University of Warwick is a reliable source, but that paper is not. Warwick did not publish that paper and I have seen nothing saying that they endorse that paper. Everyone agrees except you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Italics?

What is the role of italics in this article? Doesn't seem to be standard Wikipedia style... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The non-italicized parts in the body are the claims of conspiracy theorists (see Moon landing conspiracy theories) and the italicized part are the explanations. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Would people coming across the article likely be able to figure that out without unnecessary effort? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor made that mistake earlier this month. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Moon-Landing-Hoax.452821

  Triggered by \bsocyberty\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• The website (currently reference #53) seems to be OK, however it adds very little to the article. It seems to be used only to establish that there is a claim about the golf shot of Apollo 14. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Stars in photos, again

It is interesting to see and read about this composite photo of the Moon in eclipse and stars in the background. The Moon in eclipse is much darker than the Moon in sunlight, yet the photographer had to use a "relatively short" exposure on the Moon and a "long" exposure to get the stars. Bubba73 (talk), 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One can clearly see stars in photographs take by the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. Exhibit A: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573236main_iss028e018218_full.jpg and exhibit B: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/571133main_iss028e017197_hires_full.jpg Veritatis in lege (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) it was taken at night, not in the daytime. (2) It is a long exposure, probably around 1 minute - that trail is from a night-time rocket launch. The longer the exposure, the more light the camera exposes. Exposures on the daytime on the Moon were something like 1/125 or 1/250 of a second. So a ~60 second exposure would gather thousands of times more light than the ones taken on the Moon. (3) Modern digital cameras a much, much more sensitive to light than the film cameras of the 1960s. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the orbital speed of the ISS is 7.66km/s and in 60 seconds it travels 459.5 km, and I believe this would render long exposures so blurry that the picture would be useless. Veritatis in lege (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The blurring or not of stars is determined by the rate of change in orientation of the camera not by its linear speed. For example, the speed of the Earth around the sun is about four times the speed of the space station around the Earth and we know sharp pictures of the stars can be taken from the moving Earth. Man with two legs (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And the clouds look blurred. Maybe they fixed on the stars to compensate for motion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Veritatis in lege:

Actually it is a photo taken from the ISS of the shuttle reentering, see this and this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Or it might be a composite photo - I can't tell one way or the other. But see Compositing, Digital compositing, Photo manipulation, and Photomontage. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorically False

The following line: "Although stars would not normally be visible to the naked eye during daylight, whether from the Earth, the Moon, or in orbit" is categorically false. The only reason you cannot see the stars in daylight on Earth is due to the atmosphere. An astronaut on the Moon would only need to look away from the Sun and above the glare of the surface of the Moon (above the horizon) to see the stars. This applies to orbit as well, look away from the Sun and the direct glare of the Earth and you would see stars.

If you were to remove the atmosphere from Earth, you would see stars during the day time.

I will remove the line from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SINBODCAN (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering a new AfD

WOOO boy. This article was a hot mess in 2009, it's still a hot mess now. Is there any factual WP:RS-based Non WP:POV information in this article that is not sufficiently covered in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals? If not, I think I can make a pretty good case that this article should be deleted. If so, then I think it should be very carefully merged into the aforementioned article. Because at the present time, this article reads like a geocities page about Time Cube.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I went with a PROD instead. I'll try that and if no one objects, yay. I went ahead and merged all wiki-appropriate material into Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. Every unique piece of information that remains is either WP:OR or WP:POV in this editor's opinion. If PROD fails, I'll go ahead with a new AfD or some sort of merge request.

Because the merge already basically happened and this independent article is just a duplication of the other information with additional POV and OR, I think it's in a weird limbo in that regard. PROD or AfD would be more prudent. I'm very happy to point to specific passages in this article that meet OR or POV criteria if requested.

The main issue as I see it is that this article reads as exactly what it has been for over a decade: two different POVs edit-warring over small tiny discrepancies. Every time a new conspiracy theory is invented about the moon landing, it shows up on this page, sans reliable sources or evidence of notability. This sort of thing belongs on a forum deep in the darkweb, not here on the wiki.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't a candidate for PROD, because it was discussed at AfD in 2009. I suggest another AfD instead. VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I didn't realize PROD was invalid if an AfD had ever occurred, even 9 years ago. Will make a new AfD. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

New AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)