|
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Justin Waller| by creating the page [[:Justin Waller]]}}. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.<!-- Template:Test1article (first level warning) --> [[User:Korg|Korg]] <small>(''[[User talk:Korg|talk]]'')</small> 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
{{oldafdfull|date=2007-02-07|page=Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings|result='''Keep'''}}
== Who can deliver '''independent''' evidence for human Moon landings?? ==
If you put on your critical (paranoid) glasses:
*<s>[[Russia]]</s> Russia is dependent of NASA aid.
::When did the Soviets receive NASA aid? Of course, it seems like you don't know the difference between the Soviets and the Russians - it was the Soviets who tracked the Apollo missions, although some of them were Russians too! [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I meant present and future '''Russian''' lunar missions, NOT Soviet. If Russia launched a moon probe tomorrow, they would not be an independent source, because of their collaboration with NASA. [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:Well that's all speculation. The Soviets, if Apollo took place, should have tracked it - there should be evidence of this if it happened, no? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
*<s>Japanese [[JAXA]] — [[LUNAR-A]]</s> JAXA needs NASA space shuttles to deliver ''Kibo'' to ISS.
*<s>European [[ESA]] — [[SMART-1]]</s> ESA needs NASA space shuttles to deliver ''Columbus'' to ISS.
*Chinese [[Chang'e]]-1
*<s>Indian [[Chandrayaan-1]]</s> India needs USA for economic help.
*<s>DoD Clementine 2</s> DoD is full of MiB.
*<s>[[Iran]] — ''[[Ayatollah Khomeini]]-1'' moon probe</s>, remember [[Irangate]].
*[[Al-Qaeda]] — Osama bin Laden-1 moon probe.<br />
--[[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
: How about the radio telescope in Australia that received video and data? As far as I know, they were independent of NASA. NASA had a radio station in Australia, but it was not as powerful as the one at the Australian Observatory. Also, there were several other missions that were seen by amateur astronomers. In fact, on Apollo 13 NASA was having trouble tracking it (it was straying off course) on the way back and called upon amateur astronomers to help get a fix on it, and many answered the call. <s>Also, [[Clementine]] was not a NASA project.</s> [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Bubba - I added a section for Australia - any clues about this would be great! [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:: And [[Moon rock]]s examined by hundreds of independent scientists. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:Please, feel free to add these things. Although clearly, the 'Moon rocks' are presented by NASA. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 02:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a note about [[Jodrell Bank]] observing the Apollo 11 landing. I think that they're about as unbiased and independent as you can get. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:You've added a note about a documentary from the BBC - any chance of something direct from JB? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
== reflectors ==
Since this article is about independent evidence, it would be good to provide some indepedent evidence that NASA's retroflectors got to the Moon in some way ''other'' than on Apollo missions. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:This is an article about evidence ''for'' the landings. Evidence against it goes in the accusations article. This should be nothing to do with the hoax - just evidence. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
== Purpose of this article. ==
Could someone explain the purpose of this article (stub?) before someone puts it up for deletion? [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Very good question. I'd like to know the answer too. [[User:MLilburne|MLilburne]] 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::I am very worried that this is going to turn into a big mess. For instance; can we cite russian evidence? Or is this also part of the conspiracy? We could note that that the russian samples obtained from the luna missions are very similar in composition to the Apollo samples (both of which are unlike terrestrial samples). However, one could argue that the Americans only obtained these samples roboticaly! But, one could show NASA images showing the picture of the sample being collected on the surface, and pictures of the same sample in lunar receiving lab. But this evidence will be omitted by this article!
::It should also be noted that the only means (besides LLR) to directly verify that the Apollo landed on the Moon would be to show pictures taken by another spacecraft. However, the only spacecraft to have imaged the Moon were run by NASA, or the russians, and the later russian missions didn't image the Moon globally. Therefore, by default, if one throws out all the NASA evidence, there is NO evidence. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:The purpose is to list the independent evidence for the Moon landing. There appears to be quite a lot, but I don't think it has been assembled anywhere. In itself, this is nothing to do with the hoax claims, although one of the key claims of hoax proponents is that there is very little independent evidence. Many people have asked what independent evidence there is. Having an article that lists it will be very helpful to anyone interested in this issue. Of course Russian evidence could be cited. There can be a sister article for NASA evidence if people are concerned about bias. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::In my opinion, the whole idea of distinguishing between "NASA evidence" and "independent evidence" is flawed. You say that it hasn't been done before, and I agree. So why hasn't it been done before? Likely because it's not a fruitful approach. The whole idea is getting perilously close to OR. [[User:MLilburne|MLilburne]] 07:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::: I am leaning towards proposing that this be merged with [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]]. It just seems to me that if you disregard all US goverment related information, that there probably is no evidence. As the previous poster noted, if this information has not already been assembled in a reputable source, this topic would constitute original research. Could someone supply a single reputable publication that we could all examine before deciding what to do with this article? [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I disagree the merger proposal since the [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]] recently has been labelled "This article is becoming very long". [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yet even if you believe that subarticles are necessary (and I personally believe that the main article could be written a lot more tightly), it doesn't stand to reason that this particular subarticle ought therefore to exist. [[User:MLilburne|MLilburne]] 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Whyever should it not exist? There are many claims by landing believers that there is a lot of evidence for the landing. There does, in fact, appear to be a lot of observations of the orbiters and translunar flights, radio tracking etc. The issue of independent confirmation is central to the scientific method. There is absolutely no reason not to collate this information, especially given the amount of discussion on the talk page about the existence or not of this information. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
== Proposed merge with [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]] ==
I am proposing that we merge the content of this article (which is almost zero content) into [[Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations]]. I give the following three reasons
#The restriction that this article use "Independent evidence for human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" makes this article pointless. There are no data that currently exist that can prove that humans walked on the Moon if we disregard all evidence collected by US govermental agencies.
#As the article states, the only way to prove that men walked on the Moon is to take images of "foot prints" from orbit. These data do not yet exist, and will not exist for a very very long time. All other evidence can be ascribed to "robotic landings" (perhaps bringing back samples as did the russian Luna programme).
#A clever crackpot will always be able to come up with a non-sensical argument as to why the information of this page is part of a bigger conspiracy. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
* I '''support''' the merger for the reasons that I've given above. [[User:MLilburne|MLilburne]] 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
* Oppose - that article is already too long, and this is not about the hoax directly. There are other who are interested in evidence for the landings. Wahkeenah and others have disputed that there is no independent evidence for human landings, and I am certain that they will be able to find some. The evidence for the orbital and translunar elements are likewise of general interest. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
: You don't seem to understand that there is ''nothing'' to merge. It is very odd that someone would create a page call "independent evidence for human Moon landings" but then not give any evidence. I am still waiting for a singe reputable source that can be referenced for this article giving evidence unrelated to US governmental agencies that the Moon landings actually happened. As for the evidence fo the "orbital and translunar elements", what is the evidence that there were people on board? [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment: This page was just renamed from [[Independent evidence for human Moon landings]] to [[Independent evidence for Moon landings]] by [[User:Gravitor]].''' [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I hereby withdraw my nomination given the fact that this page was renamed. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
==Please explain purpose of this article==
Please explain the purpose of this new article. I am inclined to nominate it for deletion. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:To list the independent evidence for, and observation of, the Apollo programs. There is frequent discussion, and common requests for this. It could conceivably go on the Apollo hoax page, except that it is not to do with the hoax directly - others are interested, and that page is already too long. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
::You need to demonstrate that this topic is "Notable" (see [[WP:Notability]]). In particular, are there a number of reputable sources (or numerous irreputable web sites) that are claiming human kind DID NOT land any type of artificial object on the Moon's surface? Or is it OK to say that Ranger, Surveryor, and Luna landed on the Moon, but that Apollo was neither robotic or human? '''Please give me one reputable source that indicates ''independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings'' is a notable subject'''. If there is not a single reference, then this topic can not be in wikipedia based on [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:NOP|no original research grounds]]. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Everything in it is verifiable, and well sourced. There is no orignal research. I think you are trying to make the case that compiling it in a list is original research, in which case, you need to re-read that policy. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment: This page has been renamed from [[Independent evidence for Moon landings]] to [[Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings]] by [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]].''' Please discuss renaming a talk topic on the talk page before making such a drastic editorial decission. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 11:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:Keep your pants on, it's hardly 'drastic', and was in response to your frenzied criticism. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, it is drastic. It makes a big difference to the content of the article, and it makes a big difference to the purpose of the article, whose notability as a topic in itself still hasn't been established. [[User:MLilburne|MLilburne]] 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:Well, what would you like to call it? You don't think that there are many, many publications that discuss the evidence for the Apollo landings? Take a look at the references section of the Project Apollo or Apollo hoax site. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
==Explain this section: Evidence of human landing==
Here is the content: '''No independent evidence of human landing currently exists - see future plans for missions that might, in the future, provide this.'''
The assumption is obvious, that a exhaustive and unbiased survey of all possible evidence has been conducted, but it is unsourced and unsupported. However, since we've have included it, doesn't this kind of content support this article's inclusion in/merger with the set of articles surrounding the apollo moon hoax? Clearly this article is a response to various questions raised there. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
: I orginally placed the banner "unsourced" over this section, but this was removed by [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]]. He has shown a very high level of academic scholarship in writing this article, and by [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], I can only conclude that no evidence exists. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to be pedantic, but unless he is both omniniscient and a rocket scientist then the claim should be softened - or at the very least cited. Assuming such a specific and sweeping statement is true based on perceived credibility of a given wiki-editor is obviously insufficiently comvincing. My purpose in questioning the section though really went to the point of this article - which seems to be an appendix of the moon hoax articles. Why else include such a sweeping statement? Why claim that you've proved a negative when both the proof and the claim are highly suspect? This whole article, as presented, is a violation of [[wp:point]]. The majority of the the evidence is a implicit (and purposely declawed)counter to the various hoax claims. Look at the original sources. Wikipedia is not the place for stealth POV pushing. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::This should not be removed. If it helps you, we can cite the opinion of a hoax proponent who claims that there is no evidence, and any evidence that pro landing folks want to use to refute that. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
: Someone should do that. Until then I've removed both sentences in that vital section. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::I added the assertion that there is no evidence - I am sure there is plenty to refute it. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== proposed deletion of section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon" ==
I propose to delete the section "Evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit and / or on the way to the Moon" as this has nothing to do with the topic of "Moon landings". This evidence should be presented in an article called [[Evidence for the Apollo program]]. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
: Perhaps [[Independent evidence of Apollo spacecraft in orbit or on the way to the Moon]] is a better title? [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course this should not be deleted. Evidence of the craft in orbit is part of the story of the Moon landings. This is further evidence of your bad faith. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::No, that presupposes that there is only evidence for that. There is some evidence of the lander's presence on the moon, and I hold out hope that Wahkeenah may add the evidence he claims exists for human landing. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== deinition ==
"''By "independent evidence", this is generally understood to mean evidence that has not been presented by (1) NASA, (2) any of NASA's subcontractors, (3) any of the scientists or engineers that have worked for, or have been funded by, NASA, (4) any US government employee, and (5) any person or organization that has benefited from a collaboration with NASA or a US govenerment agency.''" - who added this? Where does it come from? Can we source it? This page is not about the hoax, so I don't know why the hoax stuff is in there. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
== The title of this article ==
I think that the title of this article is going to cause endless confusion and debate. In particular, consider the following questions:
* Is this article only about the "Moon landings" (as is in the title), or does it also include all Apollo missions (such as Apollo 8 and 13 that are listed in this article)?
* Is this article about presenting "evidence" that may be used to prove or disprove the hoax accusations, or is it about "observations" that might be interesting from a historical perspective?
Gravitor is claiming that this article has nothing to do with the hoax claims, and if this is true, then a more natural title might replace "evidence" with "observations". In this case, we should a priori assume that the Moon landings actually occurred, and present the data as "supplementary" to NASA's claims. Second, as this article discusses Apollo 8 and 13, we should probably replace "moon landings" with "Apollo missions". I don't have a perfect title as a replacement (as I still do not understand the purpose of this article), but something like [[Independent observations of the Apollo missions]], [[Amateur observations of the Apollo missions]], or [[Independent tracking of the Apollo missions]] might be better.
Without such a name change, I fear that this is just going to be a splinter article of the moon landing hoax page. Gravitor does not want the moon hoax mentioned in this article, but in my opinion, with the current title, we are obligated to under NPOV and POV-fork requirements to do so. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:: There is indeed some confusion concerning the scope of this article. See Gravitor's reply in the section "Explain this section: Evidence of human landing" of this page where he advocates inclusion of hoax related material to support the zero evidence statements, albeit grudgingly. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] ([[User talk:Numskll|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Numskll|contribs]]) 15:29, 12 February 2:007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:This page is not about the hoax. It is simply about the evidence for the Apollo landings. I highly doubt that the hoax proponents are the only, or most relevant sources on evidence for human landing, but if they are, then they should go in. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Gravitor, did you actually read what I wrote before responding? If this page is not about the hoax, then we should rename it. The phrase "independent evidence" implies that NASA's envidence is not to be believed. What do you think of my specific proposals? Please give specific comments on each describing why you like or disike them. Otherwise I will rename the page myself without your input. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Calm down and stop behaving like you own the page. The title is fine. Asking for independent confirmation is scientific method, it does not imply a lack of trust. [[User:Carfiend|Carfiend]] 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
==Numbskull - why do you keep trying to make this into a hoax page?==
Evidence for the landings has nothing to do with the hoax. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:: actually it is a part of the cluster of apollo moon hoax articles. It is clear by the way Sibrel's view guides the first and nearly eponymous section of the article -- though it woulds seem more natural to just make that the intro --seems more direct, less POV. I'm not sure why you want to keep him out. Your reluctance to define the scope of independant evidence is also puzzling. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing. It is a placeholder - I expect better sources to be added. It should definitely NOT be used as an introduction to the article. Please replace it with something better. The definition of independence is discussed in the article. It is certainly more NPOV to simply describe the evidence, rather than the motives of individuals. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::: ''The Sibrel comment is the best I could find about evidence for the human landing.'' repeated for emphasis. The Sibrel quote states the reason for this articles existance. You dug it up. Be reasonable. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:No, I think it's about the worst possible quote. I could not find another. Please replace it with something better. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: to wit: "The result was Keep; possible merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations -- please work out whether to merge and if so, how, on Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. —[[User:Quarl]] 2007-02-11 12:07Z" [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 04:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, that's odd, considering there is no direct link. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Now we have ''one'' hoax quote. It is about human landing - when we have a better one, please remove it. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Why even include it? It's POV. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Then let's take it out. But then provide something to describe the evidence for the human landing. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Numbskull - please use the talk page rather than reverting. There are NO hoax refs on this page now. Please stop reverting and talk about it. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
: Gravytur, You're the one who just had a little hissy fit and started deleting valid content like crazy (all without comment here I might add). You're not the owner of this article and this isn't the place for you to prove some point. You need to chill. Also, it would be nice if your comments here reflected what you actualy have done on this article rather than whatever you want other editors to do. Wikipedia isn't designed to support double standards. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::I would probably be leaning toward Gravitor's version of the article, if I weren't so suspicious of his motives (let alone his overly-defensive attitude). To say it has nothing to do with the hoax allegations is absurd, as this article wouldn't exist without the other one. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you. The purpose is to provide a convenient list of the independent evidence for the landings. It's not about the hoax, it's about the landings. My POV about the landings is not relevant to this article, and the list of evidence should not be couched in the point of view of any individuals. It's just a list. Of course there is ''some'' relationship between the hoax and the list, but they are not causally related. The evidence presented is not presented by hoax proponents, it is presented by astronomers who (I think) believe in the landings. I am not sure why Lonokod wants to turn it into a rehash of the hoax page. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::just guessing but perhaps it's you're insistence in quoting hoax proponents, including pro hoax editorializing and your the inconsistency between what you say in talk and od on the page. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:?You are not making sense. Please explain you justification for the mess you are making. This is NOT a hoax article. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::you're being inconsistent. please chill. Stop blindly reverting to your preferred version. Justify your POV pushing and your sense of ownership of this topic. justify repeated deletion of valid content. You're making perfect sense for a hoax zealot.[[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:It's pretty clear to the rest of us Numskull - Bart Sibrel has nothing to do with evidence for the landings. Please explain ''yourself''. [[User:Carfiend|Carfiend]] 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== Gravitor - Please stop going crazy and violating the 3RR, kthnks ===
Dude, get a grip. You don't own this space. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Neither do you Numskull - please explain why you keep inserting irrelevant material into this page. Bart Sibrel has presented precisely no evidence for the landings. Why would we want to open with him? [[User:Carfiend|Carfiend]] 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Hey, you used the wrong login again. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like you did too, Bubba. Again, you manage to elevate the level of discussion. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Well, the admin has found that you two are not on the same IP subnet, so apparently you're not the same guy; it's just that your respective M.O.'s (such as the specific wording of the above comment), your similar time frames of activity, and your similar one-subject editing, make y'all sound like you were separated at birth. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Good, then that's settled. Did the admin check you and Bubba / Numbskull / Lunokod? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Did you ask him to? [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:For the record Gravitor inserted and reinserted the Sibrel quote as the only sentence in the first section of the article. This section had a label that was extremely close to the title of the article. Thus, if you've been paying attention Gravitor insisted that it was vital to be the second sentence in the article. When I deleted the redundant nearly eponymous heading and placed the sentence in the introduction. He freaked and reverted back to his prefered version. There is some consensus that this article is a sub of the apollo mooon ohax accusations article. But I've wrote all that before and I've had discussion with Gravyfiend before and I know how they behave. So I've no expectation they they/shim will give this response anymore than a passing thought and reflexive reply. But at least I've attempted to make a case and respect consensus. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'll also note that the introduction i've put forward makes no mention of the hoax. But, in the eyes of the pro-hoaxers, it wasn't invented by this article's owner so it can't stay. This whole thing is a replay of Carvitor's behavior last summer.[[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:: You know I've just realized that the text I added contains ''no assertion about the moon hoax whatsoever.'' None The Sibrel quote, as I've said, was Gravyfiend's. My stylistically superior additions only added context (e.g. sibrel is a documentary film maker not but a vaguely decribed "critic") absolutely no mention of the hoax. None. And for that Carvitor feels justified by repeated blanket reverts. How childish. If Sibrel isn't supporting your being used to prop up GravyCarvihorfiend's (oh what's the use . .. ) tunnel-visioned POV he's invalid. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Is that tirade supposed to be anything other than personal abuse and inaccurate accusations? This page has nothing to do with the hoax. You know my POV on the hoax, I think that Bart Sibrel is right. If I were pushing my own POV I would be trying to frame this page in terms of how Bart Sibrel is right. I am not. I am trying to keep it neutral - a list of evidence. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You included the Sibrel quote as I've decribed and a bunch of pro hoax comments as I have also described. Your issue, apparently, was my placing the quote in context which you're apparently against. Don't behave like a hypocrite. Also it is very typical of you to focus on everything BUT the content of my post. thanks for that. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
== Call for editor consensus: Is this article related to the HOAX? And should it be mentioned in this article? ==
Gravitor has been making unilateral deletions and reverts to this page under the guise that anything related to the "hoax" is not permitted here. I would like to determine the consensus of the editors who are involved with this article: Does the "hoax" merit discussion on this article?
'''Yes''': This article is directly related to the HOAX. Nevertheless, it is also useful for non-hoax people. Both communities should be served. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
''' Yes''': The whole thing is framed in the hoax discussion. Simply presenting an undifferiented and acontextual list is a typically dishonest hoax topic. This article should not be a crutch to prop up hoax claims elsewhere - as Gravitor seem to wish it.'' [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''who is this?''' [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Please identify youself. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Chill the ID is in edit the edit history [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Yes''': The only reason for the article's existence is the constant (and false) complaint by NASA skeptics that NASA is the only source of information for the Moon landings. It's effectively a spinoff of that article, on which the discussion about this article began originally. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Not true. The two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::It's a spinoff from the hoax article. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That's not really relevant though - the two largest sources of evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers, not hoax theorist. While hoax theorist might ask for evidence (and a sentence somewhere mentioning that might not be inappropriate) they are not a large part of the story of generating it, nor are these observatories and astronomers substantially motivated by the hoax accusations. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::The sources of the ''complaints'' are hoaxsters (such as Gravitor and/or Carfiend), and those complaints are the reason for this page's existence. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'''No''': This is a blatant attempt by pro-NASA editors to imply that anyone who is interested in evidence is obviously a pro-hoax looney. The opposite is true. No one who is sited on this page is a hoax proponent - they are '''all''' landing believers. The origin of this page is not the point - the content is. [[User:Carfiend|Carfiend]] 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'''No''': Evidence for the landings are not directly related to the hoax. Certainly it is not the case that the only person who wants to see who observed the craft is orbit is Bart Sibrel. In fact, the one thing that sets Bart Sibrel aside from every source on this page is that he has presented '''no evidence''' for the landings. This page is a list of evidence, not a discussion of Bart Sibrel and his hoax theory. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Please explain why you previously insisted on including him (but only exactly as you thought appropriate) then? Oh, you wanted to push your POV and still claim NPOV? That doesn't work when everyone can see your edit history. sorry. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::I did not ''insist'' - I included him at someone (I think your) request for a comment on evidence for human landing. I said at the time I thought it was a poor source and should be replaced asap. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::: You did insist right up to the moment I placed him in context. Then you freaked. You know it wasn't me asking for that evidnece and it wasn't evidence in the first place but a claim about its absence. Shame. Shame. Why be so dishonest when it is simple to check? what do you bleive you gain other than a bad reputation[[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, it was someone who behaves and sounds exactly like you. It's easy to confuse the different accounts that you have. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::This is not the place to make sock-puppet accusations. See [[WP:SOCK]] for guidance on how to proceed. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::He won't take it to an admin, he's just jerking us around. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of somethng? Please be clear. Oh, that was simply another dishonest deflection. Rats! I'm caught feeding the trolls again. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Likewise. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::: still can't be honest? Is it not in you? Doesn't your alleged quest for the truth include actually speaking it? That's not the truth you want? LOL [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Yes''', it is related to the hoax. "Independent evidence" has been discussed on the hoax talk page for months, and this article was first proposed there. As far as I can tell, it is only hoax proponents who demand "independent evidence". [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::Fortunately, Wikipedia does not sort topics based on how they are discussed on the talk page. Please see below for the reasons why this is NOT a hoax page. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Its genesis was commentary on the hoax page suggesting that this article be written. I don't know what you mean by "wikipedia does not sort topics". Wikipedia doesn't do anything. Editors do. And the hoax talk page is where this page came from. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
== Disruptive editing ==
Gravitor, your editing is becoming very disruptive. Please explain why the material that you deleted does not deserve to be mentioned in this article. Before removing several paragraphs of material, it is common courtesy to exaplain why you did this on the talk pages. See [[WP:Civility]].
"The existence of Moon rocks" can be used as independent proof of the Apollo manned landings, as was described in the text you deleted. In particular, all scientists (independent ones too) agree that they are from the Moon. The argument that these are not Moon rocks is countered by similarities to Luna samples. The argument that they are robotic (or lunar meteorites) is countered by the sheer mass of samples that NASA has given independent scientists to analyze. We can give both sides of the debate. Please feel free to exapnd the text if your POV is not adequately described. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:It's been talked about on the page. Your relentless attempts to turn this into a rehash of the hoax page is what is disruptive. If you want to add independent analysis of the moon rocks, then do that, but if it is embedded in lots of nonsense about Bart Sibrel it risks getting reverted. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::The Moon rock section had nothing to do with Bart Sibrel, and I did not add this person's name (in fact I DELETED IT; it should not be in the intro, but a citation to him could). Your revert was unilateral, and you did not look at the edit history to determine what had and had not been added. You arbitrarily reverted to your previous version of the article, even though much had been added by several editors since this version. This is very disruptive, and if it continues, will be dealt with administratively. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Did you read what I wrote? Could you please specify as to what you think is irrelevant? Be specific please. If I was not neutral, I would say "the moon rocks provided by nasa proves that they went to the Moon. Independent analysis shows that they are really from the Moon." As this is not neutral, I added that one could say that the Moon rocks are faked, and I gave evidence as to why this is probably not the case. This is called taking a "neutral point of view". Please familiarize yourself with this wiki policy: [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Why not try adding the evidence without masses of irrelevant stuff about hoax theories? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Please be specific. What exactly is irrelevant as to whether the Apollo Moon rocks are independent evidence or not? [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Please read posts before responding to them. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
== Step-by-step : Working on the introductory paragraph ==
OK, let's step back from the poo-flinging by everyone, deserved or not, and start at the beginning.
Here is my proposal for the introductory paragraph (modified version of what I originally had):
:'''Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings''', meaning evidence that did not originate with [[NASA]], would be an important link an a chain of proof demonstrating that the [[Apollo Program]] successfully landed astronauts on the Moon, if the evidence was reliable and trustworthy. For proponents of the theory that the [[Apollo Moon landing|Moon landings]] did not happen, a perceived absence of independent evidence casts doubt upon NASA's methodology and claims. However, independent evidence for various aspects of the Moon landings has been gathered by a wide range of investigators and observers.
This paragraph (1) doesn't use the word hoax (2) No longer has any reference to Bart Sibrel, even via link (3) Has the title of the article near the front (as per [[WP:MOS]]) (4) Establishes what the article is about, and (5) Establishes notability, necessary for the existence of the article.
Okay, people, Yes? No? Changes? and most importantly, Why? -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:OK. First, thanks for the suggestion to step back. I will present to you why I am 100% against opening with a paragraph about Bart Sibrel and the hoax:
:1. Not one piece of evidence on the page is presented by Bart Sibrel or any hoax proponent (or "''proponents of the theory that the Moon landings did not happen''). None of the sources that the evidence come from have anything to do with the hoax.
:2. Not one piece of evidence on the page was collected as a rebuttal to the hoax. In fact, nearly all of it (perhaps all) was collected ''before the hoax accusations were even made''. To present this as part of a back-and-forth between the hoax proponents and landing defenders is a gross misrepresentation.
:3. The people who collected this evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers. They collected it for their own reasons, certainly not as part of the hoax discussion.
:4 The discussions on Wikipedia that produced this page are not a good reason to structure the information.
:In summary - this is not a hoax page. A sentence to say that the hoax proponents reference a lack of evidence is one thing, but an opening paragraph that sets it in the context of the hoax is utterly misleading. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
**OK, since the paragraph above seems to meet your requirements, I'm going to put in as the opening paragraph, especially since each of the two choices being reverted between have issues. This need not be the final version, but I think it's a good start. -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No, it really doesn't. It still puts the issue in the context of a discussion about the veractiy of the landing. That has nothing to do with it. Why even go there? Why not simply say the facts? [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Yes''' The context of this topic is the hoax discusion. I'll note again that gravitor has included a notable amount of pro hoax editorializing as well as the Sibrel quote he's so rabidly opposed to prior to other editors setting those items into a relativley NPOV context (example Bart Sibrel was simply a 'critic' too gravitor. He's dead set afgainst him being labeled anything so perjorative as documentray filmmaker) Also furing the recent AFD discussion some degree of consensus was reached to make this article a sub of the Moon Hoax article. [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see how that responds in any way to Gravitor's legitimate complaints. Please at least try to look as though you are ''trying'' to be constructive. [[User:Carfiend|Carfiend]] 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::Quite. No response to the issues I raised. AFD discussion and talk page discussions should not be used to frame issues. If you and I decide, while discussing the bubble gum page, to form a new page on quantum physics, that does not mean that the physics page should be framed in terms of bubble gum. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::: I was simply responding to the poll. My reply wasn't directed at Gravitor's response to the poll. The poll prompt didn't say I was supposed to respond to whatever Gravitor said. Did I do it wrong? [[User:Numskll|Numskll]] 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yes. [[User:Gravitor|Gravitor]] 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
| 