This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Daily Page Views of Mainspace Article
|
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)
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)
It is clearly sourced from webarchive log, it is not a POV
-- Eric144 ( talk) 18:24, 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)
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)
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)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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:
- 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. [1]
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.
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 a reliable 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 19:31, 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)
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...
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.
This isn't being done by a bot... and as I say above, other sections will be questioned and if needed deleted.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
-- LexCorp ( talk) 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
\bsocyberty\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
New AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Daily Page Views of Mainspace Article
|
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)
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)
It is clearly sourced from webarchive log, it is not a POV
-- Eric144 ( talk) 18:24, 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)
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)
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)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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:
- 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. [1]
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.
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 a reliable 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Eric144 ( talk) 19:31, 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)
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...
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.
This isn't being done by a bot... and as I say above, other sections will be questioned and if needed deleted.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
-- LexCorp ( talk) 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
\bsocyberty\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
New AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination) -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)