The Instigator
Kelvin1987
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Did America really when to the Moon?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 64508
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Kelvin1987

Con

Some people point out that some of the shadows given off by the astronauts are different in length, even though they might be standing close to each other. This might suggest that a faulty lighting system was set up on a stage somewhere, and NASA failed to notice any inconsistencies.

In video footage of the astronauts hoisting up American flags and planting them in the ground, a slight breeze appears to life up the fabric. The moon, however, shouldn't have such types of weather -- there isn't an atmosphere on the moon, so there isn't any air to blow around and ruffle the flags. Was the flag scene filmed in a drafty studio or outside? If it were a hoax, were the filmmakers just too lazy to redo the shot?

The flag was constructed specially for the moon's surface. A taut wire runs through the fabric along its top, allowing it to stand erect like a windswept flag on Earth. Without the wire, the flag would droop like any other flag hanging in space. The astronauts simply cause the flapping themselves by struggling to plant the flagpole into the ground and bumping it around.

So are these points enough to prove that the moon landings were just fakes? Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center, noted after Fox's conspiracy theory television spot that faking the moon landing and duping thousands of scientists around the world would probably be more difficult than keeping the secrets of the Manhattan Project. And on Sept. 3, 2006, the European Space Agency's (ESA) SMART-1 probe purposefully crash-landed on the surface of the moon -- before it touched down, it was taking images and data from the moon's landscape, including that of previous moon landings. The ESA hasn't released any photos or video, yet, but doubters and believers alike are waiting to see any concrete evidence of past expeditions.

I JUST ASK MY SELF IF WE WHEN TO THE MOON IN 1969 AND WE DIDNT EVEN HAVE GOOD TECHNOLOGY THAN WHY CAN'T WE GO BACK TODAY ?
bladerunner060

Pro

Okie doke. Since Con hasn't set up any rules, I'm presuming I can address his R1 statements. Given he's the Instigator, I also presume he's got the BoP, here, to prove that "America [didn't really] when to the moon", which I'm further assuming means "Go to the moon".

So: Con is asserting that we did not go to the moon, despite the evidence to the contrary. It's up to me to debunk the hoax questions.

Now, first off, it's worth noting that Pro plagiarized most of R1. He took it, it at least appears, from:

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

And looking at that source, which he plagiarized from, the first paragraph has, in the original, another paragraph that follows it:

"Scientists argue that the photos were taken on rough, hilly landscapes, which are bound to produce all kinds of wacky shadow lengths no matter where you stand. If you take a picture on a snow-covered hill, for instance, the same kind of effect will likely take place."

Uneven ground results in shadows being inconsistent, as the ground blocks and reflects light differently, being uneven.

Con's second paragraph is rebutted by his third, meaning that I don't think it needs further addressing.

His fourth paragraph talks about a probe sent that took images. The images haven't been released per the copy/pasted words, and so aren't really relevant to the debate.

Now, in actuality, that article is from at least 2011, going by the comments at the bottom, where the earliest I saw was from 2011. The images from SMART-1 were released, but were unable to show the Apollo landing sites due to low resolution. They did release an image showing the area of the Apollo 11 landing [3], but as already noted it wasn't expected that the resolution would be able to provide images of the actual lander. NASA's LRO has images of the lander and various other signs of our presence there [4]. And there's an abundance of 3rd party witnesses to the various moon missions [2]. I could go on at length about the Jaxa findings of disturbed lunar soil, but instead I'm going to talk about lunar retroreflectors.

Retroreflectors were left behind by various lunar missions, and can still be used today [5]. You can, if you have the proper equipment, fire a laser at the moon and get it to bounce back after hitting one of the reflectors. This is only possible because of the reflectors, and is evidence of their presence... their presence as a result of being placed there during lunar missions.

So what we have on the Pro side is, pictures from the moon landing that are consistent with being actual pictures from the moon, third party observers who watched it happen, the sheer magnitude of the necessary conspiracy, physical evidence that's left behind (whose effects can be experienced on earth).

In opposition to the notion that we went to the moon, we have no evidence whatsoever--or at least, no credible evidence. Con certainly hasn't yet presented any, particularly given the source he plagiarized off doesn't agree with him.

Con closes with the all-caps question:

"I JUST ASK MY SELF IF WE WHEN TO THE MOON IN 1969 AND WE DIDNT EVEN HAVE GOOD TECHNOLOGY THAN WHY CAN'T WE GO BACK TODAY ?"

He's offered no evidence we CAN'T go back--and indeed, I would argue, we CAN. We won't go back any time soon because we've been there, and there's nothing new to learn there that justifies the expense.

In 1966, NASA took up 4.4% of the federal budget. These days it's closer to 0.5% [1]. Con may as well ask a man who lost what was a lucrative job "i JUST ASK IF YOU'VE EVER HAD FILET MIGNON, WHY ISN'T THERE ANY IN YOUR FRIDGE RIGHT NOW ?"

Con has the BoP, here. As Con didn't offer any evidence, and precious little that he didn't steal from other sources without citing, I'll close this round, and wait for my opponent to offer any evidence for his position. I will also call on my opponent to not plagiarize any further.

Thanks.

[1] http://www.extremetech.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.esa.int...
[4] http://www.nasa.gov...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Kelvin1987

Con

Kelvin1987 forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Pro

It is unfortunate that my opponent chose to forfeit the round. Here's hoping he comes back next round to address the issues I raised in the last one...for now though, I think they stand.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelvin1987

Con

Kelvin1987 forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Pro

It is unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited again. Once more, I think my points stand, and hope my opponent comes back to continue the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Kelvin1987

Con

Kelvin1987 forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Pro

Welp, it's unfortunate that my opponent's forfeited yet again. I still think my points stand; my opponent has one more round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kelvin1987

Con

Kelvin1987 forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Pro

Welp, that's the end of the debate.

It's unfortunate that my opponent chose to never participate except for the plagiarized R1. I think my responses stand; my opponent seems to have clearly failed in his BoP. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to check out this debate and vote.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
Call me what you want but I am still not convinced they went to the moon, seriously, it took a work force of thousands of men to fly them there and then they are just expected to glide back to earth. It just doesn't seem right.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
America is pretty large, it would require very large rockets to lift it into space.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
@RevNge:

Yeah, but only because it's a conspiracy theorist. They're more hit-or-miss on whether they'll actually follow-through...though I think the more recent ones (like, say, 9/11 truthers) are a bit more passionate.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
#noobsnipe
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
http://www.moonlandinghoax.org...
check it out all the evidenced you need
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
Mythbusters did an episode on this a while back. They do a pretty good job of debunking all of the supposed "proofs" that the moon landing was a fake. I don't have an actual link, but it shouldn't be that hard to find on youtube.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
Kelvin1987bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a no show from Con, An automatic win for Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Kelvin1987bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Kelvin1987bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF + Plagiarism is a very good way to get in my wrong books.