The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Did Man Land on the Moon?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,153 times Debate No: 70503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




There is no wind on the moon. Because there is no wind on the moon, it would not have been possible for the flag to wave like it did. It must have been recorded in a studio with a breeze flowing.

It is such a big secret; no-one would give it away. Nobody would give away a secret like one that states that nobody has ever really been to space, it would be such a big deal. This leads me to the main point...

Anyone who knew about the secret wouldn't tell, probably because of the fear of getting in trouble if they did. Nobody who would have pretended to go to space or was part of the faked studio recording would dare tell a secret like that. It would really spoil astronauts' reputations and destroy the whole prospect of man being able to go into space. No one would spoil a secret like that and would most likely be in the fear of NASA getting humiliated and shamed by the media.

It is probably better that, if the 1969 moon landing really was faked, nobody found out because it would really spoil the spirit of the whole world about space travel and technology.

No-one has been to the moon for over 36 years. Yes, it is true, not one person has "been to the moon" for over 36 years. If they were supposedly able to in 1969 and 1971, why haven't they recently? Man was said to have been twice in 1969 and once more in 1972. Since then, there have been no more missions to the moon. I think that the reason for this is that NASA are scared of the public finding out that the moon landing was faked and if anyone caught them filming a pretend Apollo mission in a studio the world would find out and that would be bad for everyone (except the media).

Nobody has ever proven the "space rocks" were from space. Many things have been supposedly brought back from the moon, but nobody has proven that they really were from space. Things like moon rocks could be anything, but most people just believe they were from the moon. No scientific investigations have been done to see if the rock really was from the moon and it could have been picked up off the ground and claimed to be from the moon. That kind of hoax is easy to conduct and people just believe what they hear about "moon rocks" without thinking that it might not really be from the moon.

The Nixon Government didn't want to disappoint taxpayers - The US President in 1961 promised that Americans would be on the moon by the end of the decade, trying to keep up with Russian technology. It is interesting how this only happened in the second half of the last year promised. The US Government had spent a lot of money trying to get man into space. Time was running short and the Government didn't want to disappoint taxpayers. In desperation, NASA simply recorded the moon landing in a studio to stick to the Government's promise.

Some other reasons to back up my argument include;

1. There were two astronauts on the moon at a time yet you can see the 2nd in the visor of the first and he has no camera.

2. There are no stars in the pictures, this is space, we can see stars from earth so why not the moon?

3. The land the module is sitting on is reasonably undisturbed, the decent and landing with the firing of thrusters should have kicked up alot of dust and left a crater.

4. Shadows look wierd, they are inconsistent, not always in parallel, some objects in shadow appear well lit.

5. Footprints are too clear

6. There are mysterious reflections

I would like to see my opponent's argument as this pretty much destroys his/her's argument!


I accept.

The basis of my argument will be to refute Con's points about the faking of the moon landing.

To refute the first paragraph: in the video, you can see that on the flagpole, there is a support beam, therefore supporting the flag. The only instance in which the flag was "waving" was when they were setting it up, however that momentum was from the astronaut pushing against the flagpole.

I agree with Con's point that no one would give it away if it WERE faked, however I believe it was not faked, so people had no reason to give the "secret" away. It would be a HUGE deal if it were faked.

Con has no evidence supporting the claim that "anyone who knew about the secret wouldn't tell." I agree that telling the "secret" WOULD have spoiled reputations, but again you have no proof that no one would have told if it were faked. You can never be sure.

The reason that NASA has not returned to the moon is because of financial issues. In the 1960's, we were participating in the Cold War. The government was funding the Apollo program to win the space race. However, nowadays we have nothing funding the Apollo programs, as well as having the space shuttles retired. We no longer have something to inspire enthusiasm in going to the moon again, not like what we had in the 60's.

A source from a website: The space race today is a global competition that has driven the price of going to the moon in dramatic fashion. Not only has the toll increased financially, but the man-power needed for operation today demands long hours and stressful working conditions. In the 1960"s the average age of a NASA employee working on the Apollo missions was 28 years of age, with over 400,000 workers combing their efforts for Apollo 11 alone. It was reported that space-suit seamstresses worked 100 hours a week for nine years. A NASA operation to land on the Moon today would cost the U.S. over $200 billion dollars, a feat NASA is not prepared for.

NASA has plans to send people to the Martian planet Mars, an even greater task then sending another landing mission to the Moon. The truth behind NASA not returning to the Moon, is not hostile alien bases or government conspiracy, but lack of funding and the fiscal realities surrounding landing another person on the moon. The truth is, landing rovers on these terrestrial surfaces is significantly more cost effective, not having to feed robots, or worrying about their radiation exposure levels. The 18 month journey required to reach Mars poses lethal radiation exposures to NASA astronauts, scientists are galvanizing their efforts to fixing this problem; not landing another man on the moon.

What you say about the space rocks "never being tested" is completely false. I cite from a 1969 issue of National Geographic:

Such keen anticipation, as described by Dr. Robin Brett, a NASA geologist on the team that first examined the lunar samples, is understandable. These were the most sought after, the most eagerly awaited, of all specimens in the history of science. Moreover, as some 500 scientists have labored in recent months to make every conceivable kind of test on them, the moon rocks and soil have become the most intensely studied of all scientific specimens.

I agree that the Nixon administration didn't want to disappoint taxpayers- no government wants to do that. However, while your claim about NASA being desperate may be true, the whole point of my argument is to refute your claim that the moon landing was faked.

Refuting your list of points:

1. There were two astronauts on the moon at a time yet you can see the 2nd in the visor of the first and he has no camera.

Clearly the 2nd astronaut wasn't filming it, because you can see them both setting up the flag. According to this website, this is how they filmed it:

The equipment on board the Apollo Command Module that was used to make the recordings was called the Data Storage Equipment (DSE). Its contents were transmitted to the ground periodically during the mission. Also, the Command Module DSE had the capability to record data live during certain periods from the Lunar Module as it flew separately in lunar orbit. The equipment used aboard the Lunar Module to make the recordings was called the Data Storage Electronics Assembly (DSEA). It made recordings on board the Lunar Module, but the DSEA flown on the Eagle during Apollo 11 malfunctioned. As a result, many of its recordings are barely, if at all, audible, with a constant high-pitched background tone. In the attached database, the recordings that are virtually inaudible are highlighted, but they are available on the web to ensure a complete release of the recordings made during the mission.

2. There are no stars in the pictures, this is space, we can see stars from earth so why not the moon?

The camera quality, simple. It was 1969, they didn't have advanced cameras so that is why we cannot see the stars. At the most, if we COULD have seen the stars they would have been fuzzy blobs.

3. The land the module is sitting on is reasonably undisturbed, the decent and landing with the firing of thrusters should have kicked up alot of dust and left a crater.

Moon dust is several feet deep. Much of it has fused into rock under the pressure. Sure, of course the dust would have been blown away but not all of the rock underneath. Flames are not enough to cause a big crater- all the flames would have done is fused some dust into rock.

4. Shadows look weird, they are inconsistent, not always in parallel, some objects in shadow appear well lit.

There are two reasons for this. One, the camera quality (again). The quality of the cameras would not have allowed the cameras to pick up good shadows. Two, the moon has no atmosphere. This would have affected what shadows looked like as our atmosphere distorts light.

5. Footprints are too clear.

I don't get what you mean. The moon has no atmosphere and so no wind, so footprints would be very clear and would stay for a very long time.

6. There are mysterious reflections.

I don't get what you mean by "mysterious reflections". If you could clarify what you mean that would be great.

I look forward to the next round, Con! Debate on.

Debate Round No. 1


In my first few points, I would like to rebuke my opponents points. Firstly, shadows are inconsistent. You said this is due to camera quality and atmospheric effects. This is completely false. The fact that the moon has no atmosphere proves that the light should be extremely clear (there are no clouds blocking the light for example). I fail to see how this point is extremely incorrect!

When I mentioned that top the footprints were too clear, I meant that the footprint looks that way due to moisture being in the soil. Take a look at the so-called first footprint on the moon in one of the high resolution photos. You will see the parts of the sand that the groves of the sole of the shoes made, have cracked-like separations due to slight movement on removal of the shoe/boot. Dry sand is not capable of that. If it were dry sand, it would collapse in thos areas of separation (as usual when you try to do anything with dry sand). As you can see this doesn't happen, the separations maintain their form which indicates water in the soil. Try building a sand castle with dry sand vs wet sand, and tell me which were you successful with. And don't let anybody try and tell you that it's the same as flour because flour has moisture in it.

Another of the controversial points about the moon landing hoax theory is that while the astronauts left footprints their ship didn"t leave a crater, despite being a lot heavier. The non moon hoax side of this part of the theory is that the pressure per foot was not enough to do this but that it did sent our clouds of fine dust as it settled down.

A rock with the letter C on it? Surely evidence of a moon landing conspiracy filmed with studio props? This theory has proved harder to debunk than some others, with one suggestion being that it was a printing imperfection such as a coiled hair. It sure looks like a printed C, though. Moon landing conspiracy theorists point out that there are different photos of the landings with the same background but apparently taken miles apart. NASA says that the horizon appears closer on the moon but not everyone is convinced by this.

The photos taken on the Moon have crosshairs in them. This is because the cameras used crosshairs to make them easier to use. So why do some photos show these crosshairs behind certain objects? Doctored photos or overexposure caused by copying or scanning?

When I mentioned about the mysterious reflection I meant that there is a strange reflection of some sort of hanging object shown in an astronaut"s helmet in one photo. It is really hard to make out but it has proved mysterious enough to be one of the most controversial parts of the moon landings hoax theory.

Finally, Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. Weird, huh? Maybe he just doesn't want the lie to slip out!

I look forward to your next argument!


I will now rebuke my opponent's points.

My opponent only rebukes the light issue with the shadows. I may have been incorrect on that front, but he/she fails to rebuke the effect of camera quality. He says my argument is completely false, yet he fails to provide any evidence otherwise about camera quality.

Moving on, my opponent mentioned that the dust on the moon is dry. However, in some areas, there is moisture in the dust due to water molecules deposited there by comets. I quote an article from CNET:

"While scientists have long suspected that water ice from comet impacts is trapped in cold, permanently shadowed craters near the moon's poles, the new data indicates that water molecules form and dissipate across broader areas, even in lunar daylight."

This shows that there probably is moisture in the soil, leaving my opponent's argument false.

Now... about the rock. There is an article that I will quote:

"Are Hollywood props really marked in this manner? The image in question is cropped from a much larger image taken during the Apollo 16 mission. In the original image, the rock is clearly visible but no "C" can be seen. In fact the "letter" can only be seen in one print and later generation copies of it. What is it? It is impossible to say, perhaps a tiny coiled hair or fibre was trapped in the scanner."

As you can see, the rock is very much most likely being photographed with an imperfection. With the evidence in question, the most likely conclusion is that there was something trapped in the scanner, not that it was a prop.

For the mysterious hanging prop, no evidence tells what it might be. It is very possible that it COULD be a light, however all the other evidence suggests that the landing was NOT faked, so we may never know what it is.

There are many possibilities as to why the astronauts refused to give interviews. They may have wanted the experience to be limited to them. They may have wanted details to remain a mystery. However, it is not good to jump to conclusions and say, "THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED BECAUSE THE ASTRONAUTS DIDN'T GIVE INTERVIEWS!" It will remain a mystery why they never gave interviews.

Good luck in the final round, Con.

Debate Round No. 2


Firstly, my opponent has mentioned that I have not proved any evidence or concern over the camera quality. I would like to say that I DON'T need to prove that the camera quality is the issue as the opponent has even admitted that, " I may have been incorrect on that front." This ladies and gentlemen clearly shows that my opponent is making up ideas just to aid his argument therefore I feel no need to prove myself whenever you cannot even get one fact correct.

On the other hand I do accept the fact that comets may have deposited water/ice on the moon, increasing the moisture in the soil of the moon. However, my opponents fact shows no definite justification if the comets do in fact deposit water on the surface of the moon as my opponent said, "While scientists have long suspected..." Scientists have long SUSPECTED. There is no certain proof of this fact so therefore my opponent's argument is false, not mine!

About the rocks - just ask yourself this question (don't think you're in a debate) - "Isn't it funny the original photographs, showed rocks with 'C's' on them and objects in front of cross-hairs and then years later when NASA touches up the photographs, they are perfectly fine with the cross-hairs intact where they're supposed to be and the rocks with marked C disappeared. When my opponent said, "perhaps a tiny coiled hair or fibre was trapped in the scanner." This is completely unjustified! If you look closely at the original photograph the coil is not protruding from the picture but it is actually in the surroundings. The shadows of this "coil" is actually portrayed into the rock.

For the mystery reflection, my opponent showed weakness as he/she could not rebuke this point and made a feeble attempt to try and converse MY argument.

I would also like to add why my opponent thinks the astronauts want to keep their experience a 'mystery' - is there some hidden truth that they don't want the public to know about and therefore proves why they don't want to get interviewed?

Had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn"t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.

In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth"s magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. Conspiracy theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminum coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspiracy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth"s gravity. As for the astronaut"s impressive jump height, which would be impossible to perform in Earth"s gravity, hidden cables and wires have been suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some screenshots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen.

This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible theory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he released 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon landing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the film"s outer-space scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the government to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a staged practice run for him.

So what evidence might support such claims? Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pick up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of his part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the child"s Apollo 11 shirt worn in only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholson"s character"s typewriter: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", in which the word "all" can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.

If you aren"t convinced yet, Kubrick made the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is from here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and you"ve got one airtight theory right there.

I look forward to see the argument my opponent struggles to find to combat this one!


Good arguments, Con.

When I said that "I may have been wrong on that front", I meant the issue of the atmosphere. My opponent incorrectly interpreted my statement. I agree that I may have been wrong in my claim about the ATMOSPHERE on the moon, but not wrong about the camera quality. I am not making up ideas to aid my argument. I have also gotten more than one fact correct. Con has failed to provide any evidence rebuking my claim.

My opponent has also misinterpreted the article's point. The article says that, yes, scientists have long SUSPECTED, but it goes on to say that they have suspected water ice existed at the poles, not that they long suspected comets deposited water. My argument is not false.

About the rocks: NASA took those high quality images in 1969. They had the capabilities to do so, but not the capabilities to record in that high of a resolution. Quote:

One medium resolution image, most of one high resolution image and parts of three others are missing, apparently due to lapses at the time they were being recorded.

This shows that NASA was capable of taking those high quality images in 1969. My opponent says that I said those things, however I was quoting articles. Those images were taken in 1969, and shown to the public. They weren't tampered with.

With the mystery reflection, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE supporting either way. There is no evidence to show that it is a light. There is no evidence to support it being natural or part of the module. We both have to make opinion claims here. I stress that there is NO evidence to support it being natural, module, or prop.

I do not think that the astronauts wanted to keep it secret- I said MAY. Con is twisting the truth in order to sway voters to his side. I also stated that it will remain a mystery, further perpetuating the idea that Con is twisting the truth.

If NASA had landed us on the moon (which they have), there still would be no blast crater. I QUOTE (not say myself):

The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.

This debunks my opponent's point that there would be a blast crater.

About the Van Allen Belt: An article.

"The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt."
This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.

This also debunks my opponent's Van Allen belt argument.

MythBusters debunked the moon walking issue. I'll quote an article:

"The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high frame-rate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon. If the video footage of the Apollo astronauts is played at double normal speed, their motion appears quite normal, thus the images were faked by playing normal motion at half speed."

The MythBusters tried this experimentally: " Adam donned a replica NASA space suit and mimicked the astronauts' motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon's lower gravity. While comparing the new and original footage, the MythBusters noted that at first glance, they looked similar, but there were many small discrepancies due to filming in Earth's gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the MythBusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft run by Zero Gravity Corporation and filmed exactly the same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and made more sense in microgravity, and the footage from the plane looked exactly like the original film. The MythBusters concluded that the Moon landing film is authentic"

Once again, this debunks my opponent's point.

With Stanley Kubrick: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS! This is the product of an over reactive imagination! These are all probably coincidences. I am not convinced. The most logical answer is for these to be coincidences.

In overview: Man landed on the moon. There is plenty of evidence debunking conspiracy theorists' theories. Man landed on the moon.

Best of luck in the Voting round, Con. May the best debater win!

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Vamike 2 years ago
This is an absurd "debate." The next debate should be the earth is flat.
Posted by Circle_Craft 3 years ago
Good job, Con. We both made really good arguments, and I wish you luck in the voting period!
Posted by flewk 3 years ago
By the way... you can prove there are man-made objects on the moon with a classic experiment.

This debate is null.
Posted by Circle_Craft 3 years ago
Con, I don't have time to write my argument for round 2 today so I'll have to do it tomorrow. I wish you luck in round 3!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a large number o assertions but failed to back them up with evidence. Pro did a decent job of dispatching Con's arguments.