The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Is The Apollo Moon Landing Real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
nirvanahangover has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 97145
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Pro= Argues that the Apollo moon landing is real
Con= Argues that the Apollo moon landing is fake

I will be supporting the statement that the Apollo moon landing is real.

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening Arguments
Third Round: Rebuttals of Opening Arguments
Fourth Round: Message to Voters(No new arguments or rebuttals)


Apollo Program- A series of space flights undertaken by the United States with a goal of landing a man on the moon.

Moon Landing- A event in which people land a spacecraft on the moon


No Swearing
No Insulting
Please Stay On Track

Good Luck to Me and My Opponent.


Hello, I accept the debate. I will be arguing that the moon landing was fake/not real. Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I would like to thank nirvanahangover for accepting this debate. I wish him/her luck and I hope we have a open and honest debate.

Now greetings and pleasantries aside, I will break up my debate in 2 main points:

1. Evidence to support the moon landing
2. Moon Landing would have been hard or literally impossible to fake in 1969(or even 2016)

Point One: Evidence To Support The Moon Landing
In my opinion, The Apollo 11 mission is one of the greatest adventures that Mankind has ever embarked on. But 47 years
later it is still furiously debated in online chat rooms and you-tube comment sections whether or not it is real. I will be supporting the notion that the Apollo program is in fact real. So let's do this.

1.The LRO Photos of the landing sites

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter or LRO was launched in June 18, 2009. It's purpose was to research the moon and learn more about the earth. It was equipped with seven instruments to do it's job while in Lunar Orbit. The LRO was packed with high quality cameras so it can according to NASA itself: "These images will show polar lighting conditions, identify potential resources and hazards, and aid selection of safe landing sites."

But NASA also used the LRO to photograph the Apollo Moon Landing sites from a bird's eye view( or Command Module eye view) Here is some of these very images:

mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-96pe4-b.jpg" alt="" />mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-7b6n4-b.jpg" alt="" />mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-3hkpy-b.jpg" alt="" />

If you want better quality photos, Here is the link to NASA's Gallery or simply search "NASA LRO Apollo landing sites"

So let me explain the photographs a little bit because I'm a little bit of a space nerd :P so I will break it down for a bit. From
these lovely photographs straight from lunar orbit we can see that the LRV(Or moon rover) tracks are visible and many of the experiments set up by the original Apollo astronauts such as the ALSEP
mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-nxzkp-b.jpg" alt="" />

The Descent stage is still visible because the astronauts ditched it on the moon.

"B-but how can the photographs be so clear if it was taken while in lunar orbit while we can't see buildings when we take a close up picture of earth from space, FAKE!"

This is very simple to answer because of one thing Atmosphere. We can't see buildings from space in a close up photo because of the simple fact that the Atmosphere and sunlight block the buildings from view. The moon has no atmosphere so even the smallest details like footprints can be seen from an lunar orbit.

So the LRO photographs provide a lot of evidence to support the moon landings, But of course, Just photos cannot be enough for people.

Second Point: Moon Landing would have been hard or literally impossible to fake
So could the moon landing really be "One small lie for a man, One Giant hoax for mankind" ????
Of course not, The logistics to faking a moon landing will be so challenging that it is EASIER to just land on the moon instead of attempting to fake it.

1. The Logistics would be make it impossible
It is simply not really feasible to fake an entire moon landing(LET ALONE 6) The amount of money and equipment and cover-up would be enormous. There was no way they could fake it. Lets take for example the Saturn 5:

mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-rybwd-b.jpg" alt="" />

This big mother was the workhorse of the Apollo Program, It was one of the loudest and most powerful man-made machines ever built. So let's say for example that the moon landing was fake(I don't think it is) If the Saturn V launches. Do they stay in low earth orbit for the total mission time? If they did stay in LEO for the whole mission time, They would have to bring moon rocks back and ditch the LEM(Landing Module) but the LEM has highly reflective material that can be seen from earth. Don't believe me well. In 1957 the Russians launched sputnik, it was highly reflective and could be seen from space(Regardless of atmosphere). If you can't hide a shiny basketball in space, you can't hide a huge Saturn V Here is a picture:

mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-u3eya-b.jpg" alt="" />
Here is a picture of the LEM:

mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-uu9rn-b.jpg" alt="" />
You couldn't hide that highly reflective material. If Sputnik(size of a basketball) could be seen from space then the Lunar module can as well.

2. If it was fake there would be a whistle blower
If the entire Apollo program was fake then there would bound to be a whistle blower. Let me show you why

Employees of Apollo Program:
400,000 Workers(Everyone from the janitors and to the actual astronauts)

There is no way you can make 400,000 people came their mouth shut for 47 years, It's just not feasible.
Let's compare it to a real world scenario. The NSA employed 100,000 people and Edward Snowden Happened. So if the NSA couldn't stop a whisteblower for a secret program. I doubt NASA could stop a whistleblower for a public, historic event.

3. The Film and Photographs
There is no way the Apollo program would have been faked. They would have to fake 100s of photographs and 1000s of hours of film. Photo shop didn't exist so they couldn't fake photos and the footage couldn't be faked as well. It's just IMPOSSIBLE to fake the moon landings.

mouseover="Over(this);" onmouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/7/6382/392107-6382-nfkdd-b.jpg" alt="" />


If Con thinks that all the apollo footage is fake. He has to provide evidence. Vote Pro!



I am going to split my argument into points as it will be easier to dissect. Sources will be posted to all information that requires them. These are the ten main arguments against the legitimacy of the moon landing(s)/Apollo missions.

I: The Waving Flag


It's no secret that their is no air on the moon. Yet, in both the video and the image, you can clearly see the flag waving as if there was wind blowing on it. Ripples can also be seen on it, even when the flag is not moving.

II: The Lack Of Stars

(Image :

On all images available of the "moon landing", no stars are visible. NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out " intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give). However, you can take images of stars from Earth which are much lower in quality, and still see them.

III: The "C" On A Rock


Perhaps one of the most controversial images from the moon landings has a rock in the foreground with what appears to be a "C" marked/written on it. The C on it could have served as a marker by a film crew, and a set designer could have easily positioned it the wrong way around, exposing the C. NASA's excuses have been weak, saying that could have been edited on as a joke or was a piece of stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the editing process.

IV: The Duplicate Backdrop


These two images taken from the Apollo 15, the 4th manned mission claimed to have landed on the moon. Whilst NASA claims that these photos were taken miles apart from eachother, the backgrounds are incredibly similar despite the distances. NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

V: Crosshairs

(Image 2:

In these images provided by NASA that are supposedly taken on the moon show the crosshairs of the cameras used being behind certain objects. People have suggested NASA, implying that the photos were tampered/edited with in some way.

VI: Van Allen Radiation

If you were to reach the moon you would have to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt, which is held in the same place by Earth's magnetic pull. The Apollo missions were the first ever attempts to transport live humans through the belt, which - due to sheer levels of radiation - would have fried the astronauts regardless of the layers of aluminium coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

VII: Lighting And Shadows

(Image II:
(Image III:

The shadows diverge and converge in many of the moon landing photos. Some of them even converge at perpendicular 90 degree angles. This cannot be if there is only one light source, the Sun, as NASA alleges. Under the Sun, shadows run parallel to each other. They do not converge or intersect. Thus, there must have been a second light source, such as fill lights used on a movie studio stage to balance out the lighting, since officially, the astronauts did not bring any other light sources with them.

VIII: Rover Leaving No Tracks

(Image 2:

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks left from it. Was it lowered down from above? Otherwise it would be impossible to not have any tire tracks. It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

There is also an astronaut who leaves no footprints behind him up to his current location ( Was he lowered down too? Or did the wind that isn't supposed to exist on the moon blow them away?

IX: Wires Attached To Astronauts

(Image 2:

In some of the video clips of the Apollo moon walks, you can see wires attached to the astronauts, which flicker in the light a few times. This goes with there being no footprints, as these could be attached to harnesses which lowered the actors down from above.

X: "Live" Footage From Moon Shows Jump Cuts

The live video footage of the Apollo astronauts could not have been live, as alleged by NASA. The videos that were broadcast showed jumps and discontinuities in the footage which could only have occurred through editing. One can see this by ordering the Apollo footage from Spacecraft Films, which claims to contain the unedited footage that was broadcast live to the world during the Apollo missions. This means that the scenes were pre-shot BEFORE the moon missions took place, which means that they were staged. So again, why would NASA stage the footage if it didn?t have to?

Debate Round No. 2


I'm going to directly rebuttal every single on of his arguments 1 by one, Let's do this
Note:I'm sorry that the photographs did not appear for the LRO photos, I will post image links

1.The Waving Flag

Well of course there is no air on the moon. The flag was waving because the astronauts were shaking the flag so they can firmly place it on the lunar soil. The movement of him twisting back and forth would create a swaying motion(looks like a breeze) but as soon as they stop shaking the flag(it really stops moving)

Apollo 17 crew flag plant

The astronauts shook the flag and twisted it into the stand(like you would with any flag, can't just plant in the dirt, need a stable stand) But as soon as they stopped shaking the flag and twisting it. The flag just....froze....Every action has to have a opposite reaction. That gif that you posted had the flag swaying because the pole was shaking due to the astronauts movement.

The image Con posted didn't show the flag waving
Gif of image:

2.The Lack of Stars

The reason that stars don't appear is because of the sunlight hitting the camera.

Of course, You can take picture of the stars from earth with a low quality camera and still see them. Because it's night time and there is no sunlight to block the camera.

Go outside at the brightest time of day(usually around lunch time for me) and try find stars.........can't find em...well that's because the sunlight is blocking the view of the stars and that's with atmosphere blocking some sun rays.

Now imagine zero atmosphere, the stars will Definitely be blocked out because of the massive amount of light.

NOTE: Every time you say "NASA says (Y) is caused by (X)" can you please provide evidence of any statements from NASA officials that say what you claim the organization is saying.

3.The "C" On A Rock

There is many reasons why there might be a "C" on the rock. The piece of stray hair can be a very good argument. For example: I'm writing a speech on why I like pancakes and a piece of hair lands on my paper while I'm writing it.

Here is a side by side comparison

The top image is the original image
The Bottom image is the developed/enhanced photo

HEY! before you scream at the word enhanced. The original Apollo photos are enhanced for better quality. Notice that the bottom image has more detail. When the person(whoever that is) was copying the photo a piece of hair must have fell off. For example if you photocopy something and you drop a tiny piece of hair into it. It's gonna show the hair on all the copies. So the excuse is not "weak" as you say.

4. The Duplicate Backdrop

Those hills in the background are in reality very very far away. When you look at something very far away and you move around it looks like it hasn't moved at all. You may not tell that it was very far away because there is no haze caused by the atmosphere. Because the moon has no atmosphere

This is changed to make it easier to see that it's far away:

You can see the ridge line and how the landscape seems to depress into some sort of mini "valley" while the LEM one doesn't which shows the astronauts moved.


How did NASA tamper with the photos by the crosshairs appearing behind the objects? Why would they put the crosshairs behind?

The reason the crosshairs were behind the white rover stick(I don't know what it's called) is because the photo was overexposed. The black crosshairs bleed into the white objects making them look "erased" This happens in all kinds of photos. Notice that it only went "behind" the objects that were white in colour.

6.Van Allen Radiation

Of course, NASA knew that the Van Allen belts were very dangerous. That's why they tried to pick a route through the belt that had less radiation then other parts. Plus, The astronauts did not spend too much time in the belts.

notice that they avoided the dark shaded(heavy radiation) and tried to pick a route to the moon that would go through the belt as fast as possible. Of course, The astronauts got a high dose of radiation, more then the average human. But it was not suffient enough to kill them or harm them in anyway.

7. Lighting And Shadows

Actually this can be if there is only one light source. If you get a flat plane and you set the lunar module and the rocks the same way it looked in photo. The shadows would all be going the same way.

BUT, The moon is obviously not a flat plane. It has many bumps and hills. As Mythbusters explained, The topographical elements of the moon made the shadows appear going in different directions which they recreated the photo.

Now since they added small bumps and hills onto the landscape like the real moon, It showed the shadows would be going different ways

Full Vid:

8.Rover Leaving No Tracks

The rover tracks are visible in the background, incase you can't see it I zoomed it in.

It's odd that they zoomed so close you couldn't see the trails.

9.Wires Attached To Astronauts

Those "wires" are actually antennas used to communicate with the command module and Houston, if they were wires then they would look like they hit the top of the screen but they didn't so no wires were used.

Point 10:
Spacecraft Films is not NASA, They're obviously a third party. So it's not NASA's fault that some random company added jump cuts and claimed it was unedited.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Swisstelligence 1 year ago
@MWonderWolf I'm think Tom-The-Hypocrite is trolling. He Has to be.
Posted by MWonderWolf 1 year ago
Tom the Hypocrit, you are quite ignorant. If what you say is true, then I can defy the rules of possibility! THE EARTH IS ROUND, NOT FLAT!!! Yay, I just defied the rules of possibility!
Satellites are fake, huh? My eyes must be too, then. I have personally seen a satellite in a history of space museum in Florida.
And then you push that further to say that MY COUNTRY ISN'T REAL!!!!!!! That's offensive to all Americans, including me. And I am just in the middle of the ocean, and it's just a mirage that I'm on solid ground?? Not happening.
Also, are we in Divergent or something, where they make us totally ignorant and obedient? Adolf Doofus Hitler committed suicide, by the way, and if he brain-washed us all, how would you figure out that we are brain-washed? And how come Germany is practically bankrupt if they won the war?
The Soviet Union was at war with America once, so was that some kind of civil war? Nothing of what you say really adds up.
Look at what and see what truth? And since we smart people know that the sun does not orbit the earth, everything you said there has absolutely no point.
You certainly chose a fitting username! Hypocrit is spelled wrong, by the way. It should be Hypocrite. So it seems that all you know about America is that there was a 911 attack during president Bush's term. But since you said that America isn't real, that doesn't exist at all, apparently. VERY fitting username.
Posted by Hanson13 1 year ago
There seems to be an error with the photos. Here is my photo album
Posted by Tom-The-Hypocrit 1 year ago
you cannot deny that the earth is flat. All satellites are fake and the United States isn't a real coutnry. The Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler won the war and has brainwashed us all. The Soviet Union is the real America, except we have been told that they are not. Look and see the truth. I tell you for as surely as the sun orbits around the earth that these things are true. (P.S Bush did 9/11)
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
I think someone will accept this debate, though not sure who. I'm going to bet that the Contender is a Flat Earther. (That, or accepting for fun)
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.