Man didn't land on the moon in 1969
Round 1 : Acceptance
Round 2: Main arguments and justifications
Round 3 : Conclusion and contradictions
Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
Over to Pro.
There are many reasons that point in the direction of the moon landings in 1969 being fake. I will start with some of the pictures.
This shows the flag that was put on the moon in 1969 blowing in the wind. BUT .... there is no air on the moon and so there is no wind. The flag is clearly blowing and this can be confirmed by a number of images and websites (including the BBC). You may also notice that there are no stars in the background of this image and all other images that were supposedly taken on the moon at the time. Why is this? The answer is simply because in order for NASA to successfully replicate the constellations properly it would have been virtually impossible. An amateur astrologist would have noticed the smallest mistake.
This images is an enlargement of a rock on one of the pictures taken in 1969. This may have been coincidental but to prove my point even more later NASA revealed the same picture again to the world but this time the C on the rock was edited out.
Another scarily suspicious image is the image that NASA took :
This image look suspicious without the yellow circle highlighting a major mistake. When taking a picture the cross that is circled in the image is always in front of the whole image. The fact that it is overlapped shows us that NASA have edited images to create these photos.
Lighting is also a major mistake that NASA have made.
Using advanced technology scientists have found that artificial light must have been used on the moon since in almost all of the pictures the shadows are not at the same angle. This would have been impossible if the moon was only lit by the sun - as NASA have claimed. Artificial lighting must have been used.
Here is a photo of Neil Armstrong taking his first steps on the moon.
If Neil Armstrong really was the first man on the moon then who took this photograph. You must take into account that There was no second ship and he hadn't sent any probes or type of robot to take the picture of him.
Moving on from pictures. President Kennedy set the goal for an American man to land on the moon before the end of the 1960s. Scientists were desperate to achieve this goal and in the last year of the 1960s calling the scientists desperate became an understatement.
America was part of the "Space Race" between the Soviet Union (USSR). The Soviet Union had beaten them to many other goals regarding sending animals and various other things to space. It was very likely that the Soviet were also going to get a man on the moon before America.
If they had lost the Space Race then there would have been a huge uproar in America from the tax payers. America wanted to prevent this so they faked man landing on the moon.
Many thought that the ship and the space suits would not be able to prevent the astronauts from receiving huge amounts of radiation that no man could survive. Are you saying that all of this is a huge coincidence? I am looking forward to a response from my opponent.
https://www.youtube.com... (main source of evidence -- it is BBC and is reliable)
The Moon Landings
The Lunar Reconnaicanse Orbiter (LRO)
Probably the cleanest evidence for man landing on the moon are the Apollo landing sites as viewed from the LRO. The descent stage and plethora of equipment and disturbance of the landing site is quite obvious when looking at the pictures:
There are two features to note. The relatively linear wheel tracks of the lunar buggy (which leave two parallel wheel tracks, as any car driving through sand/snow would leave), and the much less linear and rougher solid tracks. These are from where the astronauts traversed by foot. The decreased linearity is to be expected of a human walking through uneven terrain, inspecting as they go alone. Whereas the increased linearity of the buggy tracks are to be expected for someone trying to get from A to B quickly in a vehicle.[ https://www.nasa.gov...]
Thus, we have powerful evidence that man walked on the moon. For comparison, here is the Apollo 12 landing site:
Clearly, the tracks here on a mission with no roving vehicle are very different to those seen in Apollo 17, with them being solid, singular and erratic compared with the smooth single trajectory of a wheeled vehicle.[ https://www.nasa.gov...]
The Apollo project employed 500,000 people, and spanned 11 years, not to mention the predecessor Gemini project. If NASA really didn’t send man to the moon, then a conspiracy on the scale required would have entailed so many people involved that whistleblowers would have been inevitable. For example the Watergate scandal, a conspiracy on the scale of several orders of magnitudes smaller than 9/11, was quickly outed with leaks. Iran-Contra, Enron [http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org...] and of course the NSA & Edward Snowden to name just a few were also leaked operations which again was nowhere near the scale required for a moon landing hoax to be successful.
Compare this with the reconstruction:
The landscapes match perfectly, which is virtually impossible with a faked setup at the time. Moreover the SELENE mission is a Japanese one, rendering further conspiracy even less plausible.[ http://global.jaxa.jp...]
"why the heck would NASA launch them without astronauts if they already did all the hard work to have the technology ready, built and tested?"
a) It had never been done before
b) A qualified astronaut would know the dangers and the risks so why would they agree.
c) Scientists have proven that the radiation would have penetrated the ship and the space suits and either killed or severely damaged the astronauts on board. (http://img.photobucket.com...)
In response to your explanation on the rock samples. At first scientists thought that these must be real and so man must have landed on the moon although later on it has been confirmed that these could have been meteor samples and even if they are moon samples this doesn't necessarily mean that it was man who got them.
Yes, it is true that the missions were tracked by third parties however relating back to my previous argument it didn't necessarily have actual people in it.
Your zoomed in image show wheel tracks which doesn't mean that man was definitely on the moon. It also shows where the astronauts traveled by foot. If you claim that the rock with the 'C' on it is a coincidence then I'm pretty sure that this could also be considered as one. There are many marks on the moon and the moon is a big place. Do you think it is purely a coincidence that they happened to take a picture of the astronauts in that particular area with the rock with the C on it?
To contradict your 'Scale' argument I would say that not every single employee had to know that this was a hoax. Designers of the rocket didn't need to know. Designers of the suits didn't need to know. They probably hired a lot of people who didn't really need to know. You may be thinking that it would have been a big pointless for NASA to hire suit makers if they weren't really going on the moon however in order to make the trip to the moon seem more realistic they had to hire everyone they would do if they were really going on the moon in order to prevent suspicion. As well as this the suits would be useful for future usage if they ever decided to actually land a man on the moon.
NASA didn't need man on the moon to take these photos. I am not saying that they are all incorrect. I am saying that they are getting real photos of the moon and cropping and laying in new photos of astronauts and equipment. That is why some of the cross-hairs (crosses) are behind parts of picture and in front of others. If you thought that the example I gave you before was a one off then you are mistaken:
To conclude this debate I would like to firstly thank my opponent for a good debate. After this debate I still believe that the moon landings were faked because in my opinion the evidence suggesting that they are real only proves that a rocket was launched whereas the evidence suggesting that they are fake includes: camera mistakes; lighting mistakes, missing details (stars) and it finds unanswered questions. I haven't met anyone who can find an explanation for why NASA would crop images if the moon landings were real.
Neil Armstrong has never been in an official televised interview... ever. He only answered one question on TV relating to the stars and his answer was that he saw no stars. He gave no explanation and didn't answer any other questions. Maybe the reason for this is because he didn't want to lie anymore. NASA's highest ranking official James Webb resigned without explanation just days after the first Apollo mission. Why would he do this when he was on the threshold of achieving the highest accomplishment of his career? All 3 Apollo astronauts resigned only shortly after there return as well.
If you can contradict this then do so. If not. VOTE PRO!!!
Don't worry - I have verified all wikipedia sources with the BBC documentary and then verified that with my own knowledge so it isn't unreliable.
Envisage forfeited this round.