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

Man didn't land on the moon in 1969

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,536 times Debate No: 77046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




As pro I will be arguing that man didn't land on the moon in 1969 and it was a hoax. Therefore con will be arguing that man did land on the moon in 1969. The format of this debate will be as follows,

Round 1 : Acceptance
Round 2: Main arguments and justifications
Round 3 : Conclusion and contradictions

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.


After refuting the 9/11 conspiracy theory - I look forward to refuting the moon landings conspiracy.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank con for accepting this debate.

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.

Sources (main source of evidence -- it is BBC and is reliable)


The Moon Landings

I thank Pro for his argumentation in the previous round. I will use this round for constructive.

Equipment Capabilities
The rockets used for the Apollo missions (which regardless of whether or not man landed on the moon, did indeed exist and launch) were absurdly massive. See the below schematic for the size comparison of the various rockets we have launched into space.

The only spacecraft comparable in size to the Saturn V rocket are the modern SLS rockets, which are capable of lifting 70-140 tonnes into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Saturn V itself was capable of bringing 118 tonnes to LEO (including the 70 tonnes Skylab via. substitution of its third stage).[,] The New Horizons probe that is about to pass Pluto was launched on the comparatively tiny Atlas V rocket, with other probes such as the Voyager & Pioneer probes – all of which are on solar escape trajectories – were launched from comparable sized rockets.[]

Thus, we have only one conclusion.

The Saturn V rocket was capable of, and did, send a lot of stuff very far away. The Apollo missions were exactly an example of a lot of stuff, since they had to transport all the life support, lunar module with both descent and ascent stages, as well as samples and equipment to the moon and back. Far more in mass than any unmanned probe would require (which is partially why unfortunately it is much more cost effective to send lots of unmanned missions to Mars/Moon instead of one human mission). Given that all the components of the Apollo missions were indeed manufacturered, including the lunar, service and command modules, along with all the relative equipment and life support systems – and given that the specifications for these are public knowledge – 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?[,,]

When assessing a crime one needs to assess the means motive and opportunity. Well given the “crime” in this case is landing man on the moon, NASA clearly did have the motive (huge US drive to beat the Soviets), the opportunity (prime financial and political environment), and the opportunity (with all the necessary equipment constructed and ready).

Samples from Moon
382 kilograms of lunar rocks brought back to Earth 2200 separate samples from six different locations. These samples are frequently lent out to researchers and Apollo rocks have generated thousands of publications in a plethora of peer-reviewed journals.[] The scientific value and access to these samples immediately rules out fabrication of their origins, as fraudulent samples would quickly be detected. The Moon rocks were found to be much older than any extant Earth rocks, and have a various markers, including countless micrometeorite craters, trapped solar wind (e.g. helium-3), a distinctive minerology (such as high quantity of plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite) and a very specific ratio of iron oxide tomaganese oxide ratio.[]

Within extremely short periods of time, exceptionally large quantities of Moon rocks were scavenged from the Moon over the course of the Apollo 11-17 (excluding 13) missions. Goodwill Moon rocks from Apollo missions 11 and 17 were given to 135 heads of state including the Soviets (and also exchanged a sample for 1 gram of Luna mission samples). Bias and conspiracy was literally impossible for these samples, which necessarily required humans to scavenge with the variety and speed at which they were gathered.

The Apollo missions were tracked by numerous third-parties, not least of which were the Soviets, who were in a competing space program of their own. Furthermore, Apollo telemetry & communications from the craft were intercepted and tracked by numerous third parties, including the Soviets, Bochum Radio Observatory, and even home-built equipment.[432 Record, W4HHK Apollo 16 Reception". QST Magazine (American Radio Relay League). June 1971. pp. 93–94.,]

The Soviets would clearly be a prime candidate for calling BS on a faked Apollo programme, yet they have never contested the Apollo program, nor the claim that NASA put a man on the Moon. They even went as far as to exchange lunar samples as already mentioned.

Tertiary Evidence

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.[]

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.[]


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 [,] 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.

SELENE Photographs
The landing sites were very specific back in the 1960’s, however technology back then was nowhere near good enough to know what the terrain looked like from ground level. Thus if we assume that the moon landings were faked, then we would expect that the photographs we do have are only an extremely rough approximation to the data we had at the time. Then we have the photographs from the Apollo missions, and these can be confirmed to be genuine by comparing the old photographs of the lunar landscape, with modern reconstructed images of the landscape from modern landscape surveillance data. The photo below is form the Apollo 15 mission, with rover in frame:

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.[]

Debate Round No. 2


I can accept that the rocket used on the Apollo missions existed and did launch. I can also accept that the Saturn V rocket is capable of sending things far away. I am aware that the Apollo missions transported a lot of stuff. In response to this:

"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. (

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.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
I find the way that works is slightly unfair since my opponent has forfeited - yet the debate is a tie.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
@preston - even the worst camera there is wouldn't have issues with lighting and especially with the cross being behind one of the pictures.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
Pro's arguments have been answered on mythbusters
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
im... not sure how to respond... these are all poor, especially the last one, "Who took the photo?" are you serious, you are literally looking at things that are so nit picky and specific that it doesnt proove men werent there, it prooves cameras have issues, i mean you even had things that had been edited out, is it possible that a low res camera took a low res photo...
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
This argument may seem weak but it makes more sense when you put it with the rest of my argument.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
They tracked the ship but that doesn't necessarily mean that there were people on board. They anticipated that other countries would track it so they may have used that as a decoy.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Almost all Apollo missions were tracked by independent parties. The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment. The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
I will be willing to debate this issue further once the debate is accepted. I do not want to give away all my arguments in the comments.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
So who put them there? you realise, if a man builds a rocket and shoots a monkey into space, man put a monkey in space. If a man shoots a rocket with retro reflectors into space, then man put retro reflectors in space.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
These weren't necessarily put there by man. There have been a number of rockets sent to the moon with space probes. The probes could have put this hear. As you will find out in my argument there is a lot more to this debate than just this issue.
No votes have been placed for this debate.