The Instigator
zhibek
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JonL
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Should we believe that Americans land a moon?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
JonL
Started: 1/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 29055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

zhibek

Con

Nowadys a lot of writers writing books which are consist of no landing to moon by Americans astronauts. Maybe it is "moon conspiracy theory". Now, a lot of small errors leads to a huge confuse. Why the stars weren"t invisible on the photos? Why Americans do not land moon again? And no other country landed a moon after America Why? May be because Americans just didnt land? So, should we believe?
JonL

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity!

I would say that most Americans and most people around the globe conclude that on July 20th 1969 the crew of the Apollo 11 landed on the moon's surface, and were the first humans existence to do so. However, today there seems to be a growing number of people who are arriving at the conclusion that NASA deployed a world wide hoax rather than a space craft.

It is my position and belief that the proponents of this hoax are not educated in the actual landing, the logistics of the landing, NASA, astronomy, physics, or space travel. Instead they are educated in the few aspects of the conspiracy itself that can be easily refuted by a basic grasp and understanding of the topics listed previously.

1. "Nowadys a lot of writers writing books which are consist of no landing to moon by Americans astronauts."

I assume you have heard of or read Bill Kaysing's book. Which was the literal foundation and start to the conspiracy in 1974. The book "We did not land on the Moon" is probably one if not the most critiqued books by the scientific community. Although I will not delve to deeply into Mr. Kaysing's novel I will say this.

Mr. Kaysing joined the U.S. Navy in 1940 where he worked as a midshipmen. Later he graduated from the University of Southern California with a degree in English composition, he later worked as a technical writer for Rockwell International (an aviation company). Mr. Kaysing had ZERO education or training as an engineer, scientist, physicist, aircraft operator, or any qualification that would deem him a reliable recourse in a debate against NASA and the scientific community. He also claimed that NASA was responsible for the Apollo1 and Challenger accidents claiming they purposefully killed the astronauts aboard for fear of them releasing the secret that the landing was a farce. He also believed that the CIA was poisoning the food supply of the American people, controlling the media, and that the lunar landing was one step in their extensive plot to brainwash the people.

2. "Why the stars invisible on the photos?"

Unfortunately for the pro-conspiracy theorist this question is easy answered. The reason the stars were not visible is simple they were far to faint. Due to the brightly lit surface of the moon fast exposure settings were required to take visible images of objects on the surface. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there, they just don't appear in the pictures.

3. "Why Americans do not land moon again?"

As you are pro conspiracy I assumed you were uneducated on the actual history of lunar landing. It appears I was correct. Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, Apollo 17, all landed on the moon.

4. "And no other country landed a moon after America Why?"

Although no country has sent a manned aircraft to the moon following the U.S. Russia, Japan, China and India have all sent unmanned spacecraft to the Moon. This can be explained simply because by the time other nations had developed the technology capable of reaching the Moon's surface it was far safer, cheaper, and reliable to send robotics to the surface than the nearly 10 years of training and resources it requires to send a team of humans.

5. "So, should we believe?"

With an adequate understanding of the topic and correct information...yes I believe you should.
Debate Round No. 1
zhibek

Con

Most of evidence came to us from photos and video materials. About stars - we can see them from Earth very well and now it is enough photos of Earth where we can see stars. It is well known for everyone that moon doesn't have an atmosphere and stars must be seeing more than we see them from Earth. Other fact that man's weight is less on moon and he must made a big jump on moon surface but from television report we saw a small jumping as usual we do on the Earth. Or that American flag which is stuck in the ground, apparently hesitated as from wings, which is possible in presence of atmosphere. Also, Bill Kayising thinks that all video and photo materials could be taken from the earth, in Nevada desert, also called Zone 51
, this is a very secret zone in America. From Russian satellite is visible that this desert has a same landscape and objects like on the moon. So, is it really that millions of people were tricked, because actually it was Nevada desert instead of moon surface. Notice that Zone 51 is still secret zone in America.
Other argument - technology of that time and conditions of the lunar surface contradict to each other. As an example is radiation. How could NASA have protected the astronauts who traveled through this radiation? Astronauts could not survive without special suit, in their suits they needed for almost 2 meter thick zinc, but when they flew to moon their suits consisted of only a few layers of aluminum and zinc. Also, based on big radiation the shell of spacecraft must have galvanized thickness of two meters too. But as an engineer of spacecraft Bill Kaysing confirmed, the shell has almost one meter of galvanized thickness. However, the fact is remains; none of the astronauts harm their health after back to Earth. Yes I agree that America sended a spaceship Apollo to moon, but man never land a moon yet.
JonL

Pro

JonL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
zhibek

Con

zhibek forfeited this round.
JonL

Pro

I would like to thank Con again for the opportunity, and apologize for missing a round! However, it seems Con also missed one as well so it turned out ok!

1. "About stars - we can see them from Earth very well and now it is enough photos of Earth where we can see stars...etc...etc"

- I thought we covered this in the first round, but for the sake of the debate we shall go over it again. The reason the stars were not visible is simple they were far to faint. Due to the brightly lit surface of the moon fast exposure settings were required to take visible images of objects on the surface. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there, they just don't appear in the pictures.

2. "Other fact that man's weight is less on moon and he must made a big jump on moon surface but from television report we saw a small jumping"...

- The video shows accurate movements and weightlessness one would expect from the low gravitational pull on the moon's surface..not sure what video you watched or if you have actually.

3. "Or that American flag which is stuck in the ground, apparently hesitated as from wings, which is possible in presence of atmosphere."

- This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags were attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

4. "Also, Bill Kayising thinks that all video and photo materials could be taken from the earth, in Nevada desert, also called Zone 51"

- Area 51 is a remote detachment of Edwins Airforce Base located in the southern part of Nevada. The bases primary purpose IS unknown to the public, however, based on historical evidence, it appears to support development and testing of experimental aircraft and weapons systems. Simply because it is an unknown entity to the public is not evidence to support that the lunar landing is a hoax and NASA staged the landing there. How would Bill Kaising know anything about area 51 besides that its purpose is unknown to him?

5. How could NASA have protected the astronauts who traveled through this radiation?

- Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure.

6. "But as an engineer of spacecraft Bill Kaysing confirmed..."

- Bill Kaysing held a B.A. in English Composition from southern Cal. Mr. Kaysing had ZERO education or training as an engineer, scientist, physicist, aircraft operator, or any qualification that would deem him a reliable recourse in a debate against NASA and the scientific community. He certainly was NOT an spacecraft engineer..the notion is laughable.

7. "Yes I agree that America sended a spaceship Apollo to moon, but man never land a moon yet."

- Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John W. Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmidt have all walked on the surface of the moon.

Closing Argument.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they believe to be compelling evidence. Although I highly disagree with their views, I find them harmless. However, there are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact.

The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation. They observe a phenomenon, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JonL 1 year ago
JonL
Damn missed my turn. I will wrap up pro arguments for all the doubters in the following round(s).
Posted by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
Dale.G, there is gravity on the moon. The intensity of that gravity is something like 1/4 or 1/6 of the intensity of the gravity on earth.

Hmm, JonL has 2 minutes to post is argument...
Posted by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
Dale G, dude, there is also video footage not only photos. Have you been living on mars. Joke.
Posted by Dale.G 1 year ago
Dale.G
here is a link http://www.treehugger.com...
/ me quote in this photo there should be stars in the back ground why are there not any stars in the back ground lol
Posted by Dale.G 1 year ago
Dale.G
if people landed on the moon why didn't we see them floating on the moon why where there only photos and if people landed on the moon why don't we see more people going up for a view why don't we see people paying lots of money to go up just to see earth things like that need to be looked out to
plus the one of the reasons why i do not believe Men walked on the moon is this in the photos that they tried to show people that men landed on the moon it shows that there where a men just standing there now why wasn't he floating while they took the photo i thought when people go up to space they float u would not get a photo with someone standing on the moon u would get a photo with someone floating on the moon can u humbly say that can u really get a photo of someone just standing on the moon without them floating away lol
Posted by autodidact 1 year ago
autodidact
i dont have cable television, but i just got netflicks. one of my favorite shows is mythbusters, watching back episodes, they have a whole show dedicated to the moon landing. given that this debate is in progress i will not reveal details of the show but hope both pro and con view it in the future.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
I can't wait for the "there is no wind on the moon so why was the flag waving" argument!
Posted by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
After watching James Bond, Diamonds are forever last night, 1971, And how backwards the most up to date movie was. I would defo say they have never been to the moon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
zhibekJonLTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No listed sources. Con loses conduct points for repeating a question that was answered already; she has terrible S&G so loses points for that; and she has no argument to speak of. There were no sources listed, so no points were awarded for that.