The Instigator
RMK
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
presreynolds
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,550 times Debate No: 1241
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (18)

 

RMK

Pro

During my sophomore year of college, I presented a persuasive speech for a Speech course that changed my opinion about one of the biggest "accomplishments" of the 20th century.

What I'm about to state may excite you, anger you, make you ponder, or make you think that I have a screw loose...

If you stayed up to watch the 1969 moon landing, you saw cinematic magic at its best. That's right, the moon landing was about as real as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

When I originally did the research for this speech five years ago, 10% of the U.S. population believed what I stated above. Now, five years later, that number has increased to 20%.

Before I start, I do not usually believe in conspiracy theories. In fact, I usually associate the people who believe in them as a little off. This one, however, is hard for me to bypass. I'm not even saying that this is 100% truth, I'm just saying there is a lot of information to support the fallacies.

Here is a little background information:
In 1957, the Soviet Union (a country we would have a Cold War with for almost half a century), sent a satellite into space...thus starting the so-called "Space Race." Many Americans, rightfully so, lived with the fear that the Soviets would be able to drop nuclear bombs from these satellites. In 1961, President Kennedy promised to have a man on the moon by the end of the decade. During the 1960's, NASA made many unsuccessful attempts to reach the beyond. The "moon landing" occurred during one of the most scandalous presidencies of our nation's history (Nixon). Some believe our nation needed a rebirth of Patriotism with the ongoing struggles of Vietnam.

So, Wah Lah..., 12 years after the Russians shot a tin can into the atmosphere, we land on the moon??? Scientifically, logically, and realistically...it just does not add up.

Man on the Moon?

- With all of the advancements in technology, we haven't been back to the moon in 38 years. Wouldn't you want to go back? Or, wouldn't another country have made it there by now? Russia, seemingly ahead of us for over a decade, has abandoned the moon missions. They state it is "virtually impossible" to send a man to the moon. In a scientific calculation at the time, one scientist said the mission had a 0.00017% chance of being successfull. By the way, the U.S. has no plans to return to the Moon in future NASA budgets.

- The astronauts on this mission barely make public appearances. People that should be regarded as national heroes, have been swept under the rug.

- 10 people associated with the moon landing program mysteriously died within years of the mission.

- Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved, telemetry tapes, and the original high quality video of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk are missing.

- There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed to have not remembered seeing any of the stars in a press conference after the event.

- Identical backgrounds in photos are listed as taken miles apart.

- No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16mm movies of each landing.

- The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

- The Lander weighed 17 tons and sat on top of the sand making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand
presreynolds

Con

You seem to have alot of information on this topic! But where did you get the information! Is it reliable?
Anyway, Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.
When the hoax advocates (you) make claims that are based on flimsy evidence, sloppy research, and a poor understanding of the sciences, it does not take a PhD to figure out they are wrong. In general, the main proponents of the hoax theory are people who have no special education, training or experience to qualify them to make their claims. They are in no better position to judge the facts than you and I
Debate Round No. 1
RMK

Pro

I'm not sure why you accepted this debate.

You have provided no argument as to why you believe the Moon Landing is NOT a hoax.

All you have done is said that hoax believers are wrong if they have not done adequate research. Obviously, from the looks of our first round arguments, I have spent the time to provide sufficient evidence of the fallacies related to this issue.

I hope for a more productive round to follow.
presreynolds

Con

Well, you are a hoax believer right! Thetitle of this debate is "The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax" which says to me that I am to debate on why it is not! The title does not say "What do you think about the 1969 moon landing" Anyway, I think that the information that NASA and the government has is more substantial than yours! The government knows alot more than you do. I don't think that I have to prove every single point wrong that you have made! Common sense tells people to believe the government in this!
Debate Round No. 2
RMK

Pro

WoW...

Are you new to this site?

Have you read other debates to know what you are supposed to do?

Do you understand the meaning of the term debate?

All you have posed is that NASA knows more than me so why do you have to prove me wrong?

This is ridiculous and a complete waste of a perfectly debatable topic. Thank you for your unintelligence and lack of debate.
presreynolds

Con

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, that is what I said! You can read, THATS A PLUS!

No, sir! Its you who is the unintelligent one!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
I haven't stop debating (idiot), I have a life outside of debate.org
Posted by UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
Having said what I just said below, I still think RMK actually won this debate, simply because his adversary was woefully underprepared in discussing the relevance of the claims. In fact, the contender committed plenty of logical fallacies by generally refusing to address the argument and focusing on unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
Posted by UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
RMK's arguments are ludicrous. Those exact statements or similar ones have been debunked a million times already. Probably the best direct evidence that the landings occurred are the retroreflector arrays on the Moon left by three Apollo missions. Anyone with a good laser and telescope can bounce beams off the arrays and clearly see a reflection. RMK keeps blabbering about the Soviets while ignoring the most important fact of all: the Soviets themselves - now the Russians - readily accept the veracity of the Moon landings. That malarkey about the probability of success never featured highly in the Soviet space agenda; they believed humans could reach the Moon just like we did. Due to space restrictions, I cannot rebut every claim that RMK made, but I'll focus on some of the prominent ones.

- There have been no major incentives to go back to the Moon since the 1970s. We're not engaged in a gigantic competition with anyone now like we were then, so we haven't gone back. These are very expensive missions that should be undertaken only with good reasons behind them.

- There are no stars in the photos because the cameras being used were not powerful enough to collect the (very) dim light emanating from them. Go ahead and take a picture at night here on Earth with a cheap camera; tell me how many stars you see...

- The Moon rocks by and large are not identical to rocks here on Earth. They contain isotopes and signs of cratering only possessed by materials on the Moon. Some, however, may be similar because the Earth and the Moon are often hit by the same space junk.

- The backgrounds of the photos to which you refer - presumably of the lander - are not identical. They may seem so with a cursory glance, but there are real differences in the photos, differences due to multiple vantage points.

- Of course the Apollo astronauts make public appearances; I have personally seen them give dozens of interviews over the years, as have many people here.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
I'm voting for CON. He had one argument, not against the moon landing, but one that put the PRO in a bad position and made him stop debating. Where are the sources? And are they reliable? Nothing from the PRO. I vote CON.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
RMK: You said "With all of the advancements in technology, we haven't been back to the moon in 38 years."
Can you say six? There have been six 'hoaxes'.
You must be joking. Nobody's that stupid. It would be harder to fake it than to do it.

If you want to expose hoaxes try working on the global warming hoax.
Posted by pricillaann 9 years ago
pricillaann
Yeah, RMK, you should repost. I am so very interested in this now and I'd love to see someone actually have an argument back. I'm very uneducated on this subject and would love to see both sides.
Posted by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
I would love to provide a debate. If he wants to have another one, he can just copy and paste his original argument into a new debate, and I'll make a rebuttal.
Posted by pricillaann 9 years ago
pricillaann
Wow, I'm embarassed for presreynolds. I'm saddened that this didn't have more of an argument. I'm very, very intruiged and if the information above is true, it seems almost indisputable that the moon-landing didn't occur.

I wish someone halfway-intelligent would've responded rather than a person who cannot display any intelligence at all. I almost think he is a joke, he's so ridiculous.

Oh, and Lucretius, YOU should provide a debate. That would be nice.
Posted by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
Though I'm neglecting to vote because I think the con did a bad position of countering you, I would say I would vote for the con position in general, because the moon landing most certainly did occur.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ethereal 9 years ago
Ethereal
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by james94 9 years ago
james94
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Trikaun 9 years ago
Trikaun
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by iamapelican 9 years ago
iamapelican
RMKpresreynoldsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30