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

The Apollo missions were faked.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 68374
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




This will be a fun one. I am relatively new here, forgive me for any format or conduct errors. I will argue the con (that they did happen). First round will be acceptance, second round arguments begin. Anyone can accept. Good luck and enjoy.


Thanks for posting this debate. It sounds like a lot of fun.

Here is a couple of reasons why people believe the astronauts never landed on the moon.

On the picture the American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.
Multiple-angle shadows in the moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
In the sun's rays, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it? (Referring to the picture of the astronauts footprint)
Debate Round No. 1


As stated in the argument, I slated round one for acceptance not for argument, therefore the challenger must instead elect to not post any arguments in the final round, in order to give both people the same number of rounds.

To counter your arguments:
1. Flag-waving: This is simple physics, and any notion that the motion of the flag was caused by wind is unfounded in science. The motion of the flag can be explained by inertia and lack of resistance. The flagpole was moved around and even rotated several times during planting. The lack of atmosphere on the moon provided little resistance for the motion, and the flag continued to "wave" for a short period of time. If you look into the reports of the other manned apollo missions, they actually copied the actions to make their flags wave as well, because the astronauts that it was cool.

2. Light sources: There WERE multiple light sources. Light from the sun reflected off the lunar surface, the astronaut's white spacesuits, and the lander. The strange contrasts seen in the videos occur because the astronauts were not professional film-makers. They did not realize that the lighting was weird, the video was not their first priority.

3. Temperature: The moon's temperature is 280 degrees F, but that is SURFACE temperature. There is no "air temperature" like we have on Earth, because there is no air on the moon. For temperature to exist there must be increased particle motion, which is impossible when there are no particles, or at least very few, like on the surface of the moon. There are a similar amount of particles in the atmosphere near the moons surface as there are near the orbit of the ISS. The film would not have melted so long as the container it was in was shielded from radiation and not in contact with the ground.

4. Leaving a footprint does not require moisture. The soil on the moon was similar to volcanic ash. Such a fine powder is easily compressed into a footprint, while substances with larger grains, like sand, do not. The moon is not covered in sand, however, it is covered in very fine rock dust.

New Arguments:

The most creative and definitive proof that we landed on the moon:

In the famous rover video, the motion of the dust coming off off the wheels of the rover is possible only in gravities near 1/6th the gravity of the earth, or 1.6 m/s/s. Also, the lack of deceleration in the horizontal direction could only have been possible in a vacuum to a magnitude that we could not produce on earth. This could not have been faked.

Kaguya Probe: The Japanese probe "Kaguya" carried 3D imaging technology that mapped the topography of much of the moon, including the geography of regions photographed by astronauts. In one specific photograph, the topography matches exactly. Here are the two images, one a photograph taken by astronauts of apollo 15, and the subsequent 3D image.


Your answers to my statements are not valid. For example, the actual reason the flag "waving" is due to a inserted wire in the flag. When the astronauts put the flag up, they bent the wire, causing the flag to "wave".
My "statement" pr not truly my opinion, therefore I also know the counter-arguments.

Here are a couple more statements that prove the moon landing was fake.

- When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."
- There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving, in many pictures, could have fit into that little landing module!
- Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?
Debate Round No. 2


Pro has decided to ignore most of my arguments including those regarding light sources, heat, and the astronauts footprints, calling them "not valid" and providing no further evidence or even acknowledging them in their second argument. Therefore, I extend all those arguments as logical and acceptable counterpoints to their original argument.

To the flag argument: My argument is very valid and sound. If you believe that they faked the motion of the flag using wind, would the dust on the ground not fly everywhere? There is no wind present, and therefore the only way the flag could possibly be moving is because of the physics I explained in my original rebuttal. I also extend that argument as Pro has failed to provide a legitimate counterpoint.

Pro attempted to make the argument that because he already knew the counterpoints to the arguments he made regarding the hoax, when I used them they were somehow invalid. They are absolutely valid, even if they are not originally my ideas.

Pro has also decided not to address the dust physics argument, so I extend that argument as well.

To his new arguments:

No crater:
There would not be a crater. When the lander descended, the engines were cut above the ground. People like to think that when spacecraft land, there is a big plume of dust or smoke and a huge spitting flame, like on takeoff, but the reality is that is not how it works when landing on planets with little gravity. If you listen to some of the recordings from apollo missions, some landers kicked up more dust than others, depending on the pilot and how they chose to land the craft, but none of the landings used the module's engines violently enough to create a crater in the ground.

Moon Buggy:
The LRV (Lunar Rover Vehicle) folded up. It did not fit inside the LEM, it was attached on the outside. You can view a video of the apollo 15 rover being deployed from it's exterior position here:

No Stars in photographs:
This is very simple. The surface of the moon was quite reflective and bright, so the astronauts decided to use fairly high shutter speeds, between 1/150th and 1/250th of a second, in order to keep the photos from whiting out. Photos taken at this speed would not have been able to capture dim background lights, such as stars, very well, or even at all.

I do not present any new arguments but extend the original ones as mentioned in the hopes that PRO will actually address them.


To answer Con's arguments:

In that same video of the rover, there also was found evidence of the Apollo mission being fake. And that relates to the speed of the video, which will be the best argument against Con's statement. Since I am not a scientist, I can not answer it in a better way.
In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspiracy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth"s gravity. As for the astronaut"s impressive jump height, which would be impossible to perform in Earth"s gravity, hidden cables and wires have been suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some screen shots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen.
Meaning that video was could be fake.

Now to the Kaguya Probe:
The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you"re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos. 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.
Now if the backgrounds were sets, then the could easily have maped it after known pictures of the moon.

Here are a couple of more arguments proving the moon landing.

The Unexplained Object:
After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut"s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.

The "C" Rock:
One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter "C" engraved into it. The letter appears to be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurrence. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the "C" used as a marker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera.NASA has given conflicting excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for adding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing process.
The Layered Cross-hairs:
The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.Conspiracy theorists have suggested NASA printed the man-made objects over a legitimate photograph of the moon to hoax the landings.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend my dust particle physics argument as it has not been addressed by the pro. I also adress my temperature argument as it has not been addressed by the pro.

To the kaguya argument: The two images were not both photos taken by NASA. The first was a computer generated from the SELENE (common name: Kaguya) probe, launched in 1990by JAXA. There is no lander in either photo, it is the LRV. The images were meant to be from the exact same location or as close to it as possible. The Japanese aerospace probe's image is proof that the NASA photo was taken on the moon.

To the hills in the photo argument, the actual distance between the two hills and what NASA said about it is irrelevant. The geography from the SELENE images matches almost exactly to the geography in the many photographs taken by Apollo astronauts, specifically those from Apollo 15.

The "C" rock:
It is well known that the image of the rock showing the letter "C" is not the original image. It was more than likely a small hair that made its way into the film in a darkroom. Keep in mind that these third generation images, like the c-rock image, could not be copied digitally at the time because we did not have the technology.

Layered Cross-hairs:
They were not imprinted over the top of all the photographs. The black + marks were on a glass lens in front of film pane. When the cross hair was directly over a bright object, the mark faded due to overexposure. This can be copied on earth with most cameras slr cameras.

Unexplained object:
What is seen above? I cannot see an image or link. I cannot find the image online either.

To debunk most of the unexpained objects:
The film process was not a perfect science. Images on film had to be developed by hand. Most of these "objects" are smudges or dots that seem to have appeared during development due to mistakes by darkroom workers. Other objects are simply overexposure.

Again, I extend the original arguments I stated that have not been addressed and offer no new arguments as they are not necessary.


Katerina-Vinther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I extend all previous arguments.


Katerina-Vinther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
I disagree with Beginner. Unless otherwise specified, the burden of proof always falls with Pro. For one, Pro's resolution fall against the status quo. More importantly, Pro's resolution is the affirmative.
Posted by jsgolfer 1 year ago
edited argument to remove bop thing. Didn't really like it anyways.
Posted by jsgolfer 1 year ago
This is not a troll debate. There are plenty of people who think they were faked. @beginner I did not know that. I saw other "respected" debaters on here do that and I thought this was a case where it made aense. I will make sure I remember that from now on. Thanks.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 1 year ago
Doesn't look like it, he say's he's new to the sight. Might be interesting.
Posted by vanssjosh 1 year ago
Sorry i cant tell if this is like one of those "troll debates" or "funny debates" type thing. Please let me know.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Burden of proof should always be shared equally. Abandoning the burden of proof is very unfair, and is generally frowned upon.
You should have the burden of proving that the Apollo Missions were not faked.
Your opponent would have the burden of proving that it is.
Otherwise, you make it so that only one side is actually making any affirmative case at all. :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a sweep for Con. Con had better conduct as Pro began arguments in the first round. Also, Pro forfeited the latter two rounds. Pro's arguments were also riddled with improper grammar. Con made very convincing arguments which mostly extended until the debate's end without a proper rebuttal. Pro's counter committed the argument from authority fallacy. Being the affirmative, Pro had the burden of proof and their argument cannot pass without at least a little evidence. Pro did not offer any real evidence up and did not cite a single source.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Pro dropped several arguments, so arguments to Con. Only Con had sources.