The Instigator
YourLeftNut
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sketchb
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

The First Moon Landing Was Faked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
sketchb
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 340 times Debate No: 91103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

YourLeftNut

Pro

It"s an iconic image for the citizens of the United States of America: their flag, planted on the moon and waving gently in the breeze. Only, there is no breeze on the moon, meaning there is no air in the moon"s atmosphere, and hence, there is no wind whatsoever. This is one of the most obvious stuff ups in the staged moon landing hoax. Of course, NASA tries to get around this by saying it wasn"t blowing in the wind, it was just a bit crumpled from being rolled up on the journey"Well, judge for yourself. NASA produced an abundant supply of photos and video footage to support their moon landing. But, it soon became evident that there was something a bit fishy about these photos on the moon; ever noticed that the angle of the shadows do not match up? Shadows are caused by light sources. On the moon, there should only be one light source: the Sun. So, logically, all shadows should be parallel to each other. Only shadows in the photos of moon landing are not. In fact, the shadows in many of the photos run in different directions. It"s almost as if the shadows are caused by" yes, multiple lights on a film set! On a cloudless evening, you can see an abundance of twinkling stars in the night sky. Surely from the moon, with its lack of clouds and complete absence of artificial light, you should be able to see even more stars with the naked eye? Only, you can"t. In fact, in all of the photos taken during moon landing, you cannot see a single star. Not one. Sure, the photos taken in the 60"s weren"t amazing quality, but these days you can capture the stars in a photo taken from your phone, so shouldn"t the high tech NASA cameras have been able to pick up something? NASA has marked out the exact locations of the moon landing missions, showing how they have explored sites that are miles apart. With that in mind, why do the photos from the Apollo 15 mission show identical backdrops? NASA swears that these photos were taken in different locations, yet the photographic evidence clearly shows the same patterns of gently sloping hills and valleys. It"s almost like NASA were just getting sloppy by the time they hit the Apollo 15 mission. "Why bother creating new sets, we"ll just use the same ones repeatedly"Surely no one will notice." In yet another example of the technicians on set just being sloppy, one of the moon landing photos shows a "moon rock" which has a perfect letter "C" printed on it. The perfect symmetry of the letter shows that it is not naturally occurring. Now, it"s perfectly credible that a prop used on a film set would be marked with a reference letter. But there is no plausible argument for the "C" just being naturally weathered into the surface of the rock. As a result, NASA came up with a different, though no less implausible, explanation for the rock with the "C". According to them, it"s a stray hair. It can"t be more ridiculous than this! Everyone knows how dangerous radiation can be: overexposure to it can cause radiation poisoning and even death, so It is should be avoided at all costs. To get to the moon, you have to fly through a band a radiation known as the Van Allen radiation belt. Yes, the space craft had an aluminum coating, but is that really enough to protect a human being whilst they spend over one and a half hours traversing a band of radiation? NASA, of course, said "yes" and that the astronauts weren"t in the radiation for all that long. But an hour and a half still sounds like a pretty long time to be inside a cosmic microwave. When the photos were published of the Apollo 12 moon landing, many people noticed something a tad unusual reflected in the shiny helmet of an astronaut. It appeared to be something hanging from a wire or perhaps a rope. In fact, it looked suspiciously like an overhead spotlight, the kind you see used in Hollywood movie studios. Whilst admittedly, the photo quality is a bit grainy, making it impossible to positively identify the object. It still begs the question: what could possibly be suspended in midair on the moon? There should be nothing there for anything to be hanging from! Have you ever seen the photos of the astronauts footprints embedded in moon dust? The astronauts described this dust as being similar to "talcum powder or wet sand". That being the case, why is there no sign of impact where the lunar module landed? You"d think that a rocket-ship landing on a big pile of talcum powder would leave some kind of impression in the surface, but according to the moon landing photos, no such evidence exists. In fact, it looks more like the lunar module was just placed in position. This is just yet another blindingly obvious defect in the details of the moon landing hoax.
sketchb

Con

I accept.

Most of your arguments can be explained by reflection. We all know that the moon reflects light from the sun, right? If that's the case, no stars would be visible because of the moon's reflection. The flag might have just been slightly propped up. The shadows are just because of the reflection.

Thanks! Also, could you provide links for the pictures?
Debate Round No. 1
YourLeftNut

Pro

YourLeftNut forfeited this round.
sketchb

Con

What can I say? I have no rebuttals to give.
Debate Round No. 2
YourLeftNut

Pro

YourLeftNut forfeited this round.
sketchb

Con

Hmm...another forfeit!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by llaurenthellama 1 year ago
llaurenthellama
So, YourLeftNut, could you please provide us, the viewers with some pictures later on? Like it would be thought-provoking to attach a photo of the 'c' on the rock so we could see for ourselves.

Thanks for reading,
LlaurenTheLlama
Posted by zookdook1 1 year ago
zookdook1
Actually, the moon does have an atmosphere. It's a thin layer of neon. There's nothing to produce wind, but the medium for wind exists. Metorite / asteroid impacts cause wind-based shockwaves.
Posted by sketchb 1 year ago
sketchb
Hmm...sounds interesting...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
YourLeftNutsketchbTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.