The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The US "moon landing" was fake

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 3 votes the winner is...
oculus_de_logica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,510 times Debate No: 60808
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

TheRussian

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that it is reasonable to believe that the moon landing in 1969 by the US was faked. My opponent will argue that it was legitimate. The BoP is shared between us.
First Round is for acceptance only.
oculus_de_logica

Con

Been a little while since I debated something worthwhile, and this is interesting enough.

I shall take the position that the Apollo11 moon landing, and the succeeding missions, was a legitimate, Real event.

I shall take on the proposed half BoP and show that the US did in fact land on the moon in the summer of 1969, and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first humans to walk on its surface.

to avoid semantics, even if painfully obvious, I shall be using the following definitions unless objected to. My opponent, shall he not agree to them, should discuss with me in PM or comments until an agreement is reached before posting his next round. this is just a formality in order to avoid misunderstanding or semantics debating that does not add nor give value to the overall debate.

Moon landing:
A moon landing is the arrival of a manned spacecraft on the surface of the Moon.

Apollo11:
The mission funded by the US government to land a spacecraft bearing the same name on the moon with two astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong both walking on the moon, becoming the first and second humans to walk on its surface, along with the third astronaut, Michael Collins that remained in orbit. the spacecraft landed July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC.

Legitimate:
able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

Fake:
not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.
a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham.


Real:
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
not imitation or artificial; genuine.

okok, TL;DR
I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

Thank you for accepting and clarifying some terms.

Now, let's begin.

I will start by pointing out some basic, illogical details from the photographic evidence.

1) In the photograph below, you will notice that there is something dark being reflected from the top of the astronaut's visor. Either there was an object was flying in mid-air on the moon (there wasn't), or this is some part of stage equipment. (Maybe a stage light).



Sorry for the enormous photo.


2) In the photo below, you can see the moon rover while it's still un-assembled (the big white package). If it's wrapped up, then how could there already be tracks from the moon rover?


3) We've established that the moon rover should leave definite tracks. If the astronaut alone makes obvious tracks, then his weight along with the weight of the moon rover should leave a trail. If so, then why are there no tracks in front of or behind the wheel of the moon rover? Maybe because it was lowered by a crane?



4) The sheer number of photos is also suspcious. If you subtract the time spent on other activities (such as establishing communications and collecting rock samples) the result is that there was one photo taken every 15 SECONDS! Also note that all of the photos are perfectly framed. How could the astronauts take so many accurate photos? Especially considering that the camera was on their chest. They cannot bend their heads down to look, they must aim by turning their chest and guessing. It is impossible that the astronauts could produce so many high quality photos under such conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.lpi.usra.edu...

5) There is yet another obvious inconsistency. The video below is the footage of the Eagle coming in for the moon landing. (Start the video at about 12:00)
https://www.youtube.com...
It is easy to see the very large amount of dust that is being kicked up by the engine, yet once the Eagle lands, there is not a speck of dust/dirt on it.
http://www.esa.int...
<
6) Taking a look at the same picture of the Eagle (above), there is no evidence of any disturbance on the surface of the moon. As mentioned, after having kicked up so much dust, it should be much messier. There is also no crater or evidence of the blasts from the engine and impact of the LEM onto the moon's surface.
http://www.esa.int...

7) Another blaring inconsistency. As mentioned, in the video of the Eagle coming in for a landing, most (if not all) dust is being blasted away, revealing only harder stone underneath. If so, how could there be such obvious footprints right by the LEM? On the right side of the picture, it looks as if the dust is an inch deep in certain areas! This is impossible! A simple leaf-blower would be capable of removing most of the dust, but we have the engine of a spacecraft that wasn't capable of blowing it away? Also remember that the moon's gravity is only 1/6 that of the Earth, which means that the astronauts would weigh six times less on the moon. Taking this into account, it is even more absurd that the astronauts left such deep footprints.
http://www.moonconnection.com...




8) Also think about this. The moon has no wind, and no flowing water on the surface. That means that there is minimal erosion and that most of the rock should be in one piece, not fine dust. This is completely inconsistent with the massive amounts of moon dust/sand that is in the pictures and videos of Apollo 11.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Such an incredible amount of inconsistencies leads me to think that it is reasonable to believe that the Apollo 11 mission was faked.

I await my opponent's response.

oculus_de_logica

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for a challenging round.

Proving a moon landing

Due to the defensive nature I'm going to keep this short, but let's see the evidence we have for a moon landing. The moon landing was a pinnacle ofthe 60's and gave us a plethora of new gadgets that makes our lives better. In addition to that there is also plenty of evidence for an Apollo mission, including


The leftover equipment. You can well take for instance the Indian orbiter Chandrayaan-1 that detected lighter, disturbed soil around the A15 landing site. The LROC also managed to get a distinct image of the landing site, as posted below. the astronauts left junk, and that junk is visible still today.

The third party observations.

>The soviets, those that would most benefit from a hoax theory, in fact observed and confirmed that they had picked up signals from the apollo. A bit of research also shows that among people who either observed the craft via telescopes or picked up the radio transmission included:
>An
Italian radio station.
>The
Bochum Observatory director

>Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK

>Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky

>Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13

>Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr. received voice transmissions from the Command/Service Module

>At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment. [1]

And so on and so forth. The radio signals where audible in a large area, and given a powerful enough radio receiver anyone could observe and confirm them. The area size (roughly half the planet at any given moment) suggests that the signals were in fact being broadcast from high altitude.

The reflectors. This has to be the most concrete evidence. Take a laser, a powerful photon receptor and aim both at the moon. If you're accurate you can hit the reflectors and measure the distance to the moon with high precision. These reflectors are used many times a day; serving as proof that they are there, and the precision was achieved with manned hands.

There is also the hoax fallacy. It is estimated that around 4-500.000 persons approached the project in any way. Keeping all of them silent for 40 years without anyone “official” claiming that it was a hoax is absurd. Then there is of course the million friends and families that might have gossiped and leaked information. Planning, executing and maintaining a hoax of this size range is so absurd that it would most likely be simpler to actually go to the moon. Just paying for the launch rocket would have been a waste of money.

The moon rocks brought back. These have been proven to be from the moon, but are missing certain details to be meteors.[2]

REBUTTALS

I've skipped argument1, but not dropped it. I tend to attempt to debunk it in later rounds, but for now I needed a few characters for my own evidence. But the rest is here, so let us address pro's argument.

We start with the so called packed rover. The package displayed on the photograph isn't the rover.

As evident on the unpacking video for Apollo15 attached, the rover was in fact on the other side of the exit, on quad1[3], and was in fact much larger than the pack shown on the image. The image below shows you how it was packed.

the pack you see on the image is in fact the MESA experiment package which had the flap extended and covers still in place [4]. which was in fact stored to the left of the exit. The diagram below shows this more clearly; The location on the image is roughly where “MESA” is marked while the rover is on the other side in a special compartment.


On to the missing tracks. Remember that the rover was not the primary method of transportation. In fact, the astronauts preferred to jump around when travelling. In the following video you can see that as they move around they kick an abundance of dust that should easily obscure fresh tracks. [see attached video] On the image you provided you can see the footprints, and at that proximity it is well reasonable to assume that the tracks have been covered.

Most of the track abnormalities can be explained by a combination of the following factors:
lighting – In most pictures the contrast is
extremely off, meaning that the already hard to spot tracks are fleshed out by lighting and blend into the photo.

The tire design isn't optimal for making deep tracks, being mostly a metal mesh. some images show the track to be only a few mm deep.

any groves made would be relatively shallow and easy to hide by jumping or overexposing images.

In your photograph you can also see faint tracks, right under the wheel, leading towards a footstep, most likely the one that served the greatest part in hiding the shallow track.



Talking about photography: My opponent brings up two points. The number of photos and the quality of them. He forgets two details.
A) There are two cameras, one per astronaut. Neil took most of the published ones but they both had a camera. Taking a single image every half a minute isn't hard, as any professional photographer could tell you. They could also tell you the other secret to taking great photos.

B) “Take many photos at a time!” The astronauts took an extensive photography course before take off, but they by no means took 100% perfect photos. We just don't see the bad ones in circulation. You can see some of the blundered images, but in general only the great ones where released.

The cameras also are set up to take many photos at once (f.i panoramas) and thus each time they pressed the button two or three photos got on film, increasing the total count faster than expected.



My opponent then brings up the dust. There is some incredibly elegant physics concerned with motion of small particles, but for dust on the moon we need to establish the following facts:

a) There is no atmosphere.
The collective mass of the moons atmosphere is less then the gas released by the landing craft. As such we cannot expect dust to behave as it does on earth. For short we can claim that dust cannot be suspended in the air, it must fall down directly in next to no time and does not change directions once the initial momentum is established. The propellant of the module is pointing more or less perfectly downward and thus dust is kicked more or less directly to the side, not up, above the footpad.

b) The module shut off the engines before landing.

The LMS had an antenna which gave the crew a signal once it made contact with the moon. As soon as the signal arrived all engine power was disabled and no more propellant was used. At the time of shutdown the LM was 6 feet in the air.

c) The LMS was exerting little to no force,

as slowing the velocity of a 1600kg(adjusted for gravity) requires limited power if done for the time the landing required.

Combining these facts we can safely state that once the temporary atmosphere around the LMS vanished as the power was disabled all lunar dust fell down with little overall displacement. The craft is still airborn and as such has no dust on it; you can see on the video that the dust is blown away from the aircraft and thus wont land on the foot as it is in motion. The craft thus lands in already settled dust and the foot remains clean.

For 6 we can keep going with this argument and learn about force vs pressure.

Force is defined as mass * displacement/time^2, or the energy required to move some mass over a distance over that time. Pressure however is force / area. A force applied will create more pressure if applied to a small area (such as a needle on your skin that will puncture it) than a large area (your finger won't puncture your skin with the same force).

Now for the actual math: the throttle range of the LM ranged from 4,700N to 30,000N [3]. The exhaust pipe was 3120 in2 in total area. The module operated at 1/3 power at landing. This gives us that as it landed it exerted a total of 0.7psi. on average the moon felt perhaps 1psi, not enough to clear out all the dust underneath. This is enough force to kick up some dust, but it is not nearly enough to form any significant mess nor create a crater under the LM. Blowing some dust around is not enough. The average human would exert 1psi each footstep, just as much as the LM's engine.

Onto 7, the footpad. This is the same as 6, pressure. The footpad has a much smaller area than the exhaust. The 1300kg craft being supported on 4 footpads exerts about the same psi as a footstep per pad. the increased depth is attributed to cancelling out the momentum of the landing module.

Erosion is the weakest of the arguments, as my opponent assumes that all erosion requires wind or water. This is not true in the slightest. You can look up to the moon and see gaping evidence for erosion with your own eyes. In fact, let me show you the biggest erosion site on the moon.

This is a computer rendered image of the South Pole-Aitken Basin crater, the biggest crater on the moon. The diameter of the crater is roughly the distance from London to Athens. This crater was formed by a specific erosion type extremely common in the solar system for all bodies:

Impact erosion

just like our own earth the moon is bombarded each moment with thousands of meteors. But unlike the earth the moon has no atmosphere to burn the incoming debris, and thus all meteors impact the surface, breaking the solid rock and launching it several kilometres into the air. What does not reach escape velocity falls back down to the moon as rocks and dust. Over millions of years the erosion manages to build up quite the amount of dust and rocks, forming the ever controversial moon dust that sometimes reaches inches in depth.


no space for conclusion, so I await my opponents response.

1- goo.gl/0Hnt6B

2- goo.gl/sQO67M

3 - goo.gl/XheUvY

4 - goo.gl/2TYaLc

5 - video >

6 - video > ;

Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

I thank my opponent for the quick response.

REBUTTALS

"distinct image of the landing site, as posted below. the astronauts left junk, and that junk is visible still today."
My opponent provides an image (posted below) of "distinct" landing site. In the top left corner of the image, it says: "Apollo 17 landing site". This image is irrelevant to the debate.




"These reflectors are used many times a day; serving as proof that they are there, and the precision was achieved with manned hands."
The reflectors are not solid proof of the Apollo 11 flight for a very simple reason. Even in 1966, three years before the Apollo 11 flight, lasers could already be aimed at the moon and reflected back with enough strength to be measurable.
http://postimg.org...
http://www.angelfire.com...


"The radio signals where audible in a large area, and given a powerful enough radio receiver anyone could observe and confirm them. The area size (roughly half the planet at any given moment) suggests that the signals were in fact being broadcast from high altitude."
Radio signals also cannot be considered proof because it turns out that just as lasers can be reflected off of the moon, so can radio signals. This means that it is not necessary to travel to the moon to have radio signals coming in from a high altitude. This could all be done from Earth.
http://postimg.org...

Considering the above two refutations, we can negate "Third Party Observations" because the observations made could have easily originated on Earth.

"It is estimated that around 4-500.000 persons approached the project in any way. Keeping all of them silent for 40 years without anyone “official” claiming that it was a hoax is absurd."
Yes, many people contributed to the project, but they all have a very specific job and are not able to "see the full picture". Only the people at the top see the whole agenda. Even then, large numbers of people can keep secrets. For example, the Manhattan Project involved over 100,000 people and the secret was kept until it was officially publicized.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com...

"Just paying for the launch rocket would have been a waste of money."
As mentioned, the main goal of Apollo 11 was not to conduct serious research, but just to beat the Soviets to the moon. It was not a waste of money since there was very much prestige at stake.
http://www.nasa.gov...

My opponent then addresses point 2. I believe he successfully refutes it.

"The moon rocks brought back."
Moon rocks can be found on Earth. This too, is not definite proof.
http://www.nbcnews.com...

"On to the missing tracks."
My opponent brings up the possibility that the tracks may have been covered. While that may be true, there would be much more disturbance behind the wheel of the rover. Take a look at the picture below. The rover seems to be throwing up a lot of dust when it moves, which would not simply fall back down evenly spread onto the moon's surface (like in the "trackless" picture).



My opponent then brings up my point about the lack of dust on the LEM and lack of impact crater/disturbance under the LEM. I believe he successfully refuted points 5 and 6.

"Erosion is the weakest of the arguments"
On the contrary, it is one of the strongest. I am fully aware of the fact that there is something known as "impact erosion". Unfortunately, my opponent greatly exaggerates the rate of impact erosion. First, let's think about it logically. Upon impact with the moon, the meteor would not just vaporize into fine dust, it would split off into smaller chunks. Also, the source I mentioned in the previous round even said: "The surface on the moon remains largely unchanged for millions of years. Meteors may strike the surface... though there seems to be fewer of them now than in the far distant past. There is also some change due to the heating and cooling from the sun... but again very little."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

My opponent mentions the astronauts having the opportunity to take several pictures at once, or take panoramas, but provides no source for this. Therefore, the claim is void.

I would also like to note that one of my opponent's sources (source 4) is a forum, which cannot be regarded as credible.

My opponent successfully refuted points: 2, 5 and 6
Points in debate: 3, 4 and 8
Points my opponent completely dropped: 1 and 7

9) Van Allen Radiation belt- The Apollo 11 spacecraft had virtually nothing but aluminum to protect it against radiation found in space, specifically, the Van Allen Radiation belt. There is a direct relationship between density, and the half-value layer of a substance. The half value layer of a substance is the thickness of the substance that it would take to reduce the radiation level by half. Knowing this, it can be concluded that aluminum is very ineffective at blocking radiation because of its small density. X-Ray radiation is found in the Van Allen Radiation belt, which happens to be the second most dangerous kind of radiation on the spectrum, and since aluminum is not an effective anti-radiation barrier, I believe that the astronauts would not have been able to make it through the radiation belts. (I would also like to note that Apollo 11 is the first manned space flight to pass through these radiation belts, which is a bit suspicious). It can also be noted that NASA CONTRADICTED ITSELF. In a 2008 article, NASA said that: "Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday." If NASA could not manage to safely transport astronauts in 2008, then how in the world could NASA transport astronauts in 1969?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.thomasnet.com...
http://www.reuters.com...

10) Some more photographic evidence- In the picture below, you can easily notice the definite line separating the foreground from the background. This strongly suggests the use of a fake backdrop.
<a href=http://www.spacewallpapers.net...; />

11) Bootprints- Another illogicy regarding the footprints made by astronauts. Since there is no water on the moon, there is no moisture in the soil, correct? Then it is impossible to make such a definite footprint. Think about it, on the beach, if you are farther away from the water where the sand is try, you don't leave perfect footprints.

12) Below is the link to a video of Neil Armstrong doing a test flight, practicing handling the LEM. It is obvious that the LEm was almost uncontrollable. So if Armstrong couldn't handle it in a controlled enviroment, how did the LEM make it to the moon and back?
https://www.youtube.com...

13) Death of Thomas Baron- Thomas Baron was a NASA safety inspector who spoke out against the Apollo projects because of the many safety violations. He wrote a 500-page report on the NASA safety violations and did not believe that the project would succeed. Isn't it suspicious that he and his entire family died in an "accident"? And that his 500-page report was never found?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

14) Yet another photographic anomaly- In the photo below, Aldrin seems to be standing in a "spotlight", with his suroundings shrouded in darkness. With the Sun as a light source, how is this possible? It's not.
<a href=http://grin.hq.nasa.gov...; />

15) Visible wires- In the photo below, you see light reflecting off of very thin wires that are connected to the astronaut. These flicker a few times throughout the footage. What could these wires be doing? Lifting the astronaut to give an illusion of weaker gravity?
<a href=http://i56.tinypic.com...; />

That is all for now. I await my opponent's response.

oculus_de_logica

Con

All right, I'm going to ask my opponent to try not to have more hoax-arguments then I can debunk. It takes much fewer characters to ask a question than to answer it.

My opponent states that the images are irrelevant because they are not from the A11 landing. This is false; and in fact hypocritical. many of his images and arguments are not from the A11 and thus, following the same logic, are irrelevant and should be dropped. The images taken from Selene, LROC, Chandrayaan-1 and Change'2 still stand as evidence and cannot be dropped. Beside, it's not important. The LRO also captured the A11 site, with the leftover decent stage of the LM clearly visible.



mirrors. Albeit I concede that robotic placed mirrors exist, the apollo mirrors are the only mirrors that actually are close to the landing site. They are also the most precise mirrors and those that are in the best shape so far, suggesting that they are placed by manned guidance, not by remote robotics. There are 4 currently usable arrays on the moon, and of those only 1 of those is not man placed. The biggest array is on the A15 site, visible on the image in my source. [1] “measurable” is not the same as “precise.” After the Apollo missions the accuracy of the measurements became more accurate.[2]


My opponent then goes into what is called a “moon bounce”, or a Earth>Moon>Earth signal. He here overestimates the strength of the bounced signal. The moon is a terrible reflector at 7% efficiency[16]. An audio signal would experience a drop between 250 – 310Db in strength. To properly intercept a signal and still make it audible you'd need a high power receiver, a large disk and VHF to properly receive a signal. HOWEVER; most of the signals intercepted from earth not only where not VHF but S-band signals which cannot be bounced efficiently. the signals received are much stronger than you'd expect from a bounce. The field-loss formula predicts that an average S-Band signal emitted from the moon would experience a fourth of the loss as compared to emitting the same signal from the earth, bounced off the moon. You can replicate this calculation. Loss = (4*Pi * m * hz / c )^2. Solving for f shows that increasing the distance by a factor of K will cut the return signal by a factor of K^2.[3] Anyone who did record radio signals would have noticed that the signals did not come from the moon when they notice that ¾ of the signal strength is missing.

So, we cannot negate third party evidence. Some captured radio signals, some saw the ship via telescope, and the Soviets would not have kept silent if they had noticed abnormalities. My opponent has three independent satellites, an independent radio and visual observer and the entire Russian space program to disprove

I believe that I cannot efficiently counter the Manhattan argument, only point out the shear difficulty of hiring the best film crew ever (see below) without blowing a cover for 40 years


Now, he mentioned the Cold war. Say the only mission was to defeat the Soviets to the moon. Why go seven times? Seven folding the $8.72 Billion for a single rocket launch, not including the wages of the staff, and seven folding the risk of someone discovering the hoax, is just ludicrous.

Moon rocks. Actually, they are definite proof. The rocks you are talking about are NOT similar to the rocks I'm talking about. What you are talking about are rocks that are meteors. Meteors that bear certain characteristics due to that origin. Characteristics that my hand picked rocks do not share. For instance the fusion crust that forms as the rock hurls trough the atmosphere, the rounded edges, the Regmaglypts, and so on and so forth. All of which are missing on the Apollo rocks. Lunar meteorites do not disprove the apollo missions, and in fact they take a part in proving it by providing the difference between rocks that arrived here naturally and those brought back manually[4]. You also forget the regolith brought by A17, which cannot be found naturally on earth. My opponent must explain its existence.

3 - The rover indeed did kick up a lot of dust, but not evenly. Imagine getting a pot of flour, a small spoon, and gentle lift a bit of the flour. It will more or less spread evenly around the spoon, provided an even vertical force. This is equivalent of the astronauts walking. They jump, conservation of motion lifts the dust on their feet, and it spreads evenly, covering tracks. The rover wheels however do not do this. Take a wheel, and spin it in the flour. It is kicked more or less away in a single direction. Each dust particle would be thrown at separate velocity and falling unevenly by the side of the track and on them. Just as you'd expect a dune buggy to leave tracks in the sand despite kicking it up you expect the rover to leave tracks until hidden.

8 - Erosion, my opponent is underestimating it. Logically he states that a meteor landing would break off, and the surface, into chunks. That may hold for a single meteorite, but the surface has been hit often. Take a rock, and hit it with a hammer. Hit the now smaller rocks again with the hammer, halving the size again. Hit the new pile again, and again, and again. Eventually you've reduced your chunks into dust. The moon is like that. Billion years of large meteorites grinding at the surface will break down the top layer and turn it into a mixture of fine powder and rocks. This is present also at other moons and asteroids. [5,6]

4 - On the camera: Pick up any camera, point it at anything, and take a photo. Then take another. The time taken will be at most 2 seconds. The maximum speed of the camera was 2 images a second. a simple google search shows you that they did in fact take panoramas, meaning the cameras could do so, and thus must be able to take several closely timed shots. Common sense also dictates that If you take 10 images at once, you don't have to take another image for 10 minutes to still make the “1 img / minute” quota.[13,14,15]

9- as my opponent brings up the Van allen belt I'd like him to, before posting any more arguments, to verify and scientifically prove that the arguments must hold. The expert refers to the fact that it is unlikely, not impossible, as it is risky. The article does not mention Van Allen, but is referring to normal cosmic radiation on the three year journey to Mars. This risk can be avoided, and so the astronauts did. The V.A belt only reaches 30° above and below the magnetic equators, and thus guiding the ship trough a low energy section is possible. Also I'd like to note that AL is fine as a shield; the radiation experienced on the lower belt is mostly Proton radiation; Shielded best by nonmetallic compounds and metals with a low atomic number. Cosmic radiation wasn't as well understood in 1969 and thus people took more risks when it came to it.[5,6,7]

10- Unfortunately, the next image my opponent posts of the fake backdrop disproves itself. Look at the footpad of the LM. It reaches into the backdrop and throws a shadow along an axis impossible to replicate on a vertical backdrop. If I'm not mistaking I'd say that mountain is Hadley Delta, roughly 5km away from the LM. Without atmospheric haze it looks a lot lot closer, but details blur in the camera due to angular distance, giving the lighter colour.

11 - Regolith requires no water to form marks. Simple answer is that the moon dust acts like flour, which is easy to leave imprints in without water. Go into the kitchen and make a small flour pile and leave your fingerprint in it. The boring answer is, well, chemistry. The moon dust is not smooth and thus interlocks, acting as it's own glue and maintaining shape[8]. Water is not required for that shape to be maintained, just as with flour.


12- The trainer didn't crash because of difficulty steering. The fuel for the Altitude control thrusters ran out. I can drive a car that works, but if the breaks fail in a dense area avoiding a crash is impossible, no matter my skill.[9]

13 - That 500page report was for A1.Since we do not know what issues he pointed out we cannot say if Nasa fixed them or not or if they held any merit in A11. This is a conspiracy claim that cannot be proven, just as proving Diana was assassinated is impossible


14 - The image my opponent posted was altered for aesthetics effects before initial publication. I've posted the original photograph below



15- Onto the wires. Those are not wires, they are artifacts on the film due to repeated copying and distortion. [10,11,12]

7 - I did in fact debunk 7, and I quote: “as it landed it exerted a total of 0.7psi. on average the moon felt perhaps 1psi,not enough to clear out all the dust underneath. This is enough force to kick up some dust, but it is not nearly enough to form any significant mess nor create a crater under the LM.
So, we have dust underneath the LM, and we have dust attempting to cancel the momentum of the LM. This forms the footprints. Same with the astronauts, jumping and landing increases the psi for the foot, leaving prints.

I now present the following argument: '69 film tech was not advanced enough to fake the landing. the overcrank needed to slow the EVA down would result in film tapes much bigger than existed. in 1969, it was not possible to fake that footage. this is something pro must concider. how was the image slowed?[17]

I have not debunked 1.
prohas debunked the hoax fallacy.

Point in debate: missing EME signal loss; Moon rock vs meteor; Loose Moon regolith on earth, the risk of faking 7 launches and 6 landings when 1 would suffice, Soviet and 3P radio and <visual> confirmation; and satellite images of site, 3 of which are third party images.

Pro, the spotlight is on you, I end my round.

1 - goo.gl/WfAJ65

2 - goo.gl/ftPeMI

3 -goo.gl/hyN94P

4 - goo.gl/PnnqrD

5 - goo.gl/LcAAjS

6 - goo.gl/6e8qly

7 - goo.gl/AItvEO

8 - goo.gl/NSLlkk

9- goo.gl/9BpZYE

10 - goo.gl/hgS8EF

11 - goo.gl/k7Vfm9

12 - goo.gl/6n9moz

13 - goo.gl/FM93kl

14 - goo.gl/XJURqs

15 - goo.gl/vYMvmY

16 - goo.gl/IGt9L8

17-goo.gl/zqVWGU

Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

"I'm going to ask my opponent to try not to have more hoax-arguments then I can debunk."
I will heed my opponent's request, and decrease the rate at which I add new arguments.

"in fact, hypocritical. many of his images and arguments are not from the A11"
A baseless claim with no examples or sources.

"Beside, it's not important. The LRO also captured the A11 site, with the leftover decent stage of the LM clearly visible"
The image my opponent provided (shown below), does not, in any way, show that humans were on the moon. It shows some unidentifiable pieces that are more "shiny" than their surroundings. These pieces could have easily been transported by other unmanned spaceflights, or are fragments leftover from other operations. They could be just about anything.

"Say the only mission was to defeat the Soviets to the moon. Why go seven times?"
The other Apollo operations with a moon landng are also debateable, but are NOT the subject of debate. This debate is dedicated only to the the validity/conspiracy of Apollo 11.

"After the Apollo missions the accuracy of the measurements became more accurate."
While that may be true, how much more accurate? It is very possible that human and machine error resulted in measurements that were more "accurate", but only marginally. What does my opponent mean by accurate? We don't know the true, exact distance to the moon, so if results change, how do we know that the results became closer to the truth?

"Anyone who did record radio signals would have noticed that the signals did not come from the moon when they notice that ¾ of the signal strength is missing."
Since no man has ever been on the moon before, the "radio receivers" would have no way of knowing how strong the signal would have to be. They would have nothing to compare it to, and therefore there is no way they could have realized that portion of the signal's strength is "missing".

As a result of the above, we can negate third party evidence.

Onto the moon rocks.
1. There have been "moon rocks" sent to museums all around the world, some of which, were found to be just pieces of petrified wood.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. Moon rocks could have been extracted through many other unmanned operations, not necessarily Apollo 11.
3. Moon "meteors" are not just random rocks flying through the galaxy. They are legitimate fragments of the moon that were broken off as a result of a celestial impact.
4. The Apollo moon rocks closely match moon rocks found in Antartcica, which suggests that the Antarctic moon rocks were, in fact, used.
http://hugequestions.com...

"Soviets would not have kept silent if they had noticed abnormalities"
Well, Americans wouldn't even know if the Soviets would have said anything against the landing because of the unbelievable amount of propaganda. In fact, in 1969, many Russians (about 30%) said that they didn't believe that the Americans landed on the moon.
http://bd.fom.ru...

"The rover indeed did kick up a lot of dust, but not evenly."
That is exactly my point. The rover should have left a complete mess of a track behind it, but it didn't.

Speaking of kicking up dust, I have another point:
16) The moon's gravitational pull is only 1/6 that of Earth, correct? Then, logically, shouldn't the astronauts have jumped higher, and dust have been thrown farther?

"Take a rock, and hit it with a hammer. Hit the now smaller rocks again with the hammer, halving the size again. Hit the new pile again, and again, and again. Eventually you've reduced your chunks into dust. The moon is like that."
Take this into account: The moon's surface area is 14.6 million square miles. To cover that much area with so much dust is impossible. Also think about this, on the beach and underwater, where active, constant erosion has been going on for billions of years, there is sand. Not dust.

"a simple google search shows you that they did in fact take panoramas, meaning the cameras could do so, and thus must be able to take several closely timed shots"
While my opponent provided several sources for this, I did not find any information about "panorama" photographs. Could my opponent please provide me with a direct quote from a source that states this?

"Look at the footpad of the LM. It reaches into the backdrop"
I think not. It goes behind a small hill, that is in front of the backdrop.

"The expert refers to the fact that it is unlikely, not impossible, as it is risky."
Well, the risks are obviously big enough to where even with today's technology, NASA is worried.

"The article does not mention Van Allen, but is referring to normal cosmic radiation on the three year journey to Mars."
While it does not directly mention the Van Allen Belt, it does speak of radiation on the way to the moon, and virtuallly the only radiation "fields" standing between Earth and the Moon are the Van Allen Belts.

"Cosmic radiation wasn't as well understood in 1969 and thus people took more risks when it came to it."
I find this silly. Are you saying that since NASA knew that there was dangerous radiation, but didn't know much about it, they decided to just throw the astronauts into space and hope for the best?

There is not only Proton radiation, but also dangerous X-Ray radiation. The radiation levels are comparable to that of Chernobyl!

"Water is not required for that shape to be maintained, just as with flour."
This is a false comparison. First off, you cannot compare the properties of an organic compound (flour) with rock. Also, flour is so extremely fine. There is no chance that rock would be ground down so much on the moon. Again, think back to Earth. No where on a beach or underwater (where erosion has been occurring constantly for very long periods of time) will you find sand that is so fine. In fact, the size of a "grain" of flour is 1-100 microns, while the size of a grain of sand is 100-10,000 microns. Flour particles are about 100 times smaller than sand particles! That is an enormous difference and fine sand/dust would not occur on the Moon, just like it doesn't occur on Earth.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

12) I have no efficient counter for this argument.

13) While technically yes, nothing can be proven, it is extremely suspicious. If he managed to write such voluminous text over all of the safety issues, there must have been very many of them. The simple fact that they were "never recovered" is unbelievable.

"The image my opponent posted was altered for aesthetics effects before initial publication. I've posted the original photograph below"
Even then, look into the distance. It becomes increasingly dark. Look at the picture below. See how in the distance, the brightness does not decrease?
s://c1.staticflickr.com...; alt="" />
(I have no idea why there's a small stuffed animal in the picture)

My point is, it does not become increasingly dark as the distance increases. In fact, this should be even more true on the moon because the moon 1) Has very bright soil. 2) Does not have an atmosphere that could distort/decrease the power of the Sun's rays.

"Those are not wires, they are artifacts on the film due to repeated copying and distortion.[10,11,12]"
First off, source 10 is a youtube video about Apollo 17, which I find irrelevant. Source 11 is another youtube video that addresses a different segment of the Apollo 11 moonlanding footage. Source 12 ALSO addresses the same, but wrong portion of the landing footage. In the photo I provided, 1) The astronauts are standing next to the flag, which is not visible in any of the videos my opponent provided. 2) The wires in my image are not vertical, they come off of the astronaut at angles.
<br /><br /> I did in fact debunk 7"
I believe we have a misunderstanding. The first time my opponent argues point 7, he addresses the footpads and that they would not exert much psi. My point is that the blasts of the engine itself would have "blown" away the dust.

"I now present the following argument: '69 film tech was not advanced enough to fake the landing. the overcrank needed to slow the EVA down would result in film tapes much bigger than existed."
To support this, my opponent provides yet another youtube video. I would like to note that I never suggested that NASA used slow motion. With wires lifting astronauts, it would be easy to make it look slow motion. Also, it wouldn't be impossible in 1969, it would just be difficult to do. Now, let's think about another illogicy. With less gravity, shouldn't the astronauts' motion be more rapid? They would jump higher, to say the least, considering that it takes them 6 times less force to make movements.

I await my opponent's response.

oculus_de_logica

Con

I thank pro for the round.

He starts by stating that I had a baseless claim. This is false. 1 is a picture of Pete Conrad(A12). Anything rover related(A15-16), nr.10(A15) and the wires(A17)

the topic of the debate: Yes, even if the A11 is the subject of the debate, proving the validly of the other missions will support A11: If Nasa is shown to have went to the moon A12-17, it is logical to deduct that they also went for A11. Faking the first mission is pointless if you later show that you can go to the moon; and only four months after the first landing. If I can show that it is more likely than not that we went to the moon at all, then it acts as a lever that A11 is valid as well.

Shiny things on the moon: Shiny things that look like the LM decent stage, both in shape and size and location. It's highly coincidental that these things would be there and their location (in theory, Three days is a bit short to make such research.) would match the location apparent on the image that the A11 footage would predict them to be.


Mirrors: Accuracy is a tricky word in science. In this case accuracy does not mean “close to the truth” but “Increased significant figures”. However, as I was researching this I stumbled upon a problem. Apollo was the first reflector placed on the moon[12]. There are two mirrors deployed unmanned later, and those do not work except in narrow situations, when the Apollo mirrors work mostly all the time. This suggests that by “increase in accuracy” the article is referring that the laser ranging is a step up from raw calculations based on physical laws. Given enough detail this might be accurate, but it can only be as accurate as the most inaccurate variable. Also, human and machine errors are not possible. That theory stands and falls with the chance the every single person that makes said experiment makes the same mistake.

Signal strength. My opponent seems to misunderstand it
The free-space path loss equation is something you can calculate. You can calculate how much of the signal strength is lost. You know the freq, you know the rough distance, and the speed of light is known. The signal strength expected can be calculated and predicted before measurements are taken. If the result is 75% less than the formula predicts, then the distance must have changed; Not to take in the fact that someone expecting a signal of size N will have a trouble picking up a signal strength of N/4 if his equipment is not prepared for it.
the Soviets would logically be perfectly aware that something was wrong if the signal is wildly off expected value.


Onto moon rocks, pt.2:

1. Correct as that may be, that does not discredit the moon rocks that have been confirmed to have a lunar origin[1].

2. Only other mission to retrieve moon samples was the Soviet Luna, and that sample was retrieved in 1970.[2]. No candidates are likely to have secretly brought back the rocks that were in the Apollo11 landing pod along with the crew. My opponent must prove, not assume.

3. Not relevant. I never stated that Lunar meteorites are not from the moon. I stated that as they entered the athmosphere they gained characteristics not found on the normal rocks. f.i a fusion crust.

4. I'm afraid that the Source my opponent used for 4 is not only scientifically incorrect, but is also not discussing the things we are discussing. A Moon rock and a Lunar Meteor share a lot of things, including chemical make up. However, they are not identical, that's what I am pointing at. Here are images of a moon rock, and a meteorite from the moon.


Notice the shallower groves and the dark half-molten fusion crust around the meteorite? This is just a visual difference, the chemical make-up of the crust itself is something a moon rock cannot obtain by being retrieved
and the meteor is oxidized.

You also ignored the loose moon dust. It needs an origin!

Soviets: I'm afraid that I can't read Russian and google site translate can't translate the page, so I cannot accept this source as valid. However: In 40 years the Soviet government (The 30% of civilian with no scientific nor authorial background aren't the best source of information. Comparing that to the fact a lot of Americans think Obama is Antichrist.) even after the cold war, has not muttered a word of disproval Since they would have had great gain a source somewhere must have existed had they found abnormalities.

Rover. I could point out the fallacy here and drop this as it isn't from the A11, but I'd rather just point to the video attached. Here we see a sand dune climb, and despite the cars kicking up an absurd amount of sand unevenly and to the side of the wheels, as with the rover, the tracks are still visible. Are we to conclude that this video was faked because there are tracks?



Erosion. My opponent is underestimating it yet again. For one he did not prove that it is impossible to cover the moon with dust. Why is it impossible? Do you have scientific sources or calculations?

There is a metric ton of meteors that hit the moon
each day. [3] assuming for simplicity that the moon surface is 4 billion years old (.6 billion less than the earth) that would mean more than 1,680 billion metric tons of rock striking the earth with great speed. That amount of force is more than enough to erode the surface to an inch of dust.

He states that billions of years of earth erosion has formed sand, not dust. The truth is that the two are the same, the end result of eroding rocks. The difference is the chemicals. beach sand is largely quartz, while moon dust is largely basalt and silica.[4]

Panorama: I fail to understand the request. Are you asking what a panorama shot is, or if the cameras could take them? A panorama just requires one to stand in a similar height and turn ones body while taking photos at regular intervals. googling panorama photography gives many great results.

Here is a 360° panorama from I think A11. Notice the lack of a film crew.
[http://goo.gl...]
Also, this near 360 panorama of a similar site, this one isn't perfect unfortunately, but it demonstrates more clearly how these are made.



backdrop:
A15, irrelevant?
I think my opponent is talking about the wrong footpad, so I'm going to leave this image here for now to explain what I mean.



Van allens. I already explained and sourced that they went trough the lowest intensity parts of the field. I explained that the belt only reaches 20° (I made a typo and said 30, the truth is 20) above and below the magnetic equator. The ship left off at 30° above it and experienced only the edges of the belt, passing trough low energy radiation. Going quickly trough the belt we find that they did not feel a lethal amount of radiation, nor even harmful.[5]

On the “cosmic radiation unknown” t the risk was underestimated, and the astronauts did report Light flashes due to the minute cosmic rays they did experience.

flour was an attempt at a simple analogy to show that water was not required. I can provide a better case.
Earth sand is much smoother (relative) than Lunar dust, which is rough and interlocks with each other. This is the first reason they are sticky, a lego effect. Grain size does not matter in this regard when you are down to Microns in scale. Helping to form this shape is that the moon dust is largely formed of silica, which has a natural tendency to bind to other silica substances. Oxygen would normally bind with open bonds, but unfortunately the moon is a bit short on that element. The result is that even small disturbances, such as a footprint, leave lasting mark. [6,7]

On the report: I can't really find much validty in something that applied to Apollo 1, that is not sourced. The only source I found is the one my opponent brought up, and it is contradictory to his case: he delivered this report [...] to the Congressional committees investigating the incidentWhere was it lost, precisely?

Photographic spotlight. I'm afraid the image Pro provided is broken. However, I fail to see the merit of the argument. The image is evenly lit, the light reflections seem normal. You may be noticing the Depth of field. The focus is on Buzz, the background becomes out of focus due to light going past the lens and appears blurry and reduced. This, among other things, affects exposure and brightness. The blur effect also minimizes the contrast that is visible in focus.[11]


Wires: I find it terribly ironic that my opponent is dismissing my evidence because it is a A17 video, when his own image is from Apollo17. Contradictions and hypocritical claims are not welcome. In any case; I cannot seem to find this exact frame, but the A17 flag setting is nearly identical[10]. since I can only find this specific frame in a hoax video, but not the original footage, I'd really love it if pro could provide the original video containing this frame.

7) I already noted that the engine, at six feet in the 'air', is not powerful enough to blow away all dust, not including that the LM moved as it landed without thrust.

16: They weighed less, but that isn't relevant. They still had to overcome 150pounds of inertia. Inertia is independent of gravity and accelerating 150p from rest is hard. To accelerate a mass M to acceleration A the law F = MA holds[9]. Inertia is not dependent on gravity, and so it is still as hard to get enough force going. You can also see in above rounds that the suit is restricting, and they almost wobble around. With that movement lock bending the knees for a better push is not as easy as it sounds.

Slowdown: if the footage is running at full framerate I'd like to ask my opponent to explain the movement of the dust in the former video. on earth it just doesn't move that way, wires or not.


There are unanswered questions I have pro, you have one round

1 - goo.gl/bW9Tcl
2 - goo.gl/c6Sv5F
3 - goo.gl/9qFv68
4 - goo.gl/2O86dM
5 - goo.gl/dvUPjG
6 - goo.gl/0OD2m4
7 - goo.gl/bp0bgI
8 - goo.gl/co63oo
9 - goo.gl/Yhwzdr
10 - goo.gl/0GwbR5
11- goo.gl/ePqUil
12- goo.gl/BXpOHv


Debate Round No. 4
TheRussian

Pro

TheRussian forfeited this round.
oculus_de_logica

Con

Well. This isn't quite what I expected: but I guess this gives me more room for my conclusion, even if I don't have anything to debunk as far as I know. But first I'm going to touch lightly on the one argument I did not have time to debunk: the spotlight in the visor.

The object clearly isn't a spotlight. I am, as my profile states, a theatrical actor, and I've been involved in theatre for most of my life, perhaps 14 years of 19. In all my years of being near a stage I've never seen a stage light that looks anything like what the visor suggests. It's round, or spherical, an unusual shape. The light dock isn't aligned with the general angel of the stagelight and we'd see more cables if this would be an actual light that is hanging from some odd support beam in a 360° set. The barn doors would be idiotic as it would be more prone to cast a clear spotlight and the barn doors are even pointless as barn doors, being longer than the width of the light. the spotlight itself is aiming away from the scene indicating it should be turned off as the shadows from the other astronaut suggest, making it redundant. I think this isn't a reflection, but a mark on the helmet itself where Conrad would touch the visor to open and close it. You can see a similar smudge on a few other images from other angles, and I've sourced most of them[1-7, zooming required]. Now, to the conclusion:

Ladies, gentlemen, other esteemed readers of this debate. I restate that the 1969 moon landing was the pinnacle of technology, nay, the pinnacle of the history of the past. My opponent and I have been passing the ball of truth back and forth, attempting to uncover what really happened that summer day in 1969. My opponent has brought up a number of arguments and I, to my best wisdom, have debunked all of them in part or full.


However, I cannot say pro had done the same. As of now my opponent has not fully debunked third party evidence, mostly attempting to dismiss them. He has not
managed to scientifically prove that the van allen belt is an impassable barrier, nor did he fully prove that the artic moon rocks and the apollo moon rocks are one and the same.

I however have shown, and due to my opponent vanishing without notice for the last round it is still unresolved, that in 1969 it was not possible to fake the moon landing. If the film was slowed down in order to produce the moon gravity we would have to have a continuous film far larger than was available at that time, and if the film was not slowed down and wires were used then the moon dust displayed on the film is a clear violation of natural earthly physics. This is just one of many paradoxes that an earth studio would experience in production of the often hours worth of footage. Out of the two, I stand that it was more likely that we could have landed on the moon than to fake seven missions, one of which failed, for minimal gain when only a single one would have been more than enough, and even faking that one would have been impossible with the film technology existent at that time.


Did I without doubt prove a moon landing? Did my opponent prove that it was made in a studio? No. I think neither of us did perfectly fulfil this magical undefined burden of proof. That is entirly up to whatever voters that will lay down their judgement. I however do feel that I managed to defend a moon landing better than my opponent defended a moon hoax.


Dear readers, the moon is a beautiful gem that hangs in ease above our head, shimmering in its leisure. It is ever stable as it floats around the blue pearl in near perfect harmony. I stand and believe that I have proven that this gemstone has not been in isolation for all these years. I stand that it still holds dearly onto the treasured equipment and the bleached out flags we gave it 40 years ago. I stand that the Apollo moon missions, each and every one, were a real documented event in human history.

With the mellow tones of Frank Sinatra, I leave you. I thank my opponent for a wonderful and challenging debate and hope to meet him some other day for a new topic. I wish you all a good night and wonderful evening under the moon.



1 http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
2
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
3
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
4
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
5
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
6
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
7
http://www.hq.nasa.gov...

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
oculus_de_logica
You're excused, I had a great deal of fun with the debate anyhow. :)
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
I'm very sorry for the forfeit, it is not what I expected either haha
Posted by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
oculus_de_logica
Agreed. a few of these, the ones not physics related, are rather hard to find definite proof for. I've managed to create a fairly good case, but I'm still searching for those nails to seal in the coffin, and unfortunately leaving them might just as well come back and bite me.

Never assume that something is "an easy win." Beside, I hadn't accepted the debate if I would have thought it was easy; some of these conspiracy theory argument (in general) are hard to disprove 100% even if they obviously are not correct.... if that makes sense.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
No need to insult my arguments before my opponent has even said a word of refutation.
Posted by TheMatt 2 years ago
TheMatt
This should be an easy win for Con
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
It is haha, just give me a bit
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
I will enjoy watching this debate even though pro's position is clearly indefensible.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
@seraphobia There are many things that mythbusters did not bust
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
You guys don't get it. Clearly, Russia is better than the USA in every way, and has been forever. Ergo, every good thing the USA has done is a lie.
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
@seraphobia, EXACTLY.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TheRussianoculus_de_logicaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
TheRussianoculus_de_logicaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: If Pro didn't forfeit, I would have given a tie.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
TheRussianoculus_de_logicaTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF