The Instigator
Lt.Zubin
Pro (for)
Winning
120 Points
The Contender
ccstate4peat
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

We landed on the moon.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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: 6/15/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,971 times Debate No: 8657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (19)

 

Lt.Zubin

Pro

In this debate, I will be putting forth the arguments demonstrating that U.S. astronauts have indeed landed on the moon, specifically with regards to the Apollo missions that took place from 1969 to 1972. I know there is a considerable amount of support for so-called "moon hoaxers" on the internet, and am curious as to whether similar sentiments exist on debate.org. If so, I am excited to engage in a debate with an individual of said opinion.

It has come to my attention that certain individuals find it entertaining to tear apart the purpose of a debate by focusing on semantics. To deter this strategy, I'll have everything simply defined.

"Moon" = The Earth's only natural satellite.
"We" = Astronauts hired through NASA and representing the pursuits of the U.S. in space.
"Landed" = Touched down upon, set foot upon, and successfully communicated messages from the surface of the destination.

I suspect that it will not take me long to provide compelling evidence for the resolution, seeing as it is so abundant and strong, and so will allow my opponent to begin with and opening statement.
ccstate4peat

Con

Ten quick points: 1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answer is simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come there is video footage showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? Skeptics will tell you because there are two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
Debate Round No. 1
Lt.Zubin

Pro

Thank you taking the time to copy and paste a bunch of prefabricated, overused arguments directly from the web.
(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...). I will devote time to refuting them, even though this has been done countless times by amateurs and professionals on the web.

1) Yuri Gagarin said this about outer space, not specifically standing on the moon. Having never been to the moon (of course, you are arguing that no one ever was), Gagarin's personal accounts are not quite relevant to our discussion. Had Gagarin gone to the moon, he would not have seen stars.

On Earth, it is not the atmosphere that obscures the stars: it is the sun. The brightness of the sun outshines all the other stars, and they are too dim to show up. The moon is the second brightest object in the sky, and on the photographs taken on the moon, it outshines all the stars, causing them to not show up on the photographs (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk...).

2) The oxygen in the module was at a sufficiently low pressure to guarantee that this would not happen.
(http://www.bautforum.com...).

3) I don't think any sufficiently informed person would argue that the dust under the LEM would be blown away. Since there is no atmosphere, the thrusters would not move the dust in a significant way. There is no air through which the force of the thrusters would travel and move the dust. Also, it's not like the thrusters were on full blast, because the craft was landing.
(http://everything2.com...).

4) Could you provide the video evidence?

5) I'm not exactly sure what your objection is here. The astronauts could leave footprints because there was no atmosphere to blow around the dust, and because of the irregular consistency of the dust which causes it to pack together, unlike dry sand.

6) Simple. NASA actually didn't focus on developing the broadcasting technology fully until the later missions (they were in a bit of a rush).
(http://www.clavius.org...).

7) You're just seeing the beginning of the slope of the nearest hill. It is a natural illusion on the lunar surface.

8) When it appears that shadows are running in different directions, it is usually just caused by the slope of certain hills in the photographs.

9) The "C" is not on the original photograph. Yeah.

10) They didn't have the antenna out during the descent. It emerged once they were already down.

Could you provide some specific evidence of an explanation for why and how the moon landings would be faked?
ccstate4peat

Con

They were not copied and pasted. There is video evidence on the link you provided http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk.... Space travel played a huge role in the Cold War, wouldn't it be convenient if we somehow dominated the commies.

In Australia many people saw a coke bottle on their screen because they were getting their television coverage from a different feed than the rest of the world. This wasn't just a group of people trying to downplay the event, it was a bunch of random people with no connection to each other who complained about the coverage.

On the link I provided and if you google it, you will find videos about how NASA recreated the effects of weightlessness. People can bounce like they did on the moon and slow the video down and it looks exactly the same.

If you follow this link, http://i890.photobucket.com... , you will see pictures from two separate missions that were supposedly taken from different parts of the moon.
Debate Round No. 2
Lt.Zubin

Pro

If you scroll to the bottom of that link (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...), your entire first argument is there, word for word.

But enough about plagiarism. You first say that it would have been convenient for us to get ahead in the space race by faking the moon landings. This is true; it would have been convenient. However, the Russians would have seen through it, because there would be absolutely no independent evidence of us landing there. That's why we actually went there, and that's why there is independent evidence.

In fact, there is an entire, fairly detailed wikipedia article dedicated to independent evidence for the moon landings (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In this case, independent evidence refers to evidence collected by parties not affiliated with NASA or the U.S. government. Examples include the Japanese lunar probe SELENE, which captured a photograph of the same landscape shown in a photograph from Apollo 15. If the moon landing was a hoax, NASA would not have fabricated their photos to look exactly like real lunar landscapes, because they would have never known what they looked like from the proper angle. Also, the Soviets were in fact suspicious that we might fake the missions, and so tracked the missions by radar (Hansen, James (2005), First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong).

The whole coke bottle story is supported by extremely shoddy evidence. When this evidence is observed, it all really comes down to the anecdote of one person, which isn't much help in a debate. The claim that this was witnessed by many people is unsupported by evidence. It was claimed that people wrote into and were published in the newspaper The Western Australian. However, careful examination of all the issues of the paper since that day has found so such testimonies. To see other falsehoods and inconsistencies in that story, visit this link: http://www.clavius.org...

Of course NASA can recreate the effects of weightlessness. Any amateur filmmaker with a half-decent video editing program can slow down the footage and make it look somewhat like gravity on the moon. This does not make it more likely that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax.
ccstate4peat

Con

This is copying and pasting.
THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN TO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NASA FILM FOOTAGE OF THE APOLLO MISSIONS. THIS WILL ASTOUND EVEN THE MOST HARDENED SCEPTIC AND CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960's AND EARLY 70's WERE A COMPLETE HOAX. VIDEO LINKS ARE PROVIDED SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

This article was Updated on 12th September, 2006, to offer new evidence concerning NASA's current views on lunar radiation and also film evidence of NASA airbrushing out Moon anomalies.

(CLICK ON THE FRAMED PICTURES TO VIEW THE FILM EVIDENCE.. ALL FILMS ARE IN

All pictures and Movies on this page are either copyright of NASA, Aulis or The Disclosure Project.

Evidence Of NASA Airbrushing
Out Moon Anomalies

Before we get into the issue of the Apollo moon landings, I would like to finally show evidence of NASA airbrushing out anomalies on the Moons surface. I have claimed since this website began in 1999 that NASA has been covering up what they have found and filmed on the Moon from lunar orbit and now I have the film evidence to back up that claim. For many years now I have been subjected to flaming from the pro-NASA fraternity, claiming that such evidence does not exist. Well, here's your wake up call!

Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.

I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.

I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!!

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask? Please read on and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going?

David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers' (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?', a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all.

The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from the 1972 Apollo 16 Mission. There is a major discrepancy between the still photograph taken with a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera and the TV coverage film which was shot from a stationary movie camera placed behind the astronauts. The movie sequence (that is viewable by clicking the picture to the left) shows one of the astronauts making a jump salute whilst another astronaut takes a still photo with the Hasselblad camera. On the still photo (that is pictured left) we see a flap of triangular fabric that has come loose and flapped up behind the astronauts head. However the TV film which was shot from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap? Why not?

Another example that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence? But no, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was.

Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth.

But the biggest shock is yet to come! The camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards the left hand side of the Apollo 11, and what do we see out of the left window??? We see what appears to be another Earth... Go on, watch the video by clicking the picture above and you'll see it with your own eyes!

It must also be noted that the Apollo 11 at this point of the mission was supposedly half way to the Moon. The time elapsed was 34 hours and 16 minutes, but from the view of Earth in the right hand window, we can say that in fact they were not in deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit! look at the blue sky outside. That would also explain why they would be filming an exposure of the Earth that was far away, to give the impression that they were in deep space. The exposure would be clipped to the window and the Sun's luminance would light it up, a technique that was used to read star charts to help with navigation and star reference.

Anomalies with the film footage!

Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. I need more characters!!!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leninec 3 years ago
Leninec
LOL!Nil Armstrong never landed on the moon!
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
Hmn what would the usa gain from faking the moon landing? lets go back about 2 years, jfk was assassinated, so was MLK and robert kennedy and malcom x. people were starting to get a little pissed off. So they faked the damn moon landing. There is much evidence pointing towards that. I just be quick and tell you that no human has ever passed the van ays radiation belt that covers the earth, no human has landed on the moon, and if he have and im wrong SO ME THE FOOTAGE. yea thats right show me the damn footage were is it. i have never seen anymore pictures of the moon than the initial landing. also i can show you footage of apollo 11 faking part of there mission. yea i have the footage ill post if anyone is interested. O and why has neil armstrong only done TWO interviews his entire career? because he doesn't want to lie anymore thats why in every interview he is under extreme stress. the moon landing was fake, 9.11 was an inside job.

question your reality
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Not only did Con use BS evidence, but half of it was new in the last speech. My gut tells me Pro would have been able to demolish it like he did everything else in the debate if Con had introduced it ligitimately.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
BTW, the moon rocks that they brought back cannot be faked. Any credible geologist will tell you that you cannot find such rocks on earth anywhere. They also could not have "fallen" from the moon. And that's why it's not a hoax.
Posted by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
Myth busters, sorry damn spell check
Posted by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
myth buster already addressed this but ok
Posted by Lt.Zubin 7 years ago
Lt.Zubin
Excellent debunkings of all of con's arguments, none of which are new, can be found at http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk... and especially http://www.clavius.org...
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
lol, what benefit would the U.S. Government get by faking the moon landing?
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Lt. Zubin will destroy your face.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
**skeptic
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Social-Justice_Carnist 2 months ago
Social-Justice_Carnist
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
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: Con plagarized sources, lied, and introduced arguments in the final round. A potentially interesting debate was averted by Con's refusal to debate properly...
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Copying and pasting is bad enough, lying about it in the face of clear proof is unacceptable and ruins all credibility. Con made almost no argument in round 2, then introduces an entirely new argument in round 3 giving Pro no chance to refute.
Vote Placed by Kevlar 6 years ago
Kevlar
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 6 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by aeiou 7 years ago
aeiou
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Lt.Zubinccstate4peatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70