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

Were the moon landings real?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 84259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I wish to argue on the fact that we did land on the moon, six times. I will let my opponent begin with his argument first.


I accept the debate, I thank my opponent for creating this debate.

Because pro has failed to show what "we" is, I will take it to mean the United States, as that is where my opponent currently resides.

The US has in fact had eleven succesful moon landings, not six. These landings were with the rockets, Surveyor 1, Surveyor 3, Surveyor 5, Surveyor 6, Surveyor 7, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and the Apollo 17 (1). Eleven is not equivalent to six, therefor the United States did not land on the moon only six times.

Debate Round No. 1


I hope you realize the manned moon landings. Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. I want to debate whether the United States (yes, we) landed the twelve men on the moon. I am supporting the fact that they did land. Once again, I will let you go ahead with your facts, arguments, etc. I will then respond to them.

I will, however, argue on one important topic that many people who support the idea the Apollo missions were hoaxes. This topic has to do with the pictures showing no stars in the sky.

Many "hoaxers," as I will refer to the people thinking the manned missions were lies, state that there were no stars in the skies of the photos taken by the Astronauts. The hoaxers say a simple black backdrop was used for the set it was filmed on.

Now, there is an extremely simple answer to this.

Every manned landing on the moon occurred in lunar daytime. This means the Sun was above the horizon line. Because the sun is so close to us, and it is so bright, it overwhelmingly blocks out the light from the other, more distant stars in the sky. Another factor put into play causing the photos to seem as if a backdrop was used was the lunar surface. The lunar dust, or more appropriately named regolith, was extremely reflective of light. Because the sun was above the horizon, the light reflected, or bounced, off the regolith into space, or the cameras. This means the light reflecting from the surface also blocked out light from other stars. The regolith is also what makes the moon look as if it is its own light source (it's not).
The final reason that it seems there are no stars in the sky was the cameras. Unlike modern, digital cameras today, that can adjust how it takes the photo according to the volume of light, the cameras used on the Apollo missions were film cameras. This means they couldn't change some functions (such as ISO) to adjust the settings, allowing photos showing background stars.

Can't wait to hear your response.


Please note, what I am arguing is not necessarily what I believe.
I thank my opponent for his arguments. I would also like to wish my opponent a happy Christmas, if (s)he celebrates this holiday.

Pro has now suggested that his resolution of "we did land on the moon, six times," means only manned landings. This was unclear from his resolution, but I will be flexible, and carry on with this new, adjusted, resolution.

This is a crane built by NASA. As you can see, this crain has a rocky bottom, with craters, similar to the surface of the moon.

Here you can see this same crain holding a lunar modual.
s://; alt="Inline image 1" width="399" height="224" data-surl="; />
These crains were used to suspend the lunar module for the moon landing.

Here is Lunar Geology Station Six (2). Please not the hill in the background.

Then here is Lunar Geology Station Seven (3). Again, please note the same hill.

Here is Lunar Geology Station Eight (4).

Finally, Lunar Geology Station Nine (5).

Do you notice the similar white slope in the background. This should not happen, because of where they are on the moon (6).

This image shows the crosshairs behind the objects. This should not have happened, and is evidence of NASA not using reliable photos.
s://; alt="Bart Sibrel's " width="414" height="324" />

NASA even admits that you cannot travel to the moon because of deadly radiation (7). The radiation levels are too high pass through in survive. The inner belt is 3,100 miles, giving the passengers too much time in deadly radiation (9).

Here is a photo of a spotlight reflecting on the astronauts visor (8).
user posted image

President Johnson classified all Apollo files until 2026. Why did he do this? So no people involved in Apollo were still alive.

The US did not go to the moon six times, it was staged.

Sorry if this seems rushed, as mentioned in the comments, there were a few technical difficulties, resulting in me having to retype lots of this in less than an hour.

Debate Round No. 2


Merry Christmas to you too.

I will be debating your arguments in order.

First, the crane.

What you see here is the (pre-renovated) Lunar Landing Research Facility. It was used during the Apollo missions, and a few years prior to that (again for the Apollo missions). Completed in 1965, the Facility was used to simulate the Apollo moon landings. It used a mock Lunar module, powered by a small rocket motor suspended from a crane overhead. This was used to simulate and test the LEM when landing, and how it would handle in craters, and the surface of the moon.
It was used by Armstrong and Aldrin to practice piloting, and solving problems, in the last 150 feet of their descent.

Next onto the similar backgrounds.

This one is hard to debunk, as I have to admit they look very similar, but it comes down to perspective and objects in the background.

The backgrounds were not identical, but rather similar. What appears as nearby in some photos are actually miles away, while some photos actually are close.

I also will be using the diagram that you provided of the stations.

Lunar Geology Station six was much further left, then seven. It was also further from the mountains. Station six was (of course) conducted before seven. Because station six was further left, you can see more of what looks like a gradually sloping hill of the left side of the image. Station seven was closer, and much more to the right then six. Because of this, you can't see the hill that was in the image of station six. This also is why it appears there are closer mountains. Station eight was more to the right of station seven, but the photo is oriented to show the mountains. You can also notice in all of the photos a small little hill in the background. In the photo of six, it is more to the right. In station seven it is all the way to the left. In station eight it is in the middle-right, near the top. In station nine it is the last little hill seen all the way on the right. Going back to the photo of station six, you can see that the little hill is quite visible, with no part of it behind anything. In the photo of station eight, you can notice the hill is covered by a much closer and larger one.

Going to station nine, It was much further to the left then station six, seven, and eight. This is why the big, sloping mountain, as mentioned in station six, is shown entirely. This also is why the small little hill (seen in every photo) is really far to the right of the photo.

I apologize if this is hard to understand, but that is what I have to say for an explanation.

Unfortunately I can't view the photo of the cross hairs, so I can not explain that.

The radiation belts are very dangerous, yes, but there are ways of "avoiding" them. First, the Apollo module was moving, very fast. explains that to break free of Earth's gravitational pull, which allowed them to even get to the moon, a space craft needs to be traveling at seven miles per second. If The Apollo astronauts were traveling that fast, then 3100/7 is 443 seconds (rounded). 443/60 is about 7.4 minutes (rounded). Traveling this fast can drastically reduce the amount of radiation picked up. explains that there was a possible way of shielding from the radiation. In one explanation, it said that six feet of lead can protect you from radiation, but not the form the belts are in. The belts' energy is in the form of high energy protons, and electrons. Metals are actually counterproductive in the protection because of the Bremsstrahlung (electromagnetic radiation produced by the acceleration or especially the deceleration of a charged particle after passing through the electric and magnetic fields of a nucleus.) Metals can be effective though, but can not completely block them. The lower the atomic number (like aluminum, which was used) the less Bremsstrahlung. The ideal protection today is Polyethylene, or a common plastic. If strung into a thin fiber, it becomes lighter while still serving the same purpose. The command module did not contain Polyethylene, but there was an a fiber in the module used for insulation. This acted identically.

In the site that you provided for the photo of the helmet actually debunked them for me. "I spent 6 years of my life as an Aircrew Life Support Tech in the USAF ... i can tell you conclusively that those are oil marks from fingers while they were putting the equipment on in the LEM .... " This was a comment on the photos, which explained the reason for the marks. When handling the helmets to be put on, the astronauts touched them with their fingers, which left oil on them. (you have to hit control (or command) + F and type in 2026 to find why this is) explains why the files were classified. This was done to be sure anyone who thinks this is a hoax would be dead by then. Unfortunately there are still people like this alive today, who are rather young.

It is ok that it was rushed.


You win. I don't know why, but when I accepted this debate, you would be arguing that the loon landings were not real. I tried looking to many websites (there are a ton) and all of them had untrue statements, and unreliable sources. Those were just the most legitimate I can find. I also don't want to try to make anyone believe this conspiracy theory, as it is not true, and I found the people who supported it quite annoying. Well, that's it, vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you very much. And I must agree the people who believe the landings never happened are quite odd. Very nice "match" to you. Have a happy new year.


Codename_X forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Watch a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. And astronauts gone wild, where only one astronaut swore that he walked on the moon, and he was sweating like a hog.
Posted by Codename_X 10 months ago
Well I restarted, and I came back to DDO to find this...
"Confirm Form Resubmission"

Moral of story: when DDO says that it is saved at [enter time here], it actually isn't.

There goes hours of work.
Posted by Codename_X 10 months ago
Google Chrome, the browser I was using is now not working. I have the "spinning ball of death," I got it after I attempted to use the "show spelling and grammar" button for mac (Edit > Spelling and Grammar > Show Spelling and Grammar). I typed most of it up without closing, or leaving the "post my argument" section, so I cannot access it without going into chrome on my laptop. I am using safari to type this to tell you that if chrome doesn't get it together, it could result in a forfeit. I have already waited for over 10 minutes for chrome to respond. I hope I will be able to post my argument. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
No one landed on the moon, they would have been disintegrated at the van Allen belt, lead and gold are the only two metals that can withstand the radiation. Look it up, satan, I mean nasa is leading the great deception.
Posted by BlazingRodent 10 months ago
Con, you just admitted that there were 11 moon landings, which means that technically, they were real. Unless you can turn this around and point out that Pro misinterpreted your argument, this in and of itself is a straight up concession of the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by pimpmaster 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: win by resign