The Instigator
TOMlive
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

blowing the moon landing hoax wide open

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  
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: 11/23/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,560 times Debate No: 10214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

TOMlive

Pro

Motives

motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. Also think about it, JFK, RFK, Malcom X, and MLK were all assassinated that decade, people were getting pissed, they needed to distract them.

Ok lets start this, first off let me say i have LOTS of reasons and facts to prove the moon landing was faked, but im going to give you guys my best argument in round one.

I can and i will show you footage of Apollo faking part of their mission, for nearly an hour.

You see apollo 11 had to get a shot of the earth from far away to give the illusion of being half way to the moon. So what they have ingeniously done is shut off all the lights in the space station. Keep in mind they were orbiting about 150 miles out from the earth, well under the deadly radiation from the van uys radiation belt. There was a small circular window in the back of the station. Since they shut off all the lights the inside of the station was pitch black out out of the window you could see part of the earth. BUT it is not the earth from 130,000 miles as the federal government would have you believe. It only looked like that because the window was round giving you the illusion that they were far out in space, filling the window with the camera, as they would have had too to show that shot. They are actually in the back of the station, and if you were to look through the window you would see the full earth. You probably think i am lying but here is thee footage right here, showing all the astronauts faking this. Why would they be faking ANY part of their mission. And lastly the could not have been on the moon the next night like they said they were when they were clearly within a couple hundred miles within earth's orbit.

The bottom line is no human can pass the Van Uys radiation belt that cover the earth about 250 miles out. And if you really think we've been to the moon since, then show me the footage. Well quite simply you can look all day but you wont find it.

there is the footage up top please take the time to watch it.

Oh an btw neil armstrong has only given two on camera interviews his whole life, both times under extreme stress. Simply, he is tired of lying.

heres something else a little disturbing
Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program

In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup.

Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
Virgil "Gus" Grissom (supposedly an outspoken critic of the Space Program) (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Ed White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Ed Givens (car accident, 1967)
C. C. Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed in November 1967 during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later cancelled) program.
NASA worker Thomas Baron Train crash, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired. Ruled as suicide.
Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond, only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days.
Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Kaysing about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred.
Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org.........
Nails

Con

=====
My Case
=====

My friend and his family live on the moon. Upon reading this debate, I called his house and asked about this issue. He said that the event was way before his time, but he asked his dad about it. His dad said he remembered when the astronauts came to visit and that he still had a picture in one of the old family photo albums. He sent it to me and I've put it up on the web for you to see: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov...
Unfortunately, since putting it on the world-wide web, it has become quite popular. It is now all over Google Images.

Plus, there's all the evidence here: http://science.nasa.gov...

======
Rebuttal
======

1. "think about it, JFK, RFK, Malcom X, and MLK were all assassinated that decade, people were getting pissed, they needed to distract them."

Why would the government want to distract people from these? The JFK/RFK assassinations sparked patriotism in a similar way that 9/11 did. The sooner people forgot, the sooner that loyalty to country wore off (which was of particular importance in the Vietnam War era.)

2. If you google "van uys radiation belt" the first site to show up is this debate. No other sites have any information about any 'van nuys radiation belt' so I have no idea where pro is getting these sources. http://www.google.com...=

3. My opponent's only source is the homepage of wikipedia... I'll leave you to decide what that says about the credibility of his argument.
Debate Round No. 1
TOMlive

Pro

Hmm I see.

I don't care about anything you "debunked" in this round.

The "smoking gun" which I have been calling it, is what you eluded too. The astronauts faking the mission. why dont ya talk about that.

lolol 9/11 was an inside job, why don't go research that, wake up to the NWO.
Nails

Con

It's a shame that you don't want to debate this any more. Oh well.

To all voters: Just reread the arguments I made above and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
TOMlive

Pro

TOMlive forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

Don't mind my opponent's forfeit, voters. He is currently visiting the Sea of Tranquility and doesn't have Internet access.

Regardless, he didn't rebut anything in his previous round, so vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Lol, sea of Sea of Tranquility. all points go to Con
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Those snide remarks often get me in trouble.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Logicaly Nails could lose conduct for the final round but I gave it to him anyway cause some loons need to be burned in an aurgument. The perspective it offered was not uncalled for.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
o yea just vote for you, hahaha even though you have eluded my best argument.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
It's ok, he doesn't care about anything n stuff anyway.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I should have just copy & pasted your rebuttal.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
I see we share a debate, Nails. :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
TOMliveNailsTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
TOMliveNailsTied
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 Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
TOMliveNailsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
TOMliveNailsTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TOMliveNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07