moon landing is a hoax

My opponent has dropped the flag waving argument. Rebuttal 1: Landing Crater No, I was comparing an asteroid impact with the impact of the Apollo 11 lunar capsule. I now see I should stop comparing things, it completely throws you off. Here is what I actually said: “asteroids (of different size) must be going around 36,000 to 160,000 mph to form even a small crater. To put this in perspective, the lunar module was traveling around 1.7 to 2.7 km/s, or 3,083 to 6,040 mph, significantly less, as it was descending. ” This argument still stands. The Apollo 11 lunar capsule would not have made an impact crater. My opponent now changes his argument to a “scratch or some burning over the ground,” and while I am tempted to ask him if he has ever been to the Moon landing site, I will quote Philip Plait in his book Bad Astronomy: “Rocket exhaust gases expand much quicker after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines designed for vacuums have longer bells than those designed for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The Moon lander's exhaust gases therefore expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". ” Rebuttal 2: Lack of Stars My opponent asks: “how come there is such an ordinary [sic] limitation of bandwidth, size and weight? ” referring to the camera, of course. “NASA then approached Hasselblad to develop a camera for use in the space environment – they wanted at least 5000 working cycles in the Earth’s atmosphere, in pure oxygen and in a vacuum, using a 70 mm film magazine made for thin film which gave 160 exposures to a roll. A glass plate in the exposure frame engraved with 25 crosses allowed precision calculations to be made. The Apollo 11 camera had the mirror and focusing plate removed, minimum coating to control heat absorption and radiation. ”1 As you can see, NASA and the camera developer Hasselblad were very exact with the camera specifications. Size and weight were an issue because the camera had to be carried around by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Rebuttal 3: Different Light W-what? The astronauts were in a stadium? I was being sarcastic. I honestly, completely do not know how to respond to this. Rebuttal 4: Government Agency My opponent has only stated that a government agency could lie but provided no evidence for motivation. He has not responded to my argument about NASA lying about the type of paint they used on the Saturn V rocket. Since they could lie about the paint, why didn’t they lie about the paint? The answer is no motivation – and my opponent has not provided reasonable motivation at all. Rebuttal 5: Space Race Once again, you only created a theory about how questionable America’s technology was but provided no evidence. If “common sense” entails understanding your theory with absolutely no evidence, then yes, I have none! Rebuttal 6: Distance and Speed My opponent states: “the 3rd stage rocket gets activated when the spacecraft is very near the moon: almost close to its orbital. ” This is not true at all. The third stage of the Saturn V (the SIV-B or S4b) “injects the space vehicle into earth orbit. ”2 This “parking orbit,” as it is commonly called, allowed the astronauts to prepare for the translunar journey, where the S4b would propel them at the 24,500 mph I mentioned earlier. I want to repeat, the S4b injects the vehicle into earth orbit, not the Moon’s orbit. You can see this in the following picture.3 This clarification renders the rest of your argument false. Rebuttal 7: Television My opponent has stated: “that makes the entire case just a film with no solid ground. ” Yes, just completely ignore the rockets, lunar module, artifacts, tools, etc. , in museums, the thousands and thousands of scientists that worked on the mission, the astronauts themselves, moon rocks which have been identified as originating from the Moon, and, most importantly, the hundreds of scientists who have worked on debunking these “moon hoax” theories. Conclusion I have shown through numerous rebuttals that my opponent has been basing his theories on what he believes to be “common sense” and not actual, tangible evidence. I have used many reliable sources to show how my opponent’s supposed common sense is incompatible with the actual scientific thinking that went into planning and executing something as difficult as the lunar landing. I have always had a respect for the work that went into this feat, and I hate to see people try to use their own “logic” to call everyone who worked on the lunar program a liar. References1. . http://goo.gl... p. 2402. . http://goo.gl... section XV, 63. . http://goo.gl...