The US "moon landing" was fake

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 itThe 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? . http://www.youtube.com... 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 incident “ Where 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/bW9Tcl2 - goo. gl/c6Sv5F3 - goo. gl/9qFv684 - goo. gl/2O86dM5 - goo. gl/dvUPjG6 - goo. gl/0OD2m47 - goo. gl/bp0bgI8 - goo. gl/co63oo9 - goo. gl/Yhwzdr10 - goo. gl/0GwbR511- goo. gl/ePqUil 12- goo. gl/BXpOHv