The US "moon landing" was fake

REBUTTALS "distinct image of the landing site, as posted below. the astronauts left junk, and that junk is visible still today. "My opponent provides an image (posted below) of "distinct" landing site. In the top left corner of the image, it says: "Apollo 17 landing site". This image is irrelevant to the debate. "These reflectors are used many times a day; serving as proof that they are there, and the precision was achieved with manned hands. "The reflectors are not solid proof of the Apollo 11 flight for a very simple reason. Even in 1966, three years before the Apollo 11 flight, lasers could already be aimed at the moon and reflected back with enough strength to be measurable. . http://postimg.org...http://www.angelfire.com... "The radio signals where audible in a large area, and given a powerful enough radio receiver anyone could observe and confirm them. The area size (roughly half the planet at any given moment) suggests that the signals were in fact being broadcast from high altitude. "Radio signals also cannot be considered proof because it turns out that just as lasers can be reflected off of the moon, so can radio signals. This means that it is not necessary to travel to the moon to have radio signals coming in from a high altitude. This could all be done from Earth. . http://postimg.org...Considering the above two refutations, we can negate "Third Party Observations" because the observations made could have easily originated on Earth. "It is estimated that around 4-500.000 persons approached the project in any way. Keeping all of them silent for 40 years without anyone “official” claiming that it was a hoax is absurd. "Yes, many people contributed to the project, but they all have a very specific job and are not able to "see the full picture". Only the people at the top see the whole agenda. Even then, large numbers of people can keep secrets. For example, the Manhattan Project involved over 100,000 people and the secret was kept until it was officially publicized. . http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com... "Just paying for the launch rocket would have been a waste of money. "As mentioned, the main goal of Apollo 11 was not to conduct serious research, but just to beat the Soviets to the moon. It was not a waste of money since there was very much prestige at stake. . http://www.nasa.gov...My opponent then addresses point 2. I believe he successfully refutes it. "The moon rocks brought back. "Moon rocks can be found on Earth. This too, is not definite proof. . http://www.nbcnews.com... "On to the missing tracks. "My opponent brings up the possibility that the tracks may have been covered. While that may be true, there would be much more disturbance behind the wheel of the rover. Take a look at the picture below. The rover seems to be throwing up a lot of dust when it moves, which would not simply fall back down evenly spread onto the moon's surface (like in the "trackless" picture). My opponent then brings up my point about the lack of dust on the LEM and lack of impact crater/disturbance under the LEM. I believe he successfully refuted points 5 and 6. "Erosion is the weakest of the arguments"On the contrary, it is one of the strongest. I am fully aware of the fact that there is something known as "impact erosion". Unfortunately, my opponent greatly exaggerates the rate of impact erosion. First, let's think about it logically. Upon impact with the moon, the meteor would not just vaporize into fine dust, it would split off into smaller chunks. Also, the source I mentioned in the previous round even said: "The surface on the moon remains largely unchanged for millions of years. Meteors may strike the surface. .. though there seems to be fewer of them now than in the far distant past. There is also some change due to the heating and cooling from the sun. .. but again very little. ". http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...My opponent mentions the astronauts having the opportunity to take several pictures at once, or take panoramas, but provides no source for this. Therefore, the claim is void. I would also like to note that one of my opponent's sources (source 4) is a forum, which cannot be regarded as credible. My opponent successfully refuted points: 2, 5 and 6Points in debate: 3, 4 and 8Points my opponent completely dropped: 1 and 79) Van Allen Radiation belt- The Apollo 11 spacecraft had virtually nothing but aluminum to protect it against radiation found in space, specifically, the Van Allen Radiation belt. There is a direct relationship between density, and the half-value layer of a substance. The half value layer of a substance is the thickness of the substance that it would take to reduce the radiation level by half. Knowing this, it can be concluded that aluminum is very ineffective at blocking radiation because of its small density. X-Ray radiation is found in the Van Allen Radiation belt, which happens to be the second most dangerous kind of radiation on the spectrum, and since aluminum is not an effective anti-radiation barrier, I believe that the astronauts would not have been able to make it through the radiation belts. (I would also like to note that Apollo 11 is the first manned space flight to pass through these radiation belts, which is a bit suspicious). It can also be noted that NASA CONTRADICTED ITSELF. In a 2008 article, NASA said that: "Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday. " If NASA could not manage to safely transport astronauts in 2008, then how in the world could NASA transport astronauts in 1969? . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.thomasnet.com...http://www.reuters.com...10) Some more photographic evidence- In the picture below, you can easily notice the definite line separating the foreground from the background. This strongly suggests the use of a fake backdrop. . http://www.spacewallpapers.net...; />11) Bootprints- Another illogicy regarding the footprints made by astronauts. Since there is no water on the moon, there is no moisture in the soil, correct? Then it is impossible to make such a definite footprint. Think about it, on the beach, if you are farther away from the water where the sand is try, you don't leave perfect footprints. 12) Below is the link to a video of Neil Armstrong doing a test flight, practicing handling the LEM. It is obvious that the LEm was almost uncontrollable. So if Armstrong couldn't handle it in a controlled enviroment, how did the LEM make it to the moon and back?13) Death of Thomas Baron- Thomas Baron was a NASA safety inspector who spoke out against the Apollo projects because of the many safety violations. He wrote a 500-page report on the NASA safety violations and did not believe that the project would succeed. Isn't it suspicious that he and his entire family died in an "accident"? And that his 500-page report was never found? . http://en.wikipedia.org...14) Yet another photographic anomaly- In the photo below, Aldrin seems to be standing in a "spotlight", with his suroundings shrouded in darkness. With the Sun as a light source, how is this possible? It's not. . http://grin.hq.nasa.gov...; />15) Visible wires- In the photo below, you see light reflecting off of very thin wires that are connected to the astronaut. These flicker a few times throughout the footage. What could these wires be doing? Lifting the astronaut to give an illusion of weaker gravity? . http://i56.tinypic.com...; />That is all for now. I await my opponent's response.