Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is faked

Lunar Ranging Experiment and Photographic Evidence As mentioned in the last section, we have taken photographic of the flag that was placed during the moon landing. There are a lot of nations that don't like us and would be happy to take a photo of the same area to prove that in fact no flag exists. Also, as mentioned before, the astronauts left a device for bouncing lasers off the moon so we can take data on its movements. According to my link, all you need to do is have a good laser to bounce off the moon. Educational and Scientific institution have lasers and so do governments. Even the Soviets used these lasers. These are the people who lost the race and would have great incentive to disprove the moon landing. He also did not address the fact that no scientist who has analyzed the moon samples have ever claimed that they were fake. Frankly, the evidence for the moon landing is overwhelming. I do admire my opponent for making the best case he can but unfortunately, he never addressed my very strong evidence for the moon landing. He just rehashed some of the rather weak evidence against it. So lets look at some of this evidence. Phantom Coke bottle This is a really weak argument. If you actually look at the video it is very fuzzy. The supposed "bottle" is nothing more than a line of light moving around on the video. How do we get a Coke bottle out of a line of light? How do we even know it was a bottle? My opponent argues that this could not have been a photographic light effect because it would have no use, but what if it was some sort of glitch in a fuzzy video taping in the 1960s? This is like looking at some blip in a video camera in the dark and claiming its a ghost. Phantom Letter C My opponent claims that the letter C in the image could not have been formed naturally. No supporting arguments were given to back that up. The letter C on the ground is obviously just a curved shadow. The letter on the rock could have been some sort of curved formation, shadow, or scratch. Killer Radiation The only evidence my opponent gives that radiation would have killed the team is an interview with a Russian decades ago. That is not good information. In the last round, I actually gave statistics. heir exposure was 11 millisieverts. A lethal dose is 8,000 millisieverts. If my opponent want to claim that the radiation was enough to be harmful, then where are his statistics? Soviets did not Contest Landing The only response that my opponent brings is that the Soviets were trying to get a moon landing themselves. This does not answer the question of why the Soviets did not contest the landing if there is so much evidence against it. Covering up conspiracy I argued that six moon landings would have required a lot of people to keep a secret. My opponent's only response is that a lot of people have asked questions. However these are conspiracy theorists. Where are the people within NASA who had direct knowledge of what is going on? The Clementine probe and no artifacts (new argument from opponent) My opponent claims that the Clementine probe did not pick up any trace of the moon landing (although I have already shows photographic evidence of the landing). The source used by my opponent is ufo-aliens.co and its title is The Faked Moon Landings!!! The webpage has no sources and looks very suspicious. Take a look at the source (1). It is impossible for an optical telescope on the earth to pick up structures 5 meters wide. The lunar lander would have been about .003 arcsecs on the telescope and the minimum is .02 arcsecs (2). Earlier I claimed that we do have photographic evidence of the landings. This was only gleaned out of some very good recent photos and was mostly shown from analyzing the shadows in the images (3). The "Waving" Flag I recommend you guys actually check out the video my opponent posted. They had rods holding up the tip of the flag. When they were setting it up, there was some fluttering but that was a result of moving the flag. The astronauts were twisting the flag pole back and forth to get it into the ground creating angular momentum. Since there was not enough atmosphere to push against the flag to reduce the angular momentum from the twisting, the flag will be flapping beyond when the pole stopped being twisted. That is what we see in the video (4). Lack of Stars The moon is much lighter than the earth is and is more reflective. Another consideration is that it was daytime on the moon when they took the pictures so there was a lot of light reflecting off the moon into the sky. And yes while they did use that camera, however the way that they used their camera limited incoming background light. If the astronauts had aimed a long exposure camera at the sky and let it sit there, we would have been able to see stars. Since they were taking pictures of each other in the bright white suits designed to reflect sunlight, the camera could not get a good crisp picture of them and also pick up the fainter stars in the background. This is why they used the camera to limit incoming light (4). No Landing Crater The engines were throttled back just before the landing so that is why the pod is not crash land. Plus keep in mind that the moon is a rock with a thin layer of dust on it. So even if there was a whole lot of exhaust stream it is unlikely it would have sheered away lunar rock (5). A lot less is needed to land on the moon because it has less gravitational pull than the earth does, as my opponent stated, 1/6 of earth. Russian Technology I have a source clearly detailing the major problems with the Russian space program. Their directors were being fired all the time. They lacked organization and quality control. Plus if the Soviets didn't get to the moon because it was impossible, then why didn't they challenge the moon landing? Why didn't they prove that there were no reflectors on the moon? Conclusion While there are a lot of arguments against the moon landing, they rely on very weak evidence and refutations are easy to find. There really is no way to refute my Laster Reflector argument. 1: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk... 2: http://stupendous.rit.edu... 3: http://www.space.com... 4: http://ca.news.yahoo.com... 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...