Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is faked

Rebuttals The Waving Flag My opponent states that waving flag is due to the camera capturing the flag waving,however we can clearly see that there is wind blowing the flag for few seconds. The moon has gravity, 1/6 as strong as Earth, to make that easy for the mathematically challenged, an object weighing 300 pounds on Earth will weigh about 55 pounds on the moon. The 1/6th gravity isn't exactly the 50/300 ratio that simple minds want, but to say the gravity is. The Earth's gravity is hard for many. All gravity is its acceleration, and things accelerate towards the less massive moon slower than toward the more massive Earth. If there were other reasons the flag wouldn't have moved like wind instead it would have waved slowly like in the lunar atmosphere. http://www.youtube.com...Lack of Stars There is nothing to do with the reflection, If we go by my opponent's theory then there would be no stars visible even on Earth. According to NASA reports, AApollo missions used Nikon F 35mm cameras with a special f1.2 aperture 55m lens in order to take photographs in low light conditions of the solar corona, Zodiacal light and other phenomena that are difficult to photograph in a terrestrial Environment. Therefore stars should have been clearly visible. [1]No Impact CraterCrater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. The exhaust stream was strong enough or concentrated enough to excavate a crater, and can be proved scientifically. The transfer of kinetic energy from the engine exhaust to the lunar soil was sufficient to produce an obvious crater. This analysis is correlation between the energy of the exhaust gas and the volume of soil displaced. The energy of the exhaust gas has been determined to a reasonably high degree,the obvious crater must have been formed, If we go by to my opponent's theory, the shuttle would have been crash landed on Moon. The C rock If the letter 'C' was formed due to natural characteristic, then there would been huge differences, the clear 'C' shouldn't have appeared. We can clearly guess which is natural and man made. The picture which I produced in Round 2 is clearly man made. Radiation The period 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak.The Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut shaped regions of space in the Earth's magnetic field that trap very high energy protons and electrons.A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes during that particular period. They interviewed a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft. Technology My opponent claims the USSR fell behind due to lack of wealth resources, however this claim is totally false. USSR was the first to start Space missions including the first unmanned missions on Moon. The USSR technology was far ahead than United States during the period. They had many successful Space missions compared to United States. [2] The Coke bottle conundrum My opponent's video some what proves my claim instead of his theory. If you watch carefully Armstrong clearly kicks some bottle and can be easily said that it is no photographic light effect, besides what is the use of photographic light effects for filming the documentary of Lunar examination. Thus my opponent's video is not much use here. "The Soviet Union did not contest the landing."My opponent claims USSR did not contest landing. If this was the case how come they were the pioneer in "Space missions". The Soviet government pursued two programs in the 1960s: manned lunar flyby missions using Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft launched with the UR-500K (Proton) rocket, and a manned lunar landing using Soyuz 7K-L3 and LK Lander spacecraft launched with the N1 rocket. "Also the fact that the pictures match what we think the moon would be like so well is another piece of evidence and the fact that nothing in the pictures can be used against the moon landing is evidence in itself"The main problem here is about that there are many defects in pictures and it seems liked faked. Experts have examined all the pictures taken and revealed many defects. [1]"If the moon landing was a hoax, a lot of people would have been needed to pull this thing off. Astronauts, photographers, bureaucrats, and people at NASA would have been needed to maintain the conspiracy. The fact nobody has come out to challenge the landing is rather astounding if it is a conspiracy"The fact is many people have questioned and NASA almost every time avoided those questions. As earlier in R2 there is not 1 or 2 but so many conspiracy exists and it cannot be denied completely.Conclusion I have provided sufficient evidence for many of the "Moon Landing hoax" conspiracy theories and they have not been refuted sufficiently. Lack of Stars, No Impact crater, the 'C' rock and many conspiracy about the Apollo 11 mission raises many questions and it cannot be denied. Also, If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefact's left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go? [3]Therefore even most of the Apollo 11 mission raises many questions including the video footage, photographs etc and there is a high percentage of probability that it is faked. Sources[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...