Man didn't land on the moon in 1969

I can accept that the rocket used on the Apollo missions existed and did launch. I can also accept that the Saturn V rocket is capable of sending things far away. I am aware that the Apollo missions transported a lot of stuff. In response to this: "why the heck would NASA launch them without astronauts if they already did all the hard work to have the technology ready, built and tested?" a) It had never been done before b) A qualified astronaut would know the dangers and the risks so why would they agree. c) Scientists have proven that the radiation would have penetrated the ship and the space suits and either killed or severely damaged the astronauts on board. (http://img.photobucket.com...) In response to your explanation on the rock samples. At first scientists thought that these must be real and so man must have landed on the moon although later on it has been confirmed that these could have been meteor samples and even if they are moon samples this doesn't necessarily mean that it was man who got them. Yes, it is true that the missions were tracked by third parties however relating back to my previous argument it didn't necessarily have actual people in it. Your zoomed in image show wheel tracks which doesn't mean that man was definitely on the moon. It also shows where the astronauts traveled by foot. If you claim that the rock with the 'C' on it is a coincidence then I'm pretty sure that this could also be considered as one. There are many marks on the moon and the moon is a big place. Do you think it is purely a coincidence that they happened to take a picture of the astronauts in that particular area with the rock with the C on it? To contradict your 'Scale' argument I would say that not every single employee had to know that this was a hoax. Designers of the rocket didn't need to know. Designers of the suits didn't need to know. They probably hired a lot of people who didn't really need to know. You may be thinking that it would have been a big pointless for NASA to hire suit makers if they weren't really going on the moon however in order to make the trip to the moon seem more realistic they had to hire everyone they would do if they were really going on the moon in order to prevent suspicion. As well as this the suits would be useful for future usage if they ever decided to actually land a man on the moon. NASA didn't need man on the moon to take these photos. I am not saying that they are all incorrect. I am saying that they are getting real photos of the moon and cropping and laying in new photos of astronauts and equipment. That is why some of the cross-hairs (crosses) are behind parts of picture and in front of others. If you thought that the example I gave you before was a one off then you are mistaken: https://upload.wikimedia.org... CONCLUSION To conclude this debate I would like to firstly thank my opponent for a good debate. After this debate I still believe that the moon landings were faked because in my opinion the evidence suggesting that they are real only proves that a rocket was launched whereas the evidence suggesting that they are fake includes: camera mistakes; lighting mistakes, missing details (stars) and it finds unanswered questions. I haven't met anyone who can find an explanation for why NASA would crop images if the moon landings were real. Neil Armstrong has never been in an official televised interview... ever. He only answered one question on TV relating to the stars and his answer was that he saw no stars. He gave no explanation and didn't answer any other questions. Maybe the reason for this is because he didn't want to lie anymore. NASA's highest ranking official James Webb resigned without explanation just days after the first Apollo mission. Why would he do this when he was on the threshold of achieving the highest accomplishment of his career? All 3 Apollo astronauts resigned only shortly after there return as well. If you can contradict this then do so. If not. VOTE PRO!!! Sources http://img.photobucket.com... https://upload.wikimedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Don't worry - I have verified all wikipedia sources with the BBC documentary and then verified that with my own knowledge so it isn't unreliable.