The US "moon landing" was fake

"I'm going to ask my opponent to try not to have more hoax-arguments then I can debunk."I will heed my opponent's request, and decrease the rate at which I add new arguments."in fact, hypocritical. many of his images and arguments are not from the A11"A baseless claim with no examples or sources."Beside, it's not important. The LRO also captured the A11 site, with the leftover decent stage of the LM clearly visible"The image my opponent provided (shown below), does not, in any way, show that humans were on the moon. It shows some unidentifiable pieces that are more "shiny" than their surroundings. These pieces could have easily been transported by other unmanned spaceflights, or are fragments leftover from other operations. They could be just about anything."Say the only mission was to defeat the Soviets to the moon. Why go seven times?"The other Apollo operations with a moon landng are also debateable, but are NOT the subject of debate. This debate is dedicated only to the the validity/conspiracy of Apollo 11."After the Apollo missions the accuracy of the measurements became more accurate."While that may be true, how much more accurate? It is very possible that human and machine error resulted in measurements that were more "accurate", but only marginally. What does my opponent mean by accurate? We don't know the true, exact distance to the moon, so if results change, how do we know that the results became closer to the truth?"Anyone who did record radio signals would have noticed that the signals did not come from the moon when they notice that ¾ of the signal strength is missing."Since no man has ever been on the moon before, the "radio receivers" would have no way of knowing how strong the signal would have to be. They would have nothing to compare it to, and therefore there is no way they could have realized that portion of the signal's strength is "missing".As a result of the above, we can negate third party evidence.Onto the moon rocks.1. There have been "moon rocks" sent to museums all around the world, some of which, were found to be just pieces of petrified wood.http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Moon rocks could have been extracted through many other unmanned operations, not necessarily Apollo 11.3. Moon "meteors" are not just random rocks flying through the galaxy. They are legitimate fragments of the moon that were broken off as a result of a celestial impact.4. The Apollo moon rocks closely match moon rocks found in Antartcica, which suggests that the Antarctic moon rocks were, in fact, used.http://hugequestions.com..."Soviets would not have kept silent if they had noticed abnormalities"Well, Americans wouldn't even know if the Soviets would have said anything against the landing because of the unbelievable amount of propaganda. In fact, in 1969, many Russians (about 30%) said that they didn't believe that the Americans landed on the moon.http://bd.fom.ru..."The rover indeed did kick up a lot of dust, but not evenly."That is exactly my point. The rover should have left a complete mess of a track behind it, but it didn't.Speaking of kicking up dust, I have another point:16) The moon's gravitational pull is only 1/6 that of Earth, correct? Then, logically, shouldn't the astronauts have jumped higher, and dust have been thrown farther?"Take a rock, and hit it with a hammer. Hit the now smaller rocks again with the hammer, halving the size again. Hit the new pile again, and again, and again. Eventually you've reduced your chunks into dust. The moon is like that."Take this into account: The moon's surface area is 14.6 million square miles. To cover that much area with so much dust is impossible. Also think about this, on the beach and underwater, where active, constant erosion has been going on for billions of years, there is sand. Not dust. "a simple google search shows you that they did in fact take panoramas, meaning the cameras could do so, and thus must be able to take several closely timed shots"While my opponent provided several sources for this, I did not find any information about "panorama" photographs. Could my opponent please provide me with a direct quote from a source that states this?"Look at the footpad of the LM. It reaches into the backdrop"I think not. It goes behind a small hill, that is in front of the backdrop."The expert refers to the fact that it is unlikely, not impossible, as it is risky."Well, the risks are obviously big enough to where even with today's technology, NASA is worried."The article does not mention Van Allen, but is referring to normal cosmic radiation on the three year journey to Mars."While it does not directly mention the Van Allen Belt, it does speak of radiation on the way to the moon, and virtuallly the only radiation "fields" standing between Earth and the Moon are the Van Allen Belts."Cosmic radiation wasn't as well understood in 1969 and thus people took more risks when it came to it."I find this silly. Are you saying that since NASA knew that there was dangerous radiation, but didn't know much about it, they decided to just throw the astronauts into space and hope for the best?There is not only Proton radiation, but also dangerous X-Ray radiation. The radiation levels are comparable to that of Chernobyl!"Water is not required for that shape to be maintained, just as with flour."This is a false comparison. First off, you cannot compare the properties of an organic compound (flour) with rock. Also, flour is so extremely fine. There is no chance that rock would be ground down so much on the moon. Again, think back to Earth. No where on a beach or underwater (where erosion has been occurring constantly for very long periods of time) will you find sand that is so fine. In fact, the size of a "grain" of flour is 1-100 microns, while the size of a grain of sand is 100-10,000 microns. Flour particles are about 100 times smaller than sand particles! That is an enormous difference and fine sand/dust would not occur on the Moon, just like it doesn't occur on Earth.http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...12) I have no efficient counter for this argument.13) While technically yes, nothing can be proven, it is extremely suspicious. If he managed to write such voluminous text over all of the safety issues, there must have been very many of them. The simple fact that they were "never recovered" is unbelievable. "The image my opponent posted was altered for aesthetics effects before initial publication. I've posted the original photograph below"Even then, look into the distance. It becomes increasingly dark. Look at the picture below. See how in the distance, the brightness does not decrease? s://c1.staticflickr.com...; alt="" />(I have no idea why there's a small stuffed animal in the picture)My point is, it does not become increasingly dark as the distance increases. In fact, this should be even more true on the moon because the moon 1) Has very bright soil. 2) Does not have an atmosphere that could distort/decrease the power of the Sun's rays."Those are not wires, they are artifacts on the film due to repeated copying and distortion.[10,11,12]"First off, source 10 is a youtube video about Apollo 17, which I find irrelevant. Source 11 is another youtube video that addresses a different segment of the Apollo 11 moonlanding footage. Source 12 ALSO addresses the same, but wrong portion of the landing footage. In the photo I provided, 1) The astronauts are standing next to the flag, which is not visible in any of the videos my opponent provided. 2) The wires in my image are not vertical, they come off of the astronaut at angles. I did in fact debunk 7"I believe we have a misunderstanding. The first time my opponent argues point 7, he addresses the footpads and that they would not exert much psi. My point is that the blasts of the engine itself would have "blown" away the dust."I now present the following argument: '69 film tech was not advanced enough to fake the landing. the overcrank needed to slow the EVA down would result in film tapes much bigger than existed."To support this, my opponent provides yet another youtube video. I would like to note that I never suggested that NASA used slow motion. With wires lifting astronauts, it would be easy to make it look slow motion. Also, it wouldn't be impossible in 1969, it would just be difficult to do. Now, let's think about another illogicy. With less gravity, shouldn't the astronauts' motion be more rapid? They would jump higher, to say the least, considering that it takes them 6 times less force to make movements.I await my opponent's response.