moon landing is a hoax

Partiality My opponent says that he gave me “a chance to be impartial in this debate. ” This is a ridiculous claim, as partiality goes both ways. Just as I trust NASA over what you believe to be common sense, you trust what you believe to be common sense over NASA. Levying a claim that I am partial towards NASA is absurd when you take into account that you are partial in the opposite sense. My opponent also puts “‘NASA can never lie’” in quotation marks as if I said this; this is a dishonest thing to do as I never said anything of the sort, I merely stated that I trust NASA over your own “common sense. ” Now, onto the actual argument. Rebuttal 1: Government agency My opponent’s argument here is “NASA is totally controlled by the U. S. govt. ” and therefore “could do anything the US govt. wants. anything. even lying. ” Not only is NASA an independent agency of the United States Government,1 but this claim has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course NASA is a Government agency, and of course it is funded by the Government, but all my opponent has stated is that NASA could do anything the Government wants. I guess this means that since the Government could make NASA lie about the type of paint they use on their rockets, they do. All my opponent has stated is that NASA is a Government agency, which I fully agree with; this claim, however, implies nothing that is not already obvious. Rebuttal 2: Lack of Stars No, no, no. The Moon does not have a “day” or “night. ” The Earth’s rotation on its axis is what causes our periods of brightness and darkness, which humanity has dubbed day and night. The Moon, in addition to rotating,2 also revolves around the Earth, which is rotating at a different speed and revolving around the Sun. All of this rotation and revolution causes the Earth and the Moon to have very different periods of brightness and darkness, and we cannot simply say that Apollo landed during the “day” or during the “night” because it’s nonsense to say either way; when we use these terms we are always talking about earthly day and night. Stars were visible to the astronomers, because our eyes are a little more advanced than the camera they used, but the brightness of the sunlight reflected off the Moon is what causes the stars to seemingly disappear in the photographs. This is directly observable on Earth; there are much more stars visible in a rural countryside than in the middle of the light-polluted Times Square. Like I stated previously, the short exposure time of the camera also had an effect on the disappearance of stars, and my opponent has not opposed my evidence of the long-exposure picture of the stars around Earth. Rebuttal 3: Lack of Landing Crater My opponent states: “i don't believe in nasa because it has an experience of space excavation [sic]. ” I have no idea how to respond to this. If you are not willing to listen to an agency that has been to space, experimented in space, and returned results that were predicted by physicists beforehand, and instead on rely on your own “common sense” that only applies to the surface of the Earth, then go ahead. However, you must understand that although you believe “we don't need uncommon explanation for common daily phenomena,” you are referring to how objects act on the Earth. The Moon’s surface composition, gravitational pull, and environment are radically different from what you are used to. My opponent has sarcastically asked again and again if I have ever been to the Moon; however, I am merely restating what the men who actually have been to the Moon have said, whereas my opponent is literally basing this off theories he has formulated in his head. Rebuttal 4: Different Lighting My opponent says that since the objects on the Moon “are reflecting the sunlight,” the Sun is the only light source. Even if the object is not generating the actual light, they are still reflecting this light. This accounts for basically all of the claims levied against the Apollo photographs that are supposedly lit in a movie studio. Remember, light from reflection is still light! Rebuttal 5: Flag Waving My opponent states that wind is impossible if inertia exists. Wind is the movement of air molecules,3 which is allowed by inertia. The molecules of air in the wind must first be put into motion by a force, but the process that allows this motion to continue is inertia, as inertia states that an object in motion will stay in motion. However, do not have the misconception that I am arguing wind is what caused the flag to move. A flag can be waved in an airless space by inertia. Air is not what causes objects to move, and this is blatantly obvious by watching the Moon travel around the Earth or the Earth about the Sun (these are actually caused by the gravitational attraction between the particles of the two objects). Acceleration is caused by a force acting upon an object (f = ma), which can cause an object to either speed up or slow down (sometimes to rest). After this acceleration, however, the object is kept in its current state by inertia. In the case of the Moon’s orbit about the Earth, gravity is the fundamental force that accelerates it around the Earth (acceleration also meaning a change in direction). In the case of a flag in airless space, the astronaut can apply a force that allows the flag to accelerate, and inertia is what keeps it in motion after the initial acceleration. Rebuttal 6: Medical Knowledge The factual evidence behind my opponent’s argument is true. One source writes, “There were known external threats to life, such as solar and ultraviolet radiation, meteorites, and extreme temperatures as well as issues for which the physicians and scientists could not even formulate the questions. And there was no time for controlled experiments with the required numbers of animal or human subjects. Of necessity, risks were evaluated and mitigated or accepted based on minimal data. ” 4 However, NASA used previous spaceflights such as the Gemini program to determine if the Moon landing was safe. “The Gemini Program demonstrated the capability […] to support lunar landing and to enhance flight and ground crew operational experience. ” 5 Rebuttal 7: Space Race How were we successful in landing on the Moon when Russia failed? Russia’s manned lunar program all depended on the success of their N1 rocket, which was to bring their famous LK Lander to the Moon. However, when the N1’s result “was four launch failures and cancellation of the project five years after Apollo landed on the moon. Not only did a Soviet cosmonaut never land on the moon, but the Soviet Union even denied that the huge project ever existed. ” 6 Where the N1 rocket failed, however, the American Saturn V succeeded. “The orbital operations and restart of the J2 subjected the instrument unit to the kind of sequencing critical for future lunar missions. ” 7 References1. . http://goo.gl... p. 82. . http://goo.gl...3. . http://goo.gl...4. . http://goo.gl...5. . http://goo.gl...6. . http://goo.gl...7. . http://goo.gl... p. 345