The US "moon landing" was fake

Proving a moon landing Due to the defensive nature I'm going to keep this short, but let's see the evidence we have for a moon landing. The moon landing was a pinnacle ofthe 60's and gave us a plethora of new gadgets that makes our lives better. In addition to that there is also plenty of evidence for an Apollo mission, including The leftover equipment. You can well take for instance the Indian orbiter Chandrayaan-1 that detected lighter, disturbed soil around the A15 landing site. The LROC also managed to get a distinct image of the landing site, as posted below. the astronauts left junk, and that junk is visible still today. The third party observations. >The soviets, those that would most benefit from a hoax theory, in fact observed and confirmed that they had picked up signals from the apollo. A bit of research also shows that among people who either observed the craft via telescopes or picked up the radio transmission included:>An Italian radio station. >The Bochum Observatory director >Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK >Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky >Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13 >Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr. received voice transmissions from the Command/Service Module >At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment. [1] And so on and so forth. The radio signals where audible in a large area, and given a powerful enough radio receiver anyone could observe and confirm them. The area size (roughly half the planet at any given moment) suggests that the signals were in fact being broadcast from high altitude. The reflectors. This has to be the most concrete evidence. Take a laser, a powerful photon receptor and aim both at the moon. If you're accurate you can hit the reflectors and measure the distance to the moon with high precision. These reflectors are used many times a day; serving as proof that they are there, and the precision was achieved with manned hands. There is also the hoax fallacy. It is estimated that around 4-500.000 persons approached the project in any way. Keeping all of them silent for 40 years without anyone “official” claiming that it was a hoax is absurd. Then there is of course the million friends and families that might have gossiped and leaked information. Planning, executing and maintaining a hoax of this size range is so absurd that it would most likely be simpler to actually go to the moon. Just paying for the launch rocket would have been a waste of money. The moon rocks brought back. These have been proven to be from the moon, but are missing certain details to be meteors. [2] REBUTTALS I've skipped argument1, but not dropped it. I tend to attempt to debunk it in later rounds, but for now I needed a few characters for my own evidence. But the rest is here, so let us address pro's argument. We start with the so called packed rover. The package displayed on the photograph isn't the rover. As evident on the unpacking video for Apollo15 attached, the rover was in fact on the other side of the exit, on quad1[3], and was in fact much larger than the pack shown on the image. The image below shows you how it was packed. the pack you see on the image is in fact the MESA experiment package which had the flap extended and covers still in place [4]. which was in fact stored to the left of the exit. The diagram below shows this more clearly; The location on the image is roughly where “MESA” is marked while the rover is on the other side in a special compartment. On to the missing tracks. Remember that the rover was not the primary method of transportation. In fact, the astronauts preferred to jump around when travelling. In the following video you can see that as they move around they kick an abundance of dust that should easily obscure fresh tracks. [see attached video] On the image you provided you can see the footprints, and at that proximity it is well reasonable to assume that the tracks have been covered. Most of the track abnormalities can be explained by a combination of the following factors:lighting – In most pictures the contrast is extremely off, meaning that the already hard to spot tracks are fleshed out by lighting and blend into the photo. The tire design isn't optimal for making deep tracks, being mostly a metal mesh. some images show the track to be only a few mm deep. any groves made would be relatively shallow and easy to hide by jumping or overexposing images. In your photograph you can also see faint tracks, right under the wheel, leading towards a footstep, most likely the one that served the greatest part in hiding the shallow track. Talking about photography: My opponent brings up two points. The number of photos and the quality of them. He forgets two details. A) There are two cameras, one per astronaut. Neil took most of the published ones but they both had a camera. Taking a single image every half a minute isn't hard, as any professional photographer could tell you. They could also tell you the other secret to taking great photos. B) “Take many photos at a time! ” The astronauts took an extensive photography course before take off, but they by no means took 100% perfect photos. We just don't see the bad ones in circulation. You can see some of the blundered images, but in general only the great ones where released. The cameras also are set up to take many photos at once (f. i panoramas) and thus each time they pressed the button two or three photos got on film, increasing the total count faster than expected. My opponent then brings up the dust. There is some incredibly elegant physics concerned with motion of small particles, but for dust on the moon we need to establish the following facts:a) There is no atmosphere. The collective mass of the moons atmosphere is less then the gas released by the landing craft. As such we cannot expect dust to behave as it does on earth. For short we can claim that dust cannot be suspended in the air, it must fall down directly in next to no time and does not change directions once the initial momentum is established. The propellant of the module is pointing more or less perfectly downward and thus dust is kicked more or less directly to the side, not up, above the footpad. b) The module shut off the engines before landing. The LMS had an antenna which gave the crew a signal once it made contact with the moon. As soon as the signal arrived all engine power was disabled and no more propellant was used. At the time of shutdown the LM was 6 feet in the air. c) The LMS was exerting little to no force, as slowing the velocity of a 1600kg(adjusted for gravity) requires limited power if done for the time the landing required. Combining these facts we can safely state that once the temporary atmosphere around the LMS vanished as the power was disabled all lunar dust fell down with little overall displacement. The craft is still airborn and as such has no dust on it; you can see on the video that the dust is blown away from the aircraft and thus wont land on the foot as it is in motion. The craft thus lands in already settled dust and the foot remains clean. For 6 we can keep going with this argument and learn about force vs pressure. Force is defined as mass * displacement/time^2, or the energy required to move some mass over a distance over that time. Pressure however is force / area. A force applied will create more pressure if applied to a small area (such as a needle on your skin that will puncture it) than a large area (your finger won't puncture your skin with the same force). Now for the actual math: the throttle range of the LM ranged from 4,700N to 30,000N [3]. The exhaust pipe was 3120 in2 in total area. The module operated at 1/3 power at landing. This gives us that as it landed it exerted a total of 0.7psi. on average the moon felt perhaps 1psi, not enough to clear out all the dust underneath. This is enough force to kick up some dust, but it is not nearly enough to form any significant mess nor create a crater under the LM. Blowing some dust around is not enough. The average human would exert 1psi each footstep, just as much as the LM's engine. Onto 7, the footpad. This is the same as 6, pressure. The footpad has a much smaller area than the exhaust. The 1300kg craft being supported on 4 footpads exerts about the same psi as a footstep per pad. the increased depth is attributed to cancelling out the momentum of the landing module. Erosion is the weakest of the arguments, as my opponent assumes that all erosion requires wind or water. This is not true in the slightest. You can look up to the moon and see gaping evidence for erosion with your own eyes. In fact, let me show you the biggest erosion site on the moon. This is a computer rendered image of the South Pole-Aitken Basin crater, the biggest crater on the moon. The diameter of the crater is roughly the distance from London to Athens. This crater was formed by a specific erosion type extremely common in the solar system for all bodies: Impact erosionjust like our own earth the moon is bombarded each moment with thousands of meteors. But unlike the earth the moon has no atmosphere to burn the incoming debris, and thus all meteors impact the surface, breaking the solid rock and launching it several kilometres into the air. What does not reach escape velocity falls back down to the moon as rocks and dust. Over millions of years the erosion manages to build up quite the amount of dust and rocks, forming the ever controversial moon dust that sometimes reaches inches in depth. no space for conclusion, so I await my opponents response. 1- goo. gl/0Hnt6B 2- goo. gl/sQO67M 3 - goo. gl/XheUvY 4 - goo. gl/2TYaLc 5 - video > . http://www.youtube.com... 6 - video > . http://www.youtube.com...;