The US "moon landing" was fake

All right, I'm going to ask my opponent to try not to have more hoax-arguments then I can debunk. It takes much fewer characters to ask a question than to answer it. My opponent states that the images are irrelevant because they are not from the A11 landing. This is false; and in fact hypocritical. many of his images and arguments are not from the A11 and thus, following the same logic, are irrelevant and should be dropped. The images taken from Selene, LROC, Chandrayaan-1 and Change'2 still stand as evidence and cannot be dropped. Beside, it's not important. The LRO also captured the A11 site, with the leftover decent stage of the LM clearly visible. mirrors. Albeit I concede that robotic placed mirrors exist, the apollo mirrors are the only mirrors that actually are close to the landing site. They are also the most precise mirrors and those that are in the best shape so far, suggesting that they are placed by manned guidance, not by remote robotics. There are 4 currently usable arrays on the moon, and of those only 1 of those is not man placed. The biggest array is on the A15 site, visible on the image in my source. [1] “measurable” is not the same as “precise.” After the Apollo missions the accuracy of the measurements became more accurate.[2] My opponent then goes into what is called a “moon bounce”, or a Earth>Moon>Earth signal. He here overestimates the strength of the bounced signal. The moon is a terrible reflector at 7% efficiency[16]. An audio signal would experience a drop between 250 – 310Db in strength. To properly intercept a signal and still make it audible you'd need a high power receiver, a large disk and VHF to properly receive a signal. HOWEVER; most of the signals intercepted from earth not only where not VHF but S-band signals which cannot be bounced efficiently. the signals received are much stronger than you'd expect from a bounce. The field-loss formula predicts that an average S-Band signal emitted from the moon would experience a fourth of the loss as compared to emitting the same signal from the earth, bounced off the moon. You can replicate this calculation. Loss = (4*Pi * m * hz / c )^2. Solving for f shows that increasing the distance by a factor of K will cut the return signal by a factor of K^2.[3] 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. So, we cannot negate third party evidence. Some captured radio signals, some saw the ship via telescope, and the Soviets would not have kept silent if they had noticed abnormalities. My opponent has three independent satellites, an independent radio and visual observer and the entire Russian space program to disprove I believe that I cannot efficiently counter the Manhattan argument, only point out the shear difficulty of hiring the best film crew ever (see below) without blowing a cover for 40 years Now, he mentioned the Cold war. Say the only mission was to defeat the Soviets to the moon. Why go seven times? Seven folding the $8.72 Billion for a single rocket launch, not including the wages of the staff, and seven folding the risk of someone discovering the hoax, is just ludicrous. Moon rocks. Actually, they are definite proof. The rocks you are talking about are NOT similar to the rocks I'm talking about. What you are talking about are rocks that are meteors. Meteors that bear certain characteristics due to that origin. Characteristics that my hand picked rocks do not share. For instance the fusion crust that forms as the rock hurls trough the atmosphere, the rounded edges, the Regmaglypts, and so on and so forth. All of which are missing on the Apollo rocks. Lunar meteorites do not disprove the apollo missions, and in fact they take a part in proving it by providing the difference between rocks that arrived here naturally and those brought back manually[4]. You also forget the regolith brought by A17, which cannot be found naturally on earth. My opponent must explain its existence. 3 - The rover indeed did kick up a lot of dust, but not evenly. Imagine getting a pot of flour, a small spoon, and gentle lift a bit of the flour. It will more or less spread evenly around the spoon, provided an even vertical force. This is equivalent of the astronauts walking. They jump, conservation of motion lifts the dust on their feet, and it spreads evenly, covering tracks. The rover wheels however do not do this. Take a wheel, and spin it in the flour. It is kicked more or less away in a single direction. Each dust particle would be thrown at separate velocity and falling unevenly by the side of the track and on them. Just as you'd expect a dune buggy to leave tracks in the sand despite kicking it up you expect the rover to leave tracks until hidden. 8 - Erosion, my opponent is underestimating it. Logically he states that a meteor landing would break off, and the surface, into chunks. That may hold for a single meteorite, but the surface has been hit often. 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. Billion years of large meteorites grinding at the surface will break down the top layer and turn it into a mixture of fine powder and rocks. This is present also at other moons and asteroids. [5,6]4 - On the camera: Pick up any camera, point it at anything, and take a photo. Then take another. The time taken will be at most 2 seconds. The maximum speed of the camera was 2 images a second. 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. Common sense also dictates that If you take 10 images at once, you don't have to take another image for 10 minutes to still make the “1 img / minute” quota.[13,14,15] 9- as my opponent brings up the Van allen belt I'd like him to, before posting any more arguments, to verify and scientifically prove that the arguments must hold. The expert refers to the fact that it is unlikely, not impossible, as it is risky. The article does not mention Van Allen, but is referring to normal cosmic radiation on the three year journey to Mars. This risk can be avoided, and so the astronauts did. The V.A belt only reaches 30° above and below the magnetic equators, and thus guiding the ship trough a low energy section is possible. Also I'd like to note that AL is fine as a shield; the radiation experienced on the lower belt is mostly Proton radiation; Shielded best by nonmetallic compounds and metals with a low atomic number. Cosmic radiation wasn't as well understood in 1969 and thus people took more risks when it came to it.[5,6,7] 10- Unfortunately, the next image my opponent posts of the fake backdrop disproves itself. Look at the footpad of the LM. It reaches into the backdrop and throws a shadow along an axis impossible to replicate on a vertical backdrop. If I'm not mistaking I'd say that mountain is Hadley Delta, roughly 5km away from the LM. Without atmospheric haze it looks a lot lot closer, but details blur in the camera due to angular distance, giving the lighter colour. 11 - Regolith requires no water to form marks. Simple answer is that the moon dust acts like flour, which is easy to leave imprints in without water. Go into the kitchen and make a small flour pile and leave your fingerprint in it. The boring answer is, well, chemistry. The moon dust is not smooth and thus interlocks, acting as it's own glue and maintaining shape[8]. Water is not required for that shape to be maintained, just as with flour. 12- The trainer didn't crash because of difficulty steering. The fuel for the Altitude control thrusters ran out. I can drive a car that works, but if the breaks fail in a dense area avoiding a crash is impossible, no matter my skill.[9]13 - That 500page report was for A1.Since we do not know what issues he pointed out we cannot say if Nasa fixed them or not or if they held any merit in A11. This is a conspiracy claim that cannot be proven, just as proving Diana was assassinated is impossible14 - The image my opponent posted was altered for aesthetics effects before initial publication. I've posted the original photograph below 15- Onto the wires. Those are not wires, they are artifacts on the film due to repeated copying and distortion. [10,11,12] 7 - I did in fact debunk 7, and I quote: “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. “So, we have dust underneath the LM, and we have dust attempting to cancel the momentum of the LM. This forms the footprints. Same with the astronauts, jumping and landing increases the psi for the foot, leaving prints.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. in 1969, it was not possible to fake that footage. this is something pro must concider. how was the image slowed?[17] I have not debunked 1.prohas debunked the hoax fallacy. Point in debate: missing EME signal loss; Moon rock vs meteor; Loose Moon regolith on earth, the risk of faking 7 launches and 6 landings when 1 would suffice, Soviet and 3P radio and <visual> confirmation; and satellite images of site, 3 of which are third party images. Pro, the spotlight is on you, I end my round. 1 - goo.gl/WfAJ65 2 - goo.gl/ftPeMI 3 -goo.gl/hyN94P 4 - goo.gl/PnnqrD 5 - goo.gl/LcAAjS 6 - goo.gl/6e8qly 7 - goo.gl/AItvEO 8 - goo.gl/NSLlkk 9- goo.gl/9BpZYE 10 - goo.gl/hgS8EF 11 - goo.gl/k7Vfm9 12 - goo.gl/6n9moz 13 - goo.gl/FM93kl 14 - goo.gl/XJURqs 15 - goo.gl/vYMvmY 16 - goo.gl/IGt9L8 17-goo.gl/zqVWGU