moon landing is a hoax

A Note Before Rebuttals My opponent stated in Round 1 that the debate would be "based on common sense and not on scientific information. " Because there is such an obvious blur between what is considered common sense and what is considered uncommon scientific knowledge, which is what I assume my opponent means as "scientific information," I will disregard this rule. In order to fully explain how my opponent's against the Moon landing are untrue, I will have to use scientific knowledge. Rebuttal 1: Lack of Stars My opponent argues that the photographs taken by lunar astronauts on the Moon's surface are fabricated because of the lack of visible stars. He gives NASA's explanation in a somewhat correct format stating, “NASA says that moon's surface reflects sunlight and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. ” He then goes on to explain the supposed dishonesty in this explanation, stating: “. .. stars are visible at night when there is no sunlight. so how sunlight prevents stars from being visible? [. .. ] the sky is dark, so i think they landed at night. ” Firstly, there is no "day" or "night" on the surface of the Moon, at least not in the earthly way we think about it. Because the Moon orbits around the Earth and because of the Earth's simultaneous revolution around the Sun, the Moon experiences different periods of brightness and darkness, thus rendering my opponent's statement that Apollo "landed at night" false. Furthermore, stars are not visible during the day because of the Sun's overwhelming brightness -- just like stars are not visible from the Moon because of the overwhelming brightness of reflected sunlight. This is of course coupled with the fast exposure creates the illusion that there are no stars in the sky. There are less famous long-exposure photographs from the Moon's surface that show stars in their correct positions around the night sky.1 Rebuttal 2: Lack of Landing Crater I really didn’t understand this argument the first time I read this. My opponent practically gave the reason for the lack of a landing crater. He says, “the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust. ” His only rebuttal is “why we should believe them? ” Firstly, this is not an argument. This is something like a reverse appeal to authority. Secondly, there is no single source that I can give that shows NASA’s credibility in astrophysics. However, I can state that NASA has sent thousands of rockets and satellites into orbit around the Earth, developed cheaper and more reliable methods to do so, and has increased our knowledge of the observable Universe exponentially since its creation. There is a lot more credibility to a finding by NASA than a theory from a common person like you or me. Thirdly, how do we know Socrates ever existed? How do we know the great Napoléon ever existed? We trust this information because it is widely accepted and taught. I am not advocating a total and unquestionable acceptance of everything we are told; I am, however, advocating recognition of credibility. Lastly, I would just like to point out that NASA’s explanation makes perfect sense. Rebuttal 3: Different Lighting My opponent states “among these light sources only sun is for sure. so one light source should be there. again is it day or night? ” I don’t understand how only the Sun is certain as a source for light. Reflection of light off all of the items you listed makes perfect sense. For instance, the reason we can see the moon at night is because it is reflecting the light of the Sun,2 so it makes sense that we could see the Earth from the Moon for the same reason. Reflection of light off every object is actually what allows us to see our environment, so the rest of this argument follows the same reasoning. Rebuttal 4: Clear Footprints I have nothing to say. NASA’s claim makes more sense than what you are saying. In fact, I have no idea what you are saying. Rebuttal 5: Flag Waving Ah, I was waiting for this! My opponent states that “moving by inertia? like this ? it is a clear waving of flag in air and no inertia can move it like this. ” He later states: “you can test it by placing a flag in an airless place and moving it. the flag will not ripple, i predict that. ” Inertia is resistance to change in motion.3 This basically means that if an object is moving, it will continue moving, or if an object is at rest, it will stay at rest. This law, however, is disturbed by environmental factors such as air; the lack of air on the Moon allows for less interference with inertia. I don’t exactly understand what my opponent means “no inertia can move it like this” because inertia is relative to the motion of the object, but I can guarantee you that inertia does cause objects to continue moving if they are already in motion. If the rod of the flag was bent by the astronauts, this is a perfectly sound explanation for the ripples seen in the photographs. There is no reason, nor any amount of non-expert “prediction” to disagree with scientists on lunar physics. Conclusion I have thoroughly shown that my opponent’s arguments against the Moon landing are untrue. He himself provided the explanations from NASA, saving me some time in my research; he has so far used his own expertise and prediction to negate NASA’s explanations, but as you can see, the reasoning used by NASA is perfectly sound. Sources1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.windows2universe.org...3. . http://www.britannica.com...