Instigator / Pro

Nevets

1557

rating

debates

52.86%

won

Topic

#3098

It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 7 votes and with 49 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw

Tags

History

Parameters

Publication date: 06.04.2021 02:27PM
Last updated date: 12.19.2021 01:45PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: Six months
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

fauxlaw

1702

rating

debates

70.51%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Nevets

06.18.2021 02:28AM

Pro

Forfeited

fauxlaw

06.18.2021 03:01AM

Con

Resolution: It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

Regret that my opponent has forfeited R1. I hope I have not prepared, to date, 3 rounds of arguments to present, in vain. Whatever, I will proceed:

I Commentary: The highly unlikely Resolution

I.a When first reading my opponent’s Resolution, I had a sudden flashback. Having experienced first hand, like millions around the world, the live television b&w transmission of Apollo 11’s LM landing on the Moon, and Neil Armstrong’s egress from the LM, Eagle, followed by Buzz Aldrin, I, too, at 19, cried in gratitude that the mission, so far, had accomplished the feat challenged by President Kennedy just eight years before. I happened to have been in Southern France at the time, watching the television at an outdoor, street-side bistro, very early in the morning, 04:56; before dawn. The bistro opened very early for the occasion, and many people came. Those around me, realizing I was an American, slapped my shoulders and shook my hand in congratulations for my country’s accomplishment.

I.b Enough history. When I read Pro’s Resolution, I had to read twice to assure I read what I thought I read. Yes, “moon landings.” Multiple Apollo 11 “moon landings?” No. Apollo 11 flew once and landed once [just the LM]. I entered #4 comment in Comments in the debate file to remind my opponent of this flaw, expecting it would be corrected. I even joked that I should take the debate, using the flaw as argument.

I.b.1 After 10 days, when Pro unexpectedly left the Resolution as is, it was too tempting to ignore; I accepted the debate as is. It is now cast in stone. The Resolution is as originally composed and cannot change. Therefore, I argue:

II Argument: The singular Apollo 11 mission

II.a Quite simply, because the NASA Apollo Program #11 flew but one mission, beginning July 16, 1969 at lift-off from NASA 39A of Cape Canaveral, with successful landing on the Moon on July 21, 1969. The return of the CM [command module] Columbia to Earth was on July 24, 1969. As for Apollo 11, with LM Eagle jettisoned from Lunar orbit back to the Moon, it’s mission now a historic first, was not ever to be repeated, not even by Columbia. The Apollo Program, not designated entirely as Apollo 11, continued, but, it was Apollo 12 – 17, and their respective CMs/SMs/LMs, that completed the Program.[1]

II.b Thus, by simple flaw of the Resolution, I declare the Resolution as composed as a failure, and that the following “landings” were Apollo 11 fakes.

III Rebuttal, Pro R1:

III.a As there was no Pro argument, there is nothing to rebut.

I close my case for R1, and pass R2 to Pro.

[1]https://www.history.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-timeline

Round 2

Nevets

06.19.2021 03:01AM

Pro

Forfeited

fauxlaw

06.19.2021 03:34AM

Con

Resolution: It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

My opponent has forfeited the first two rounds.

I Argument: What was the Apollo missions’ purpose?

I.a There were a total of 11 Apollo missions by NASA designed to test and accomplish fights to the Moon and return to the Earth.[1]

I.b The first four missions tested the equipment in Earth orbit; the CM [command module, consisting of the iconic conical three-man crew capsule] the SM [service module, providing fuel, air supply, etc., to both other modules in flight], and the LM [the two-man landing module, designed to detach from the CM/SM, descend and land on the Moon, then lift-off back to the CM/SM in orbit, jettison the LM, and return to Earth in the CM/SM until jettison of the SM just prior to Earth re-entry. Each crew compliment of the Apollo missions were three-man crews.

I.c Six of seven of the remaining missions went to and landed on the Moon and returned to Earth, carrying a total of twelve men to the lunar surface. The first of these Moon-landing flights was Apollo 11, and each mission had its own Apollo CM/SM/LM, numbered 11 – 17. While Apollo 13 went to the Moon, a malfunction occurred in flight preventing landing on the Moon; the crew remained in the CM, orbiting the Moon only, before successfully returning to Earth.

I.d Therefore, as said in my R1, Apollo-mission 11 flew but once, having a singular lunar landing, not multiple landings. Therefore, the Resolution fails by its own language, claiming multiple lunar landings by Apollo 11; language determined by Pro, and not clarified by further offering of any Description, Definition, or Exception.

I.d.1 We may know what Pro meant, and Pro was given ample time for correction, but Pro chose to ignore suggestion to correct or clarify the Resolution, so, we are left with no option but to take Pro’s flawed Resolution as is, and, lacking argument to date, the Resolution is defeated.

II Rebuttal: Pro’s R2:

II.a There are no arguments to rebut. I pass R3 to Pro.

[1]https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html

Round 3

Nevets

06.20.2021 03:34AM

Pro

Forfeited

fauxlaw

06.20.2021 12:35PM

Con

Resolution: It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

Round 3 has slipped away for a third successive forfeit by Pro. I regret not having an argument to rebut.

I Argument: What constitutes a fake?

I.a One can interpret “fake” as an operative Resolution word, perhaps the operative word of the Resolution, but as Pro declined to define the keywords of the Resolution, we are open to interpretation. So, here is my R3:

I.b One interpretation is the notion that the Apollo 11 mission, and we suppose all six Lunar-landing Apollo missions, were grand misdirections, wool-pulling over our eyes by Hollywood special effects [FX]. Possible? Yes, FX technology produced 2001: A Space Odyssey[1] one year before the flight of Apollo 11, and that featured a flight to the Moon, including Lunar landing, flight in Lunar shuttle crafts, and subsequent flight to Jupiter, and Discovery One was parked at the L1 point[2] [first lagrange point, a feature of a two-body system, such as a planet and a moon, where a third body, such as an interplanetary spacecraft can stay in position between the planet and moon without expending valuable fuel] between Jupiter and Io, one of the planet’s moons, with very believable FX.[3]

I.b.1 Out in the Mojave Desert in California is a region where an adaptation of the Lunar surface [and Martian surface] was manipulated and constructed by NASA for purposes of simulated astronaut training.[4] It is still used today for a Mars mission.

I.c There are numerous conspiracy theories that allege to explain why the Apollo Program was entirely a hoax, a fake, to use the Resolution syntax, but all have been variously debunked by simple explanation regarding each accusation’s allegation is explained as simple misunderstandings by the various accusers.[5]

I.c.1 For example, several accusers mention no visible stars in numerous photographs of astronauts and equipment deployed outside the LM on the Lunar surface, when, without an atmosphere, the stars ought to be much more visible in their excess numbers than seen from Earth. While the alleged fakery has a valid explanation, it ignores that, given the extreme darkness of the environment, in spite of the generous starlight, the lighting required to obtain adequate photographic images, and the fast exposure times required for so much light, obliterated the visible starlight seen by astronauts by naked eye. The human eye and the camera simply do not function with identical performance, as is known by every serious photographer to ever snap an image.

I.c.2 I.c and I.c.1appear to be argument in support of the Resolution, that “it is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked.” However, I rebut the first four words. No, it is not even “highly unlikely;” it is absolutely a false claim that the Apollo 11 moon landing, even the one that actually occurred, was faked. Certainly, as said in my R1, Apollo 11 did not occur multiple times. Therefore, the Resolution fails in short-sighting the certainty of even the singular successful mission of Apollo 11.

I.d Seriously, we know the Moon landing was a fake because Neil Armstrong, while on the Moon, did not perform his patented dance, developed over years as a combat Naval aviator in Korea, when rarely on the ground, R&Ring in a shady bar, he would suddenly moon the crown while swing dancing with some SoKo honey. He could have easily done so on the Moon. What better place to moon NASA; let alone the entire watching world? This was an alleged Moon landing that was watched live by millions around the world, including moi. And, after all, as if it was ever really needed to support the fake, a further effort by NASA was to release notice that Apollo astronauts tossed out their spacesuits onto the Moon’s surface just before liftoff.[6] The title tells all, but the subtitle reveals the hoax. The Resolution is out there, too, somewhere in the Mojave Desert.

[1]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

[2]https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/

[3]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

[4]https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-simulate-moon-and-mars-exploration-mojave-desert/

[5]ibid

[6]https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Round 4

Nevets

06.21.2021 12:35PM

Pro

Forfeited

fauxlaw

06.21.2021 01:33PM

Con

Resolution: It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

Round 4 has been forfeit by Pro. I regret  still not having an argument to rebut. Who initiated the debate, anyway?

I Argument: More Armstrong antics: “Do the Hustle”

I.a Neil Armstrong provided still further absurdity to demonstrate the faked Moon landings of Apollo 11.

I.a.1 On the three-second mark after Apollo 11’s  Eagle  was down, the first words from Armstrong were not the famous line heard on the first landing, “Houston, Tranquility Base, here. The Eagle has landed.”  No. He was talking about tents. Maybe to get out of the heat?

I.a.2 The second time up to the Moon, and down to the surface, immediately on contact with the Lunar surface, Neil said, “Out of detent.” Everyone in Houston thought Neil was referring to the ACA engine throttle he was manipulating so carefully, like the maneuvers of his failure to moon everyone on the first landing,  but, no. He’s still talking tents. He eased the LM down the last 100 feet of altitude, knowing that he had but seconds of fuel remaining, again, having overshot the original landing site, again, due to a second miscalculation of their rate of descent by Mission Control. Neil was flying by the seat of his pants, which remained firmly belted at his waist. Diarrhea was setting in.

I.a.2.A This time, Neil, in a complete separation from the first landing, said, a little garbled because, well, radio signals from the heat rising from the Mojave floor tend to garble, rushed and hustling. Houston thought Neil launched into a famous Disco routine [he was a dancer, we said], “Do it, Do it, Do it, Do the Hustle… Huston.”

I.a.3 Five minutes later, not because he was still doing Disco, but because the sand outside was really hot, even through the boots [and still no mooning – that would have fried his ass], Neil was still, “doot-doot, doot, doo-doo-doo-doo doot-doot…”  Now, tell me, how hot can the sand be on the Lunar surface, in a vacuum, 240,000 miles from Earth? No, Neil Armstrong was Wolfman Jack from Mojave, not the Moon.

I rest my case for R4. Maybe we’ll hear something from Pro for R5. Here’s hopping [‘cause the sand, you know, is still hot-hot-hot].

Round 5

Nevets

06.22.2021 01:33PM

Pro

Forfeited

fauxlaw

06.22.2021 01:45PM

Con

#10

Resolution: It is highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked

All rounds have been forfeit by Pro, who has, therefore, fully forfeited the debate.

“I like smoke and lightnin'
Heavy metal thunder
Racing in the wind
And the feeling that I'm underYeah, darlin'
Gonna make it happen
Take the world in a love embrace
Fire all of your guns at once
And explode into space”[1]

Never intending to give an argument in R5, and having nothing to rebut, I have fired all my guns into space and I have, apparently, won the debate by default. I would prefer to win by your vote, darlins,’ so, now is the time to fire your guns. I’ve had great fun presenting serious and not so serious arguments. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading them and agree that multiple moon landings of Apollo 11 were certainly fakes in the wind and that the Resolution, therefore has exploded into space. I ask for your vote. Thank you.

The Eagle has landed. Once.

[1]https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=lyrics+steppenwolf+born+to+be+wild&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

SirAnonymous

06.23.2021 05:19PM

-->

@fauxlaw

The debate's over, so I'll explain my idea. The resolution states that it's highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked. Your argument was that there was only one landing. However, here's the issue. "Faked" implies active fakery. Since NASA says they only landed once, there is no fakery going on regarding multiple Apollo 11 landings. While those multiple landings are fake because they didn't happen, they were not faked because NASA never attempted to fake multiple Apollo 11 landings. Thus, the resolution that the Apollo 11 landings were not faked is upheld. They were fake, but not faked.

Of course, this is hopelessly semantic hair-splitting, but the way the resolution was written seems to permit this.

SirAnonymous

06.18.2021 06:38PM

-->

@fauxlaw

I won't say what it is until the debate is over, but there's a good way to at least challenge your argument.

Bones

06.07.2021 12:48AM

-->

@Nevets

unblock madman, I want to watch this debate.

fauxlaw

06.07.2021 12:47AM

"Apollo 11 moon landings?"Plural landings? How many times did Apollo 11 land on the moon?

I should accept the debate and argue on that point, alone, because, for certain, while one landing was not a fake, additional landings of Apollo 11 certainly were. But, that would ridicule the debate.

RationalMadman

06.06.2021 08:16AM

-->

@Undefeatable

they were very possible to fake and were indeed faked but not only has nevets blocked me which means i can't accept his debates but this debate has very little understanding from voters usually so it's a waste of effort for Con to try.

Undefeatable

06.05.2021 03:42PM

-->

@Nevets

Highly unlikely? That means it wasn’t impossible? I could argue they were *impossible* to fake.

Barney

06.05.2021 08:10AM

Before this gets underway... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-tpiAiiHo

Barney

11.08.2021 11:38AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeiture, and a very fun (and due to trying to get pro to correct the mistake via the comment section) above the board piece of semantics.

Benjamin

11.08.2021 09:14AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

FF from PRO and very fun argument by CON.

RationalMadman

11.08.2021 01:49AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

no problem........

elhombremasinteligente

11.08.2021 12:55AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

full forteid

Ramshutu

09.30.2021 07:54PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeit

ILikePie5

09.06.2021 06:46AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeit

Nyxified

08.14.2021 05:26PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Forfeiture of all rounds by pro allows me to forgo judging of any arguments and to award the non-forfeiting side all points.